Roger John C.

Farias
Practical Court

Judge Alaras

The first court that I attended was a Regional Trial Court, branch 66,
of Makati city. My classmates and I arrived in the Makati city hall at around
9am in the morning. We then asked which floor the courts were located.
After which, we looked for courts which was hearing civil cases in the
morning which we then entered branch 66 because the start of the hearing
was 930am in the morning. We then proceeded to the office of the clerk of
court of branch 66 in order to ask permission if we could attend the hearing
for our practical court subject. They asked for our identification cards so
that they could write down our names. After giving the ids they told us we
could already go inside the court room and so we proceeded in and
listened to the proceedings.
At the beginning of the trial, the clerk asked us, the audience, to
stand up as the judge is entering the courtroom. When the judge has
already ordered us to sit, he asked the clerk to call out the case to be
deliberated for that particular day. After which the lawyers will approach
their tables and introduce themselves and their clients to the judge.
That day, the case that was to be deliberated on was a civil case,
which was a family dispute regarding the distribution of properties between
siblings belonging to their late father. The lawyer, at the beginning of the
hearing, asked the judge if the parties to the case, the siblings, could talk
with each other in order for them to try to settle the case once and for all
because one of their siblings arrived from the United States.
The Judge granted the motion of the lawyer and made a brief
comment regarding the case at hand that the siblings should settle it
because they are siblings and that they should not be in the situation that
they are in. He said that they should settle the case because they are
fighting over the properties of their father and that they should settle it
already.
The judge asked the parties if they wanted to use the facilities of the
court. The lawyer then said that if the parties could talk without the

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

presence of a lawyer so that they could talk among themselves better and
without much hostility. After the comment of the judge, the lawyer asked
the judge of one of the siblings could be cross examined regarding their
corporation.
The judge then called for the witness to approach the witness stand.
Before the witness testified she was made to take an oath in order for her
to testify before the court. The lawyer asked that Jose Antonio luz was the
corporate secretary and assistant corporate secretary and he also asked if
the witness had proof that the position was existing then the witness was
explaining then the counsel for the witness said that the affidavit submitted
by them was the best evidence and the witness already stated that it was
existing. The lawyer asked about the minutes of the annual meetings of
their corporation which was included in their affidavit.
The lawyer also asked about the board of directors of the corporation
and asked if she had proof that their parents provided the funds for the
creation of their corporation which was a yes or no question but the witness
was explaining her answer which the judge admonished the witness
because she was explaining to a yes or no question.
Witness was asked about exhibit 6 which was dated November 2000.
The lawyer asked if the witness had proof if there was a notice that that a
meeting was to be held on the dated stated above, the witness said no.
The lawyer asked if she had proof that the other directors were present in
the meeting, she also said no. The lawyer also asked if she had proof that
the board of directors approved of the funds being given to one of the
directors, the witness said no but she will present it in the next hearing.
The lawyer asked about the income of the other board of directors
and asked if the witness had proof if the income given to the other board of
directors, the witness asked if she could present it in the next hearing. She
was asked about certain properties and the constitution of their corporation
and was shown some papers in order to make her admit some relevant
facts about the present case. After the testimony of the sibling, the court set
another date for the hearing of the case.

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

In another civil case, before placing the witness under oath, the clerk
asked the witness to state for the record the age, address, civil status and
line of work of such witness. After which the lawyer who was cross
examining the witness explained the purpose of why the witness is
testifying which he stated that they want to offer the testimony of the
engineer and to prove certain allegations in their affidavit and identification
of some documents. He then showed a judicial affidavit to the witness and
asked if it was the same affidavit that was given to him, the witness said
yes. The lawyer asked if in the third page if he recognizes the signature
and if it was his signature, the witness said yes.
The lawyer again asked about the judicial affidavit about the
estimation he made in said affidavit and if it was the estimation he made in
which the witness said yes. The lawyer asked if the witness confirm and
affirm that the judicial affidavit was his and he said yes. The lawyer then
asked the court if he could introduce the judicial affidavit as the testimony
of his witness.
This is to show to the court the relevance of the document in the case
and it was for the purpose of marking it for the purpose of introducing it as
evidence for the defense. After which the opposing party moved that he
cross examine the witness and to show the if the witness as an engineer is
relevant to the case being tried in the court. The opposing lawyer asked
about the cost estimate stated in his judicial affidavit and asked if on the
date stated in the affidavit if it was the date that he made the estimation,
the witness said no because he did it three days after the date provided in
the judicial affidavit. The opposing lawyer asked if he was informed of what
the purpose was for the making of the estimation, the witness said that the
nature of their business is that they dont asked the purpose of the projects
given to them unless their client informs them.
The opposing lawyer asked if the witness had idea about the layout of
the plans of the construction of the building or if he knew if the structure
was already constructed or not when he was given the task to make the
estimation for the project and the witness said no. The opposing lawyer

