ROWELA L.

DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Name of Court: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 6

Name of Judge: Judge Ester Veloso (Presiding Judge)
Case Observed: For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
Date: December 7, 2016
Parties: Maite Cristina C. Moraza Unchuan vs Jose Gavino E.
Unchuan
Docket Number: CEB-34930
Time Called: 8:30 am
Counsels Representing: Pros. Llena Ipong – Avila / Atty. Vincent Patrick A. Bayhon
(for the Petitioner) / Atty. Filmore C. Gomos (for the
Respondent)
Stage of The Proceedings: PRE- TRIAL (Civil Case)

The pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases. It is a procedural device held prior to the trial
for the court to consider the following purposes: a) The possibility of an amicable settlement
or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution; b)The simplification of issues;
c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; d)The possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; e) The
limitation of the number of witnesses; f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues
to a commissioner; g)The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; h) The
advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and i ) Such other matter as may aid
in the prompt disposition of the action (Sec.2, Rule 18, Rules of Court).

The failure of a judge to conduct a pre-trial conference in a civil case is contrary to

elementary rules of procedure. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes a duty upon the plaintiff
to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. It is elementary and plain that the
holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When
the law o procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to
know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Such
ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to
gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty (National Power Corporation v.
Adiong , 654 SCRA 391).

The notice of pre-trial shall be served on the counsel of the party, if the latter is
represented by counsel. Otherwise, the notice shall be served on the party himself. The
counsel is charged with the duty of notifying his client of the date, time and place of the pre-
trial (Sec. 3, Rule 18, Rules of Court).
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

The failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. This
dismissal shall be with prejudice except when the court orders otherwise. Jurisprudence
affirms that an order of dismissal based on failure to appear at the pre-trial is with prejudice
unless the order itself states otherwise. In fact, the trial court is not required to explicitly
state that the dismissal is with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is to be considered an
adjudication on the merits of the case, where the proper remedy is appeal under Rule 41, no
a petition for certiorari (Chingkoe v. Republic, G.R. No. 183608, July 31,2013). As to failure
of the defendant to appear in the pre-trial shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and for the court to render judgment on the basis of the evidence
presented by the plaintiff (Sec. 5, Rule 18, Rules of Court). The order of the court allowing
the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte does not dispose of the case with finality. The
order is, therefore, merely interlocutory, hence, not appealable.

The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown for such
non-appearance or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to
enter in to any of the following matters: (a) an amicable settlement, (b) alternative modes of
dispute resolution and (c) stipulations or admissions of facts and documents (Sec. 4 Rule 18,
Rules of Court). Although Sec.4 uses the disjunctive “or”, the logical meaning of the rule
dictates that the written authority given to the representative be coupled with an explanation
showing a valid cause for a party’s non-appearance.

The parties shall file with the court their respective pre-trial brief which should be
received at least three (3) before the date of the pre-trial. This pre-trial brief shall be served
on the adverse party in such manner that will ensure his receipt also at least three (3) days
before the date of the pre-trial (Sec. 6, Rule 18, Rules of Court).

Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, July 13,2004, it is vital to have the documents and exhibits
identified and marked during the pre-trial. The current rule establishes the policy that no
evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party’s
evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the
pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown. The parties are bound by the
representations and statements in their respective pre-trial briefs.
The failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at
the pre-trial (Sec. 6, Rule 18, Rules of Court). Hence, if it is the plaintiff who fails to file a pre-
trial brief, such failure shall be cause for dismissal of the action. If it is the defendant who
fails to do so, such failure shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

AS TO COURT OBSERVATION
The case subject for observation is Maria Cristina C. Moraza Unchuan vs Jose Gavino
E. Unchuan which is Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. It is now subject for pre-trial for
purposes of simplifying the issues, necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings,
obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof,
number of witnesses and such other matter as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

AS TO THE PETITIONERS’ COUNSEL

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence
he will adduce and the order of its profference.

