Court Observation Report Edited

1|Page

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 11th JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 13 TAGUM CITY People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, - versus -

Criminal Case No. _______________ FOR: Violation of RA 9165

NAME OF DEFENDANT, Defendants. x---------------------x

COURT OBSERVATION REPORT for PRACTICE COURT 1 Regional Trial Courts has exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. RTC Criminal Courts typically try cases of serious crimes like murder and robbery, as opposed to petty crimes, which reduce the burden of court cases. It was Wednesday; I opted to have my observation in the sala of Judge Rowena Adlawan who serves as acting presiding judge of RTC Branch 13. There were policemen and men seated at the bench outside the courtroom. I asked a man standing at the door if I could make a court observation, and he introduced himself to be the sheriff and told me I can freely observed the ongoing hearing but make sure to turn off my cell phone so as not to distract the ongoing proceedings. I entered the room and saw people inside with sullen and stern faces. The atmosphere inside the courtroom setting was engulfed with serious air. The case in progress that time was People vs. Capuno, a drug related case. In the witness stand is a police officer who introduced himself to be Johnny Manatad, he is a Rifle Man Investigator. The state prosecutor was doing his direct examination. The accused was named as Abu Bakr Klaw who was seated in a nearby bench from where I am sitting. It was a case of a buy bust operation. That on or about the 4th day of November 2013 at 6:40 in the evening, nearby police station, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused was endorsed to him. The questions that were asked posed a tainted doubt on the part of the police officer being interrogated at the time. There seems to be discrepancies with the way he answered the questions propounded that irked the ears of the judge. The witness told before the court that he had not been part of the prior planning of the operation. There were just documents that he prepared necessary to carry out the operation. He further

2|Page

added that the reason that he was not included is in order that pertinent and sensitive information will not be divulged for security purposes. The state prosecutor let the witness identified a document which is called as Spot Report purportedly made by him. Accordingly, the word used in the report should have been sold and delivered and not confiscated from the accused under his control and possession. Judge Adlwan gave the witness a chance to rectify the discrepancies as maybe the report he wrote was not the one he intends to mean but when asked the witness to define the meaning of “confiscated”, the meaning he gave is the same with the one reflected on his report and the judge loudly said “It seems from the wording you gave, it is not the accused who is the culprit.” She added, “I believe you are a four year graduate and you are an intelligent man but you have admitted in this court your stupidity. The court cannot give other interpretation except the ones you gave us loud and clear.” The interrogation proceeded with the prosecutor asking him to identify some pictures and name the people in there. The witness then was asked to identify the accused from the audience and was able to point him with certainty.

The cross examination was set to September 3, 2014, same venue and time. The presiding judge ordered for Sub Poena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum on some pertinent material witness for testimony and object evidence to be brought in the court such as the cell phone and the play money. I found the trial proceedings to be quite simple to understand, possibly attributable to the fact that it was a drug related case, and hence issues had to be dealt with in such a fashion so as to sufficiently facilitate the observer’s understanding of them with a court interpreter to make things easy to be understood in lay man’s term. To my mind also, offenders in Philippine jurisdiction seems to be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In conclusion, the Regional Trial Court is evidently not only historically but also a contemporarily important court, which I found to be adequately accessible for members of the general public. The people whom I encountered that worked in the building were approachable and very forthcoming with information. The actual viewing facilities themselves were not particularly comfortable; however, I do not suppose that they are designed for their comfort, but rather for their functionality. I got the feel of how to be a lawyer. It appears to be quite a tough job meant for strong and intelligent beings. Following this initial visit to the Regional Trial Court I would almost certainly feel confident in either returning one day or when visiting other courts to view proceedings.

Prepared by: Jenifer M. Paglinawan