A Reaction Paper on RTC Court Observation

By Kristian Weller P. Licup

Last February 27, students of Saint Mary’s College, such as I, was given the
task and privilege to be present and observe in the normal conduct of court
proceedings in the Regional Trial Court branch 3 Nabunturan, Davao de Oro. The
Presiding Judge was none other than our own professor for that subject, RTC
Judge Cresenciana Cruz.

The endeavor started with us being ushered to the designated seats reserve
for us to be able to observe but not disturb the proceedings at the same time. As we
enter we can already observe that majority of the litigating counsels are early and
present, including the lady prosecutor and the lawyer from the Public Attorney’s
Office. Both of them, along with other counsels for the defendants were there fully
dressed in proper attire prescribed to be worn by litigators in the conduct of court
litigation. Along with proper attire, you can already see the aura of knowledge
oozing from them and the majority of them are so prepared that all you can see of
them in waiting for the opening of the court for the day was pleasant greetings to
each other or the blank stares of zen, as if they are in trans and ready for the task at
hand.

From afar we observed the Presiding Judge taking a peek from the door of
her office sneaking a glance of her sala, assumingly to check if her observing
students are present and is seated accordingly. Seemingly satisfied with our
attendance, she went back inside, presumably to have her last minute preparation
for the day’s schedule.
 Not long after, the court officers entered and initiated the normal rituals
which signals the start of today’s court schedule. Subsequently, Judge Cruz entered
as her name is announced and, as proper procedure, we all rouse up and went back
to seat as the Judge took hers too.

After all the formalities are done, the first case is called. It was a litigation
represented by the prosecutor and a private lawyer. Both members of the bar were
emitting a bright glow of preparedness and conducted themselves worthy of praise.
The first case hearing was short as it was just an offer of settlement and followed
by stipulations towards it then such was submitted to the judge for approval.

While the first case was being heard, it was then that I realized that detainees
were already there for their day in court. I was too immersed with the lawyers that
I did not notice the court was full, of complainants, some family members of both
side to show support, and the detainees with their officer escorts. It was such a
sight and it was then that I realized that the day was scheduled for criminal cases.

After the first case was settled with, subsequent cases were heard as
scheduled. Majority of the cases heard that day were defended by the public
prosecutor, and most are of settlements and compromises. It was there that I have
seen that our justice system is really not just a court of law, but also of equity. It
was through these settlements and compromises that I experienced that even in
court there is always room for forgiveness and reparation absent imprisonment.

But not all cases were of reconciliation. One notable case scheduled for the
day is a drug case where the defendant counsel was a private lawyer. He cross-
examined the witness who happens to be one of the arresting officers of such case.
He questioned the witness on the truthfulness and virility of all the testimonies in
his affidavit. He basically caught the witness off guard when the witness answered
in the affirmative, hereby stating that all the testimonies written in numerous
affidavits are all true. Then he pointed out one lone provision from one of many
affidavits presented. Such provision proved contrary to the statement of the said
witness in his direct examination. When confronted, the witness averred that his
oral statement is the truth of the matter and that he wishes to change the one
written to the one orally given. This proved detrimental to the cause of the
complainant, as a case of perjury was brought up and pointed out against the
witness for having false statement in his sworn affidavit. The prosecutor tried to
conduct a re-direct and clarified the ambiguity of the conflicting statements. I do
not know how this will be appreciated by the judge but in my opinion it shows
flaw in the process of the arrest and maybe be one which infringes the
constitutionally protected rights of the accused. That case ended for today’s
schedule and was rescheduled for a later date.

The witness at that drug case manifested distress as he was informed that
perjury cases were brought against him. Nonetheless, as that case was concluded
for today’s schedule, the officer and the defendant counsel exchanged pleasant
greetings as both know that they were just doing their jobs and that there was no
harm intended. Such is a beautiful sight, where justice is being litigated with valor
and personal relationships were set aside for the furtherance of the judicial process.

Subsequent cases were then called, mostly settled, some rescheduled, and all
in all was regular. This is until another interesting case was called. It was a rape
case where the complainant, represented by her mother as she was a minor, was
allegedly raped by her uncle-in-law or the estranged husband of her mother’s
sister. The defendant offered a plea bargain along with settlement but the
complainant was hesitant. The judge and prosecutor pointed out that if they
accepted the deal, the defendant will be imprisoned for a lesser period, pay
settlement money, and will have a conviction on his record. But despite such, the
complainant did not accept then and there the deal and opted to pursue the case for
higher prison time with damages. This cases ended to be scheduled for next
hearing on a later date, giving time for the complainant to decide with finality if
she will settle or pursue the case for trial.

Some more cases were called after that and as the schedule is about to be
finished, another interesting case was called. It was another rape case where the
complainant alleges that when she was still a minor not so long ago, she was
allegedly raped by her uncle. She was firm in her no settlement stand and the case
was scheduled for trial on a later date.

The court schedule culminated with words from the presiding judge
clarifying future schedules, stating some remarks and reminders, and addressing
us, her students, that we have fulfilled our obligation to observe and that we are
free to go.

We, students, ended up having lunch afterwards, as the court ended a little
over lunch time. While having the meal, we discussed about the intricacies, the
legalities, and over all feeling of the endeavor. We shared some realizations,
observations, and opinions.

In conclusion, I have come to some realizations after this court observation.

Another is that, as litigants, it is not a cliché that it pays to be prepared.

And thus, I leave with these realizations from the court observation that we
were happily obligated.