COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO.

04

COURT: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) BRANCH 6-LEGAZPI CITY

JUDGE: HON. ELMER M. LANUZO
DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2024, 8:30 AM
LIST OF CASES ATTENDED:
1. PEOPLE v. CHARLO NACION y PEÑAFLOR alias “CARLOS/CALOY”;
Continuation of Presentation of Evidence for the Prosecution; For Violation
of Sec. 3(c) of RA 9287
2. PEOPLE v. BERNIL BARCELON y DEL MUNDO a.k.a. “BULILIT”; Arraignment
and Promulgation of Judgment; For Violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA
9165
3. PEOPLE v. GERALD ESQUILLO y CANTAL a.k.a. “GERALD”; Arraignment, Pre-
Trial Conference and Marking of Documentary/Object Evidence (With
Omnibus Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement
& Waiver of the Benefits of Probation Law; With Comment to the Motion); For
Violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165
4. PEOPLE v. MELODY QUIDES y PALIZA a.k.a. “BABY” and JAY QUIDES
MARQUEZ; Promulgation of Judgment; For Simple Robbery
5. IN RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCE AND DECLARATION
OF CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE,
REBECCA ESPINAS OCTAVO, Petitioner, versus OFFICE OF THE CIVIL
REGISTRAR GENERAL and THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF GUINOBATAN,
ALBAY, Respondents

In Re: Rebecca Espinas Octavo

It was a rainy Tuesday to begin with. Typhoon Kristine was expected to bring heavy
rains and strong winds to the Bicol Region. This notwithstanding, court operations remained
as usual. Ten minutes before 8:30 in the morning, I approached the staff of RTC-Branch 6
and inquired whether the hearing for the day would push through. He told me to wait for
any announcement, as there was reportedly a work suspension that will be implemented.
Together with other individuals who had business with the court, I waited patiently outside
Hon. Elmer M. Lanuzo’s sala for any announcement. After a few minutes had passed, we
were allowed to enter the courtroom. Atty. Ian Ll. Macasinag was already inside, chatting
with some court personnel.
Some thirty minutes had already passed by, but there is still no news whether the
hearing would push through as scheduled. At this point, the other branches had already
suspended their operations. Then, at around 9:30 a.m., presiding judge Hon. Elmer M.
Lanuzo arrived. The fifth case was called first, as the rest of the scheduled cases were to be
reset at a later date. Due to the typhoon, the criminal cases were rescheduled, except for
the petition for recognition of foreign divorce due to its special nature.

The fifth case, as mentioned, was an initial hearing on a special proceeding for
judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry under Article 26
of the Family Code filed by Petitioner Rebecca Espinas Octavo, and assisted by counsel Atty.
Ian Ll. Macasinag. At this juncture, I am reminded of our class discussion in Persons and
Family Relations Law when Judge Norly P. Reyes emphasized that a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce alone will not capacitate the petitioner to remarry. This must

1
be accompanied by a relief seeking the court to allow the petitioner to remarry under Article
26 of the Family Code.

Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Shella L. Abellano from the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor (OPP) of Albay represented the Government, in lieu of ACP Jela Myka L. Bercasio
who was indisposed. The court asked ACP Abellano whether there was already a
deputization by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the province, to which the latter
confirmed. One of the mandates of the OSG is to appear for and represent government
agencies in their official capacity who are impleaded as parties in special proceedings.

Private counsel Atty. Macasinag then requested the court to announce the petition.
Court Interpreter III Mr. Chardel Gian L. Origines made the announcement in open court and
there was no opposition. Atty. Macasinag moved that the markng for jurisdictional
requirement be reset on a later date due to the absence of the regular prosecutor of this
case. The court replied that the private counsel should not fault the absence of the “regular
prosecutor”, but he should have reasoned out that there is already a suspension of work due
to Typhoon Kristine.

Atty. Macasinag then manifested that there is already a publication of the notice of
initial hearing, to which ACP Abellano concurred. The court then issued an order resetting
the marking of jurisdictional requirement to November 19, 2024 as prayed for by counsel for
the petitioner. The rest of the cases for the day were reset, as prayed for by ACP Bercasio,
who was indisposed as she had to attend to a seminar.