In the present case, the two counsels hastily scanned over the pages of their petition
and pre-trial brief for purposes of formulating the stipulations and it is noticeable that upon
presentation of the specific issues that the petitioner’s counsel desires to submit before the
Honorable Court were not prepared beforehand. Some of the stipulations made were not
related to the action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and were incongruent to the prayer
asked in the said petition and pre-trial brief. Property relations of the spouses and the
appreciation of the spouse’s respective capital and paraphernal properties must not be
raised at this time and must be taken care of after the resolution of the present case. Worthy
of note is the utmost duty of every lawyer, whether he is representing the petitioner or the
respondent, to be prepared before coming to court. The counsels should have prepared
earlier by carefully examining the facts and the laws that is relevant to the present case.

The counsels must be mindful that the case is one for declaring the marriage null.
Instead of simplifying the issues for purposes of proving that the marriage is worthy to be
annulled, they relied on other issues which have been previously settled in a pending case
before the same Court particularly the Permanent Protection Order issued pursuant to a
case related to Republic Act 9262 otherwise known as the Violence Against Women and
Children Law. Also, petitioner’s counsels repeatedly mentioned of another case which was
dismissed by the same Court and the Presiding Judge reprimanded them to avoid talking
about the other cases filed before the same Court and other Courts and focus on the issues
concerning the case. Further, the counsels of both parties must divulge any other case or
cases filed by either party against each other to avoid confusion and the status of the cases
filed.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Despite these observations, I commend the young lawyers for observing and
maintaining the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers for they appeared in court
properly attired and punctually appeared at the said hearing. Even though they were
reprimanded by the Judge, they still showed respect to the Court by using temperate
language and abstained from any behavior that might be offensive to the court.
Notwithstanding the absence of their client who is presently in Spain, they maintained their
fidelity to the cause of their client and were mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
them.

AS TO THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the text of decision or authority and a lawyer shall not appear for trial unless
he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case.

As the counsel for the defendant, he should have anticipated the stipulations or
proposals made by the petitioner’s counsel and prepared counter-arguments that would
uphold his client’s cause. The said counsel should have conferred with his client with regard
the facts and circumstances of the case before the scheduled hearing and not asking his
client of the facts referring to the case in open court. It is presumed that when he comes to
court he must have equipped himself on the law and the facts of his case.

As a lawyer, he must be well aware that the principle of in pari delicto cannot be
applied in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage. The act of the respondent’s lawyer in
raising this principle accompanied of the gesture of being over confident that it squarely
applies to the case by reason of the Supreme Court decisions caught the Judge’s attention
and the latter lectured him on the matter and reminded him to be mindful of not misquoting
or misrepresenting a text of a decision or authority. Despite being lectured, the counsel still
managed to refrain from any behavior that might be offensive to the court by acknowledging
his mistake. The counsel should be refreshed that a lawyer shall keep abreast of the legal
developments regarding the law and jurisprudence considering that the practice of law
entails a continuing pursuit of legal improvement.

AS TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the
facts and the applicable law and should be patient, attentive and courteous to lawyers,
especially the inexperienced, to litigants , witnesses, and others appearing before the court.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

As what I have observed, the Judge was learned of the facts and the law applicable to
the case presented before her. It is obvious that she has carefully read the pleadings of the
respective parties’ and has taken note of other actions taken pertaining to the case which
includes the cases pending and the cases dismissed pertaining to the same parties. Also,
she was patient in listening to the stipulations or proposals of the counsels and was properly
dealt with the lawyers of the parties. Despite the noticeable lapses of the counsels, whether
experienced or inexperienced, to adequately prepare for the pre-trial, she maintained her
composure of imparting her knowledge and skills.