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

then thanked the witness and said that he was excusing the witness from
the stand. The lawyer who offered the testimony of the witness then asked
the court that if he could present three more estimations.
He also said that in order to expedite the proceedings if the opposing
lawyer could state for the record that the other witness that they will present
will be substantially be the same testimony stated by the witness that they
just presented, the opposing lawyer then stated for the record that it will be
substantially the same matters. After the cross the lawyer rested his case
and the judge set another hearing date.
In another civil case, the lawyer of the defense, asked that the judge
if they could present another witness for the next hearing in lieu of his client
due to the fact that his client was suffering from some illness thats why he
could not attend the hearing. After which the lawyer again asked if his client
could be excused next hearing if his illness recurs again because he
cannot again attend the hearing.
Then the judge asked the opposing counsel which he said that it was the
Honorable court that Mr. Manalo to appear and he also said that he needs
an assurance with the counsel that his client to appear in the next hearing.
Then judge ordered the lawyer to tell his client to get complete update on
his medical condition and to ask the doctor if the illness if it is severe,
chronic or not so if is not he should appear next hearing. The judge told the
lawyer that the previous testimony of his client would be stricken out off the
record if he does not appear again in the next hearing. The judge then
granted the hearing to be reset for another date.
After we were done with the civil courts, we looked for criminal courts which
will be hearing cases for the day. We found out that the next hearing for a
criminal case was in the afternoon. We then decided to wait for the next
hearing and to go and have lunch first in order to wait for the hearing of the
criminal case. The court that we decided to go to is Regional Trial Court
branch 135.

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

The second court that we attended was a Regional trial court, branch 135
in Makati city which was a Criminal Court. The first case that was to be
heard that day was a drug case. The court was about to reach a decision
regarding the case. The accused was called in front and the judge decided
in his favor and acquitted him of the charges that has been filed against
him.
The second case that was heard by the court was still a drugs case but
was committed inside the Bureau of jail management and penology. At the
beginning of the case, the prosecutor asked the judge if he could call a
witness to the stand to testify about the events which had transpired during
the arrest of the accused. When the witness has already taken the oath, he
was asked by the prosecutor how they found the drugs in the possession of
the accused.
The arresting officer/witness testified that they were conducting a grey
hound operation that time. The judge then asked what was a grey hound
operation and the witness replied that it was when they were conducting a
surprise inspection at night when the prisoners are already about to go the
sleep or when the prison was already turning the lights off when they have
information that a prisoner was about to commit or is committing a crime or
has committed a crime before. When they entered the jail cell the accused
immediately approached them and asked what it was about.
The prosecutor then asked if it was a normal reaction for a prisoner to
approach them when they entered the jail cell, the witness/officer replied
that it was not normal because the prisoner should be standing always
beside their bunk beds. The witness then said that they search the bunk
bed of the prisoner and found drug paraphernalia which led to the case
filed against the accused. After the testimony of the witness, the judge set
another date for the hearing of the case.
The third court that I attended was a Regional Trial Court, Branch
133, in Makati City. It was the arraignment of the accused where he was
charged for the car napping of motorcycle. The Judge asked the plea of the

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

accused and then the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges filed
against him. Then the judge set the hearing for his case for another date.
The other case that was heard in the court was a robbery case which
was in the pre-trial stage. The lawyers of both the defense and the
prosecution were presenting their pieces of evidence to be marked in order
for them to present it during the trial of the case.
We also observed the proceedings held in the office of the city
prosecutor of Makati City which was the second day that we went to the
city hall at 9am in the morning. We looked for the office of the city
prosecutor first and find out if they were hearing any cases of preliminary
investigations that day which we found that they was one for damages
incurred due to an accident.
At the beginning the prosecutor was explaining to us how the
procedure in her office works. She said that the first step was that she
would look for probable cause in the case and that if she could settle it first
in her office. If not she would elevate the case to her superior which would
be the final say in the matter before it goes to the proper court for hearing
and judgment. After the brief explanation on how the system works in her
office, she then introduced us to the parties as students of san beda
college of law in alabang.
She explained to the parties that were were going to observe the
proceedings that will transpire in their office for the completion of the
requirement of the subject we are taking. After which she then explain to
the parties how the system works. Step by step the prosecutor explain to
them and to us the meaning of the legal terms she was using and what
would happen if a full blown trial would result to. She said that if they will
not settle now, they would incur more expenses due to the trail if they do
not settle their differences.
The taxi driver then said that he should not be the one to pay for the
damages and not the one to be sued that it should be the owner of the taxi
or the operator that should have been sued instead of him. The prosecutor

Roger John C. Farias

Practical Court

Judge Alaras

then explained to him that if they do not settle the case, the charge filed
against him is not only a civil one but also a criminal charge because what
was committed by the taxi driver was reckless imprudence resulting
physical injuries and damage to property. The prosecutor further explained
that the first one to be charged in a criminal case is the accused which is
him and if he cannot pay for the damages, the owner or operator of the taxi
will be subsidiarilly be liable for the damages.
After the brief explanation to the driver, he said that he will try to
settle the damages and submit his reply to the complaint filed by the
complainant in the next hearing of the case. The driver of the motorcycle
then agreed to the next hearing and also presented the medical bills that he
incurred and his foot which was bandaged due to the injuries that he
sustained in the accident. The taxi stated in the proceeding that he shared
money to the motorcycle driver for the payment of the medical bills incurred
by the motorcycle driver.
After the exchanges between the parties, they were asked to submit
their affidavits on what transpired in the accident that they were in. The
prosecutor asked the defendant to submit his own affidavit containing the
events that transpired in the accident between him and the motorcycle
driver. The assistant City prosecutor fixed another date for them to appear
in order to decide whether to submit her report to her boss which would be
the last say whether or not to file the case in court.