2
 COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO. 05

COURT: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) BRANCH 9-LEGAZPI CITY

JUDGE: HON. JOSE C. EVAN
DATE: November 7, 2024, 8:30 AM
LIST OF CASES ATTENDED:
1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MMM; Promulgation of Judgment; For
Qualified Statutory Rape
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AAA; Promulgation of Judgment; For Acts of
Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EEE; Continuation of Presentation of Evidence
for the Prosecution; For Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 in relation to
RA 7610 as amended by RA 11648
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EEE; Continuation of Presentation of Evidence
for the Prosecution; For Violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610;
5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EEE; Continuation of Presentation of Evidence
for the Prosecution; For Maltreatment

The hearing commenced at past 9 o’clock in the morning. Presiding Judge Hon. Jose
C. Evan instructed Court Interpreter II Ms. Xy-za L. Bitancur to call the third case on the roll -
People v. EEE set for the continuation of presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

People v. EEE (for Acts of Lasciviousness)

The prosecution presented Dr. Lian Mariz P. Reblora of the Bicol Regional Hospital
and Medical Center (BRHMC) as expert witness. Associate City Prosecutor (ACP) Jela Myka L.
Bercasio formally offered the oral testimony of Dr. Reblora, the purpose of which, among
others, is to clarify some details in the findings of the medico-legal report. To expedite the
process of qualifying the witness, ACP Bercasio proposed to the defense that the witness’
expertise be admitted. Atty. Zierra Mae C. Bea from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)
interposed no objection and admitted that the said witness is an expert witness.

Under the Rules on Evidence, generally, an expert witness must be qualified as such;
otherwise their testimony will not be admissible in court. However, one of the recognized
exceptions is when the adverse counsel stipulates on the expert’s qualification. In such a
case, the requirement of qualifying the expert witness can be dispensed with, which is what
happened in the abovementioned case.

As this was my first time observing this case, I was not privy to the details of the
report, such as who was examined and for what purpose. However, as I soon discovered,
this case is related to People v. EEE for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. EEE is the same
accused in the latter case and the private complainants in these two cases were minor-
cousins.

Based from the testimony of Dr. Reblora and the questions elucidated both by ACP
Bercasio and the court, it could be inferred that the accused is charged with lascivious
conduct of a minor under the age of 12. Section 5(b) of RA 7610 provides that when the
victim is below the age of 12, the accused should be prosecuted in relation to Article 336 of

3
the Revised Penal Code. It is alleged that EEE licked the vagina or the reproductive organ of
the minor victim.

It appears that in the medical examination conducted by Dr. Rebora, (based on

inferrence as I did not get hold of the report) that the victim did not suffer any laceration or
redness around the orifice of her reproductive organ. This is why Dr. Rebora, when asked,
testified that the use of the tongue does not usually cause laceration to the vagina. PAO
lawyer Atty. Bea queried whether the licking of the vagina causes any redness, to which Dr.
Rebora replied that it does not usually produce any redness. The court sought for
clarification whether the reason why this is so, is because the tongue is a soft muscle and is
usually lubricated. This was confirmed by the expert witness.

People v. MMM (for Qualified Statutory Rape)

This case was for qualified statutory rape. When the court instructed that the
judgment be promulgated, the court interpreter called the accused forward and informed
him that he will be read the promulgation of the court’s judgment. It was done in Bikol, a
language known to and understood by the accused.

For the qualified rape of a minor, MMM was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua or imprisonment of 20 to 40 years. He was also ordered
to pay Php 100,000.00 as civil, moral, and exemplary damages with an interest of 6 percent
per annum from finality of judgment until the monetary award is fully paid.

After having read the judgment, the interpreter asked for the accused and his
counsel to sign on the copy of the judgment. I caught myself getting emotional as the court
interpreter was reading the judgment to the accused. Maybe I was emotional for the
accused - questioning him in my mind as to why and how he did such an unspeakable crime
to a minor who happens to be his own relative; or moreso it was for the victim - the
realization that after submitting herself to public scrutiny of reliving her trauma (as if the
traumatic incident was not enough), finally she has gained justice and vengeance. Of course,
it is not final as long as the accused has the opportunity to appeal his conviction.