Procedure wise, she was aware that it is the judge’s duty to ask questions on issues
raised by the parties, and all questions or comments by counsel or parties must be directed
to the judge to avoid hostilities between the parties. Considering that it is vital to have the
documents and exhibits identified and marked during the pre-trial, the identification and
marking was then made thereafter in the presence of the Clerk of Court. A Pre-trial Order
was then issued upon the termination of the pre-trial setting the matters taken up in the
conference; the action taken thereon; the amendments allowed to the pleadings; and the
agreements or admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters considered.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Name of Court: MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 3

Name of Judge: Judge Yvonne Labaron- Artiaga (Presiding Judge)
Case Observed: For: Less Serious Physical Injuries
Date: December 6, 2016
Parties: People vs. Mhariet Del Rio, et. al. (4 accused)
Complainant: Kaye Ivane Marie Obaob
Docket Number: R-76994
Time Called: 2:00 pm
Counsels Representing: Prosecution: Atty. Joyce P. Adlao (with Authority to
Prosecute) / Defense: Att. Bayani Atup / Atty. Ickey Rod
Agadier / Atty. Santos
Stage of The Proceedings: Continuatin of Re-Direct Examination of Witness for
Prosecution (Criminal Case)

Trial has been defined as the judicial examination and determination of issues
between parties to action, whether they be issues between parties to action, whether they
be issues of law or of fact, before a court that has jurisdiction (Black’s Law Dictionary).

Trial has been the usual and traditional mode of adjudication where both sides of the
case are heard with patience and understanding to keep at a minimum the risk of reaching
an unjust decision. The prosecution is given every opportunity to prove all the elements of
the offense charged to the end that public justice is done. On the other hand, the accused
must not be precluded from making use of every option allowed by law and rules to adduce
evidence in his defense in order to establish his innocence (Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA
322).

The procedure safeguards and protects the fundamental right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. That right is founded on the principle of
justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent, as far as human agencies can,
the conviction of an innocent person. Indeed, the form of a trial is also a matter of public
order and interest; the orderly course of procedure requires that the prosecution shall go
forward and present all of its proof in the first instance (Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322).

After a plea of guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to
prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial
order (Sec. 1, Rule 119, Rules of Court).

If the accused is not brought to trial in accordance within the time limit set by the Rules
of Court, the information may be dismissed upon motion of the accused. The ground for the
dismissal is the denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall however, have the
burden of proving the ground for his motion. On the other hand, the prosecutor shall have
the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish that the delay belongs to the
exclusion of time mentioned in Sec. 3 of Rule 119. Note that in case of dismissal on the ground
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

of denial of the right to speedy trial, the dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double
jeopardy. However, the right to speedy trial, as any other right conferred by the Constitution
or statute, except when otherwise expressly so provided by law, may be waived. It must,
therefore be asserted. The failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall
constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss. (Sec. 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court).

AS TO COURT OBSERVATION
The case subject for observation is People vs. Mhariet Del Rio, et. al. in relation to
Continuation of Re-Direct Examination of Witness for Less Serious Physical Injuries. The
witness who will testify in relation to Continuation of Re-Direct Examination is the private
complainant herself who was sworn under the same oath.

AS TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S COUNSEL

The prosecution’s counsel was cognizant of the Rules on Criminal Procedure of
identifying the accused in open-court by allowing the private complainant to identify and
point the accused in open court. This is an elementary procedure in the prosecution of
criminal cases where the accused must be identified in open court and at the same time
prove the elements of the crime charged against the accused.
The Rules expressly provide that an objection to a question propounded in the course
of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent and presumably having such knowledge, she was able to
quickly raise her objections to the questions asked by the opposing counsel and lay the
ground for her objections. She was acting in accord to the interests of her client by
representing her client with zeal within the bounds of law.

The prosecution’s counsel has a well-modulated voice and was able to convey her
thoughts in open-court as to the re-direct examination questions relating to the incident. It
is clear that she has studied the case of her client and was well prepared as to the facts and
the law applicable to her client’s cause. She has prepared a set of questions written on a
piece of paper making it more easy for her to organize her thoughts and relay her questions
to her client.

