UNIVERSITY

OF SAN CARLOS
SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE







PRACTICE COURT II

COURT OBSERVATION REFLECTION












MA. INA G. ROA
JD ILP- 4







MAY 2019





Cases observed:

1. R-CEB-17-06456-CR
People of the Philippines v Eva Arnie Ledesma Cajes
For: Violation of Section 11 Article II or RA 9165
RTC Branch 7

2. M-CEB-17-03701-CR
People of the Philippines v Edward Famador Gerona
For: Physical Injuries/Less Serious
MTC Branch 3


It was on May 6, 2019 when my classmates and I visited Qimonda to
observe two criminal proceedings, one in the RTC and the other in the MTC.
The first court we visited was RTC Branch 7. A police officer was called to
the witness stand for cross-examination. As observed, the counsel cross-
examining the witness was trying to establish a breach in the chain of
custody in the handling of drugs. The police officer witness was asked to
relay the occurrence that lead to the arrest. He said that it was an in
flagrante delicto arrest as they were roving around the area. What was
highlighted was the fact that none of the required witnesses were present
for the inventory and marking of the seized drugs. At first the police officer
explained that the marking and inventory were done at the police precinct.
However, as the counsel further perused the incident, the making and
inventory happened at the scene of the crime and the required witnesses
arrived at the police precinct a few hours after to sign the documents. The
police officer tried to justify the situation that they were having a hard time
in contacting elected officials that they had to resort to the official of the
next adjacent barangay. That may have been the reason also why it took
awhile before the documents were signed.

Although there was a glitch in the chain of custody of the seized items, this
does not immediately render the seizure and custody over the items void
and invalid provided that it was satisfactorily proved that there was
justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were properly maintained. In relation to the trial
observed, I just could not tell how lenient or how rigid the allowance for
the non-compliance is. However, if I compare it to the cases I read in
relation to this, I guess it is safe to say, judging from the police officer’s
statement alone, that the prosecution was neither able to give a justifiable
reason for their non-compliance nor maintain the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.

In the MTC, two doctors were called to the witness stand and were
qualified as expert witnesses. In school we learned that a medical
certificate could be admitted by court even if the physician who prepared
and issued it is not presented as entries in official records, an exception to
the hearsay rule. This was the scenario during the testimony of the first
expert witness. Although it was not really a big issue in the course of the
examination, this was just the first thing that came to my mind. And it
made me a little bit excited because I was somehow able to apply what I
learned in school. The doctors explained thoroughly the injuries of the
victim. And from their testimony, like the number of days the victim spent
in the hospital, the number of days the wounds and the concussions
needed to heal, my classmates and I were in agreement as to why sued for
less serious physical injuries.

The MTC was another experience. I now appreciate the need for expert
witnesses especially in the understanding the effect of a crime to the
human body. Although the medical terms were not that foreign to me
because of my undergraduate course, to those in the legal profession who
never had an ounce of medical background, merely reading the terms
would be difficult.

From the experience, I really appreciated all the cases we read and all the
exercises we did for the past four years in law school. The court observation
exercise gave life to all those cases. It was fun to put all the theoretical
concepts we learned into actual application.

In both courts, there were some lawyers that I really admired and some
lawyers who have areas to improve on. I realized that the learning does not
stop from knowing all the law. It is also best to improve one’s
communication skills and develop techniques in litigation. I find it a bit
embarrassing when people comment on how lawyers deliver their
questions or on just how the lawyers are presenting themselves. I know
that lawyers spend so many hours preparing for their cases that sometimes
they forget to prepare their delivery. Someday, when it will be my turn to
present my client and witnesses for trial, I hope to give a good impression
of the legal profession and find balance in not just learning the case and the
laws applicable, but also in practicing my delivery and presentation.

As we are about to venture to another chapter of our student lives, I know
that this will be an experience that we will carry through and through. If we
were just given the luxury of time, I think more hours spent the in court will
really do students well. Not just to prepare us for the practice, but for
better appreciation of what is being taught to us in school.