Upon researching the nature of this offense, I stumbled upon an article from the
Daily Tribune. On March 25, 2024, the Supreme Court uploaded on its website the case of
People v. ABC260708, promulgated on January 23, 2024. Interestingly, the Court held that
the proper designation of the crime of ABC260708 is not "qualified statutory rape", but
rather, qualified rape of a minor. This is when any of the special qualifying aggravating
circumstances are present (i.e., twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the age
of the victim being below seven years old, or the accused's knowledge of the mental
disability of the victim at the time of the commission of rape). According to the High Court,
the term "qualified statutory rape" is not consistent with the basic precepts of criminal law
in defining and treating the nature of crimes. This explains why the caption of the case
remained to be “qualified statutory rape”, but the judgment was modified to “qualified rape
of a minor” to conform with the latest jurisprudence.

People v. AAA (for Acts of Lasciviousness)

The third calendared case for the day was for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA
7610, as amended by RA 11648 for joint promulgation of judgment. In this case, the accused
had already interposed a plea of guilt. As a result, this Honorable Court found him guilty of

4
two counts of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced the accused to imprisonment of six
months of arresto mayor to four years and two months for each count. This sentence is to
be served successively and not simultaneously. The court also ordered the accused to pay
Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity. For lack of interest, the third case joined with the
aforementioned two cases is hereby ordered dismissed. Additionally, the accused waived
the offer of probation.

People v. EEE (for Maltreatment)

When this case was called, ACP Bercasio moved that it be called for the second time
because the witness has not yet arrived. With that, the court ordered a recess of fifteen
minutes.

When the hearing resumed, ACP Bercasio manifested that their scheduled witness
to be presented - Brgy. Chairman Niño Albert C. Berjuega of Brgy. 61-Maslog, Legazpi City,
was presently indisposed. With this, she prayed that today’s setting be reset to December 5,
2024 and that the court issue a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum to Hon.
Berjuega. Atty. Bea concurred, but with the condition that today’s trial date is deemed
forfeited as to the prosecution.

People v. EEE (For Violation of Sec. 5[b] of RA 7610)

The last case to be heard for this morning’s session was for violation of Section 5(b)
of RA 7610. Previously, the prosecution had already presented the testimony of the victim’s
mother. Today’s hearing was a continuation of the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution, where the minor private complainant is set to testify.

Due to the confidential nature of this case, court interpreter Ms. Bitancur intimated
to Hon. Evan that a law student (I) was present and observing the proceedings. With this,
the court sought the permission of the prosecution counsel whether to allow me to sit and
observe. ACP Bercasio looked at me for a second, and gave her permission, stating that at
any rate, I am bound by the confidentiality rule under Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court on
the Limited Practice Rule.

With this, I am at no liberty to discuss what I have observed during the direct and
cross examination of the minor complainant. However, I can share the general process of
how a child witness is presented based on what I have seen. First, the prosecution qualified
the witness as a child witness by eliciting questions regarding the latter’s birth certificate. In
doing so, the prosecution is establishing the age of the victim - that she, indeed is a minor.
Then, the witness was asked with regards to her understanding of what is right versus
wrong. This shows the level of discernment of the witness, and their ability to understand
that whatever they say will have consequences in the future. Thereafter, the witness
testified.

In the middle of the direct testimony, the defense raised an objection as to the
manner of questioning by the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the judicial
affidavit executed by the child witness. The lawyer for the accused argued that the witness
should testify on matters based on her personal knowledge of what happened. The court
told the defense that she will have the time to scrutizine the testimony of the witness during
the cross examination. Furthermore, the court reminded the lawyer that they are dealing
with a minor witness. On this score, I am reminded of the discussion in the ruling penned by