After terminating her examination, she then immediately requested that the
Honorable Court issue a subpoena for the next witness who is a practicing physician for
purposes of presenting an expert witness who will testify as to the extent of the injuries
sustained by her client before the Honorable Court. This is a wise move to secure the
presence of her next witness and to speedily dispose the case.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

However, it is a must for lawyers to impress upon his client compliance with the laws
which includes the act of answering questions courteously and not using foul language
especially of the adverse counsel’s questions during cross examination. The lawyer must
inculcate in the mind of her client that she is before a judicial proceeding which must be
accorded due respect.

AS TO THE DEFENSE COUNSEL

The counsel for the defendant was equally prepared for the re-cross examination he
conducted. He was very much particular with the series of events that transpired prior to the
mauling incident especially on how the private complainant defended herself and to question
the identity of the persons present during the said incident.

It is settled that the Rules expressly provide that an objection to a question

propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent and objections must be raised before
the witness answer such question. As counsel who is protecting the interest of his client, he
must be keen to the questions raised by the other party and any objection must be timely
raised otherwise he has waived his right to object.

Also, the Rules provide that the adverse party may re-cross examine the witness on
matters stated in the re-direct examination and also on such matters as may be allowed by
the court in its discretion and the Code of Professional Responsibility also reminds lawyers
not to harass a witness. However, being a lawyer and as a gentleman, he must be mindful
and be modest in asking sensitive questions by imputing that the private complainant is the
concubine of the accused. He must bear in mind that the case at hand is for less serious
physical injuries and not for concubinage and nothing in the re-direct examination contain
any questions pertaining to concubinage.

AS TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE

The Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence, shall endeavor to diligently ascertain the facts and the
applicable law ,and shall maintain order and proper decorum in court. I admire the presiding
judge for starting on time and was systematic in calling the cases whose counsels were
present at that time rather than waiting for those counsels who were late. Being on time and
starting on time is an indication of professional competence for without which, delay may be
caused to the prejudice of the party litigants.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

The Rules provide that the ruling of the court must be given immediately after the
objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as
will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by
the ruling. The Judge was aware of this Rule since she was quick in ruling into the objections
raised by either party without any bias made.

Lastly, the judge was impartial in reprimanding thee witness and the defense lawyer
who both argued before the Honorable Court causing disregard to the proceedings. The
judge reprimanded the private complainant who was testifying to be courteous and to
respect the Honorable Court and at the same time reminding the defense lawyer not to
harass the witness nor needlessly inconvenience her by imputing her as the concubine of
the accused’s husband.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Name of Court: MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 3

Name of Judge: Judge Yvonne Labaron- Artiaga (Presiding Judge)
Case Observed: For: Sum of Money
Date: December 6, 2016
Parties: Cebu CFI Community Cooperative vs. Janita Lacida
Docket Number: R-58306
Time Called: 2:00 pm
Counsels Representing: Atty. Mel Abnir Amadora (for the Plaintiff) / Atty. Joel
Famador (for the Defedant)
Stage of The Proceedings: PRE- TRIAL Conference (Civil Case)

The pre-trial is mandatory in civil cases. It is a procedural device held prior to the trial
for the court to consider the following purposes: a) The possibility of an amicable settlement
or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution; b)The simplification of issues;
c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; d)The possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; e) The
limitation of the number of witnesses; f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues
to a commissioner; g)The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; h) The
advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and i ) Such other matter as may aid
in the prompt disposition of the action (Sec.2, Rule 18, Rules of Court).

The failure of a judge to conduct a pre-trial conference in a civil case is contrary to

elementary rules of procedure. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes a duty upon the plaintiff
to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. It is elementary and plain that the
holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is inexcusable. When
the law o procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to
know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Such
ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to
gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty (National Power Corporation v.
Adiong, 654 SCRA 391).

However, with the advent of the Judicial Dispute Resolution, the judge employs
conciliation, mediation or early neutral evaluation in order to settle a case at the pre-trial
stage. Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) is a voluntary process conducted under the auspices
of the court by referring the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit for the
settlement of their dispute, assisted by a Mediator accredited by the Supreme Court.

The following cases shall be referred to CAM:

ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

a) All civil cases, except those which by law may not be compromised (Article 2035, New
Civil Code);
b) Special proceedings for the settlement of estates;
c) The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
d) The civil aspect of criminal cases where the imposable penalty does not exceed six
years’ imprisonment and the offended party is a private person; and
e) The civil aspect of theft (not qualified theft), estafa (not syndicated or large scale
estafa), and libel.

The purpose is for the court diversion process to achieve a greater impact. This
promotes settlement, even in cases where prior negotiations have failed, by facilitating
discussion between the parties and getting feedback from a judge, allows for solutions that
wouldn’t be available if he matter went to trial, is usually faster, takes less time and is less
expensive than a full-blown trial would be and allows the parties to maintain their privacy
because it is confidential and not held in open court.

AS TO COURT OBSERVATION
The case subject for observation is Cebu CFI Community Cooperative vs. Janita
Lacida in relation to Collection of Sum of Money. The case is set for Pre-Trial Conference in
order to set the issues to be tried in the case.

Cebu CFI Community Cooperative wanted the defendant Janita Lacida to pay in full
the amount of one hundred seventy-five thousand pesos (175,000 php). However, defendant
wanted to pay the plaintiff in installments considering that her means cannot afford to do so.
The defendant came to the Court without any counsel and reasoned out that she cannot
afford to engage the services of a lawyer. This is a tragic situation in our society which has
not kept with the mandate of the Constitution that every person must be accorded with the
right to a speedy and just disposition with the cases that they are confronted to. I am just in
awe why some lawyers charge fees which are exorbitant and not looking into the value of the
profession which not merely for money-making.

I appreciate as to how Judge Artiaga approached the pending action for collection of
sum of money. She was quick in deciding to accord the plaintiff and defendant to settle
matters extra judicially by endorsing them to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for
purposes of coming up with a compromise agreement which will be beneficial to both parties.
I once had an experience of attending into a mediation of parties and I am very impressed
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

that the Supreme Court have spent so much effort in making this innovation work by
providing well-trained mediator/s. With the new innovation of the Court Annexed Mediation
(CAM), it is most likely that matters that can be settled outside the four corners of the Court
room without the need of going through lengthy, exhaustive and expensive trials. Further,
she ordered that in case the parties cannot come up with a compromise agreement, the case
will be set again for Pre-trial and she assured that the Court will accord the defendant with a
lawyer to protect her rights and interests over the case. The Judge even went on to say off
the record that the plaintiff Cebu CFI Community Cooperative give a favorable mode of
payment so that defendant Janita Lacida be able to comply with the

As to the plaintiff’s counsel, I appreciate him for being candid in allowing the new rules
pertaining to the Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) be a mode to come up with an agreement
between his client and the defendant.

With this observation, I realized that Courts are also humane. Indeed, I always
remember what my professor have taught us during our Legal Ethics way back during my
first year in Law School that cases are not only won in courts through favorable decisions
rendered but is well appreciated when it is settled outside the courts where parties are able
to achieve a win-win situation without going through lengthy , exhaustive and expensive
trials.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Name of Court: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 66

Name of Judge: Judge Jacinto G. Fajardo, JR. (Presiding Judge)
Case Observed: For: Violation of RA 9287 (An Act Increasing the
Penalties for Illegal Number Games, Amending Certain
Provisions of P.D. 1602 and for Other Purposes
Date: December 13, 2016
Parties: People of the Philippines vs Edwin Biliwang
Docket Number: TCR – 2016- 695
Time Called: 2:00 pm
Counsels Representing: Atty. _________ for the accused
Stage of The Proceedings: ARRAIGNMENT / PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
(Criminal Case)

Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal proceedings in which the accused are formally
informed of the charges against them. The proper conduct of the arraignment is provided in
Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. A perusal of the provision shows that
arraignment is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process. Particularly, it
implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against them and their right to speedy trial.