5
Justice Lopez in People v. ABC260708. The Court held that the fact that the victim was
uncertain as to the actual date the crimes were committed does not detract from her
credibility. What is decisive is that the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven.
Therefore, it is not necessary to allege the date in the information with ultimate precision.
Besides, a victim of tender age is not expected to recall the exact date and time when her
traumatic experience took place. (as cited in People v. ZZZ[232329], G.R. No. 232329, April
28, 2021 [Per J. Hernando, Third Division]; and People v. Nuyok, 759 Phil. 437, 448 (2015)
[Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

After the cross examination, ACP Bercasio moved that the re-direct examination be
concluded at another date, considering the fact that the minor witness has testified for more
than an hour. With this, the court issued an order resetting the re-direct and re-cross
examination of the witness on November 20, 2024. The social worker is also directed to
counsel the witness to reduce the possibility of trauma.

6
 COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO. 06

COURT: MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)-BRANCH 1

JUDGE: HON. RUBEN F. MISSION V
DATE: November 12, 2024 (8:30 AM)
LIST OF CASES ATTENDED:
1. MERCEDES IMPERIAL DIAZ V. ALL OTHERS; For Recovery of Possession;
Continuation of Presentation of Evidence for the Defendant
2. For Unlawful Detainer

Diaz v. All Others (For Recovery of Possession)

I, together with my classmates, Austin Matthew A. Olila, Viktoria Mae R. Tumblod,

and Ma. Nicole R. Villa, waited outside the premises of Branch 2 of MTCC-Legazpi City on the
morning of Noveber 12, 2024. We were expecting that we will only be sitting at Branch 2,
where Hon. Mission V was the acting presiding judge. We soon learned that the Hon.
Mission V was already presiding over the morning session in Branch 1 and that the cases for
Branch 2 will also be heard later. Thereafter, we were attended to by one court staff from
Branch 2 who asked for our names since he will be asking for permission from Hon. Mission
V to observe the proceedings in Branch 1. Fortunately, we were granted permission to enter
while the court is in session.

When we entered the sala of Hon. Mission V, the witness for this case was already
being cross-examined by the private counsel of the plaintiff. Based on the testimony of one
of the co-defendants, the Caritas family allowed him to stay in the premises of the subject
property. He assumed that it was the Caritas family who owned the property. However, he
later on intimated that there was no categorical approval from the said family. When asked,
the defendant stated that he had no idea that the subject property was in fact owned by the
plaintiff, Mercedes Imperial Diaz. He was then asked regarding the sum of Php 5,000.00
which he received. The plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Rodito K. Nasayao, Jr. asked the defendant
whether or not the latter knew the purpose of the said consideration, to which the
defendant replied in the negative. Atty. Nasayao Jr. pointed out that it is highly irregular for
someone not to ask the reason why a sum of money is being given to him. When questioned
regarding his purported signature on a Pagpapaubaya ng Karapatan, the defendant assailed
the validity of the same. According to him, the alleged signature on the said document could
not be his, since he was already “pasmado” and had a hard time signing. Moreover, the
reason why he never signed in the compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the co-
defendants was that he wanted to confer first with his co-defendants before making a
decision. Then, Atty. Nasayao Jr. asked the defendant whether he was amenable to a
settlement of 23 square meters of the property. The defendant replied that he will have to
confer first with his lawyer and his fellow defendants in the case.

After the cross-examination of the witness for the defense, PAO lawyer Atty. Kristine
M. Bernarte moved for continuance for the next witness of the defendants, Brgy. Chairman
Ricardo A. Arienda of Brgy. 49-Bigaa, Legazpi City. She also requested that the court issue a
subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum for a certain Efren Savilla for the next hearing
on November 26, 2024.

Unlawful Detainer

7
 Atty. Elmo R. Inzon, counsel for the plaintiffs, raised a manifestation. He pointed out
that there was no return of service, no-out-of court settlement, and that the absence of the
defendants in today’s setting shows their insincerity in resolving this case amicably.
Therefore, he is constrained to submit the case for resolution.

Atty. Inzon would then narrate the antecedent facts as pre-cursor to the present
hearing. In March 2024, there were offers to make a proposal to settle the case
extrajudicially. In August 2024, the defendant Neptuna, promised to pay Php 50,000.00
representing rental arrears. However, the defendant failed to advance any payment.
Neptuna then made the same promise in October 2024, when the scheduled hearing was
cancelled due to the onslaught of Typhoon Kristine. Additionally, Atty. Inzon claimed that
there were discrepancies with the defendant’s computation of her obligations.

Atty. Bernarte opposed this manifestation and stated that the defendant was
allowed to pay on an installment basis based on the decision of the court and as reflected on
the Sheriff’s report. Additionally, the counsel for the defendant argued that Neptuna had
already paid an amount equivalent to 55 percent of her obligation. This, according to her,
shows the defendant’s genuineness in complying with her obligation.
Atty. Inzon also pointed out that the defendant and/or her descendants erected two
more buildings within the subject property and that the same should be subject of the writ
of execution of demolition. Atty. Bernarte objected, and asked the plaintiff to file a new case
for ejectment since these said buildings are not covered by the present case. The counsel for
the plaintiff opposed this idea and contends that to do so would sanction the alleged
circumvention done by the defendant. To this, Atty. Bernarte replied that making the two
new buildings answerable for the execution would only be possible if the buildings were
erected without concurrence of the plaintiff. However, as alleged by the defendant, the
plaintiffs approved the construction of the said buildings. Ultimately, Atty. Inzon prayed that
the defendant be ordered to remove the improvements (two new buildings) erected on the
subject property and be deemed covered in what has been stated in the writ. The court took
notice of the oral arguments of both parties and the said motion is deemed submitted for
decision.

8
 COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO. 07

COURT: MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)-BRANCH 2

JUDGE: HON. RUBEN F. MISSION V
DATE: November 12, 2024 (10:00 AM)
LIST OF CASES ATTENDED:
1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHN BUTAC y AGUILAR; For Arraignment
and Pre-Trial Conference; For Estafa
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAY ADOLFO y BARRAMEDA; For Pre-Trial
Conference; For Alarms & Scandals and Direct Assault
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANA MARIE BABACYAO DACUTAN; For Pre-
Trial Conference; For Maltreatment
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. KENNETH PARRAN & JAY-JAY MILLAZA
ASAGRA; For Pre-Trial Conference; For Theft
5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESSIE HIERRO y BOSTILLO; For Pre-Trial
Conference; For Theft
6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REY BAET MALAGA y ABORDO; For Pre-Trial
Conference; For Theft
7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTIAN ENGUERRA BORAGAY; For Initial
Presentation of Prosecution’s Evidence; For Discharge of Firearms
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTIAN MAGTANGOB a.k.a. “CHUKKY”;
For Initial Presentation of Prosecution’s Evidence; For Less Serious Physical
Injuries
9. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES v. MARICEL AFRICA ALCAZAR; For Initial
Presentation of Defense’s Evidence; For Slight Physical Injuries
10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEOP v. JOMEL ABIÑA y RANGASAJO; For
Arraignment and Pre-Trial; For Direct Assault

People v. Butac

The accused was charged with violation of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
This case was set for arraignment and pre-trial. When the case was first called, the court
asked the defense counsel whether she was ready for pre-trial. PAO lawyer Atty. Kae A.
Abastillas moved to defer the pre-trial of the case to December 12, 2024 since she is yet to
collate evidence for the defense of the accused. Prosecution Attorney (PA) Karmela P.
Marcelo-Domasig interposed no objection.

This case was recalled after the court heard the second case since the accused was
yet to be arraigned. The accused was arraigned in Filipino, a language known to and
understood by him. The accusatory portion of the Information charges the accused, John
Butac y Aguilar with the crime of estafa as penalized under Article 315 of the RPC. On
October 10, 2024, he defrauded a cocolumber and construction products dealer by falsely
pretending to be a businessman and transacted with the wife of the private complainant
through the phone. He ordered several construction materials in the amount of Php
26,000.00. He promised the complainant’s wife that he will pay through bank transfer, which
he failed to do. He pleaded not guilty.

People v. Adolfo

9
 These consolidated cases involve alarms and scandals and direct assault and is set
for pre-trial conference