The general rule is that the accused should be arraigned within 30 days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of pendency of a
motion to quash or a bill of particulars or other cause justifying suspension of the
arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period. However in the following cases, the
accused should be arranged within a shorter period, as required by law:

1. Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines with no definite
date of return, the accused should be arraigned without delay and his trial
should commence within 3 days from arraignment
2. The trial of cases under the Child Abuse Act requires that the trial should be
commenced within 3 days from arraignment
3. When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and
its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case is raffled within 3 days
from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned
within 10 days from the date of raffle.

AS TO COURT OBSERVATION
The case being observed is People of the Philippines vs Edwin Baliwang. Edwin
Baliwang was accused for illegal gambling pursuant to Republic Act 9287. He was set for
arraignment with the assistance of a pro bono lawyer. Considering that the accused was
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

unschooled, the Court read the Information in open court through the court interpreter in
vernacular (“Cebuano dialect”). With the state’s consent, the accused freely pleaded guilty
to a lesser offense for violation of Section 3(a) of Republic 9287.

However, the pro bono counsel of the accused, pleaded that his client be given
consideration considering that he was already preventively detained for almost five months
since July 27, 2016. He further stated that he was handling the case pro bono and in the
interest of justice, he was asking the Court in the spirit of Christmas to give his client a
chance to start anew outside prison. Judge Fajardo responded that the Court cannot allow
to set the accused freely without learning any lesson and be penalized for his wrongful act.
The Judge further stated that he was given enough leeway since the state already gave its
consent of allowing him to plead to a lesser offense and that the accused must be penalized
with imprisonment for at least six months including the period of his preventive detention and
be fined worth ten thousand pesos (10,000 php). Quick enough, the counsel then pleaded
that his client was already in jail for almost five months and has no source of income to pay
the fine imposed. The Judge said that if the accused will be set free without imposing any
penalty the latter may continue with his gambling activities and the State will have no hold
against the accused. After a few more convincing words coming from the counsel, the Judge
made a decision that the accused must serve the agreed 6 months detention and be set free
after January 27, 2017 without need of paying the fine.

Procedure wise, arraignment of the accused by reading the Information clearly and
under a language or dialect known to the accused makes the accuse more knowledgeable
of the facts that constitute the offense and the law/s that he must have violated. Having been
read in the language known to him, he has voluntarily entered his plea without any claim for
force, intimidation, threat stealth and strategy. Also, the disposition of the case by drafting
the decision promptly with the consent of the State was made to comply with the Supreme
Court’s mandate.

I admire the Judge for being impartial and still with his decisions. These offenses are
easily forgiven because we are more inclined to punish criminals who has committed heinous
crimes. But, carefully examining the accused’s demeanor who has showed no signs of
remorse must be sanctioned within the bounds of the law. Sometimes, crimes not classified
as heinous must also be guarded by the State through our Courts. The Judge went on to say
that some criminals often start through committing simple infractions which can be tolerated
but the more we tolerate these kinds of people the graver the offenses that they commit in
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

the future. Decisions rendered by the Judge must not only be impartial and reasonable but
must also be logical based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

As to the counsel who rendered pro bono services to the accused, his efforts are well-
appreciated. But sometimes, the rule of law must prevail and not used to show compassion
to these hardened gamblers otherwise the latter will not change for the better. When
services are rendered by lawyers, they must not hastily dispose of a case for reasons of
having been engaged without any compensation. It must be well engraved in a lawyer’s mind
and temperament that lawyering is for public service and obtaining profits thereby are
merely incidental.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Name of Court: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 66

Name of Judge: Judge Jacinto G. Fajardo, JR. (Presiding Judge)
Case Observed: For: In the Matter of Adoption of Minor Santa Therese
Windhof with Application for Change of her Name To be
Known as Santa Therese Windhof Cabrido
Date: December 13, 2016
Parties: Spouses Christian and Odessa Sabrina Cabrido
Docket Number: TCS – 2015- 01
Time Called: 2:00 pm
Counsels Representing: Atty. Emily Joy A. Larino (for the State ) and Atty. Jarred
Cablite for the Petitioner
Stage of The Proceedings: Petitioner’s 4th Witness (Child)

It has been the policy of the Court to adhere to the liberal concept, as stated
in Malkinson v. Agrava, that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interest
and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration and are designed to provide
homes, parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give
them the protection of society and family in the person of the adopter as well as to allow
childless couples or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a
child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental
instincts. Every reasonable intendment should thus be sustained to promote and fulfill these
noble and compassionate objectives of the law.

However, in Cang v. Court of Appeals, the Court also ruled that the liberality with
which this Court treats matters leading to adoption insofar as it carries out the beneficent
purposes of the law to ensure the rights and privileges of the adopted child arising therefrom,
ever mindful that the paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the
adopted child, should be understood in its proper context and perspective. The Courts
position should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted as to extend to inferences beyond the
contemplation of law and jurisprudence.

AS TO COURT OBSERVATION

The case is one for the adoption of an eight (8) year old minor who is to testify before
the Court with regard the pending petition for adoption. The counsel for the petitioner asked
in open court that the child be allowed to testify in the Judge’s chamber so as to let the child
feel comfortable in testifying. This was then immediately allowed by the Court in order to
comply with the Rules on the Examination of a Child Witness. Allowing this kind of
examination allows us to protect the child’ s privacy and protect her from any traumatic
experience. The Supreme Court in issuing the said Rules might as well have recognized that
witnesses of age who testify before an open Court find this uneasy and uncomfortable.
Hence, with more reason for a child with tender age to feel the same way and at most cause
traumatic experience and may affect her development.
ROWELA L. DESCALLAR LLB-4 (Legal Counselling Saturdays at 4 pm - 6 pm)

Previously, I have observed this very same case wherein the prospective adopter, Mr.
Christian Cabrido testified before the Court as regards his willingness to adopt the minor
Santa Therese Windhof. The Court was not only seeking to ascertain the willingness but also
the capacity of Mr. Christian Cabrido and his wife Odessa Sabrina Cabrido to adopt the child.
Atty. Jarred Cablite presented several documents such as psychological report, financial
statements particularly the bank accounts of the spouses, child study report, home study
report and some of the documentations made by the Social worker as regards the result of
the Trial Custody. Petitioner’s counsel ascertained the financial capacity of Mr. Cabrido and
the latter revealed that he owns a tattoo shop and is a tattoo artist who earns one hundred
fifty to two hundred thousand pesos per month. To convince the Court, his bank accounts
were presented together with the registration of the tattoo shop that Mr. Cabrido owns.

Upon cross examination, the State through the Public Prosecutor also questioned the
capacity of the prospective parent where the former asked as to whether he earns one
hundred fifty to two hundred thousand pesos per month consistently as a tattoo artist. Mr.
Cabrido responded that he is already in to the business for several years and has been known
in this industry for quite some time. The Judge then asked whether he operates his business
solely or with the help of some partners and it was answered by Mr. Cabrido that it as co-
owned by him and his wife. Judges in adoption cases must not merely act like referees but
must intervene in order to satisfy the State in upholding the best interests of the child.

Indeed, scrutinizing the adopter’s financial capacity is pursuant to the doctrine in

Landingin vs Republic that since the primary consideration in adoption is the best interest of
the child, it follows that the financial capacity of prospective parents should also be carefully
evaluated and considered.

In fine, adoption which has been viewed undesirably in our society must be changed.
We must always bear in mind that adoption holds the interest and welfare of the child to be
of paramount consideration and are designed to provide homes, parental care and education
for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and
family in the person of the adopter as well as to allow childless couples or persons to
experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted
for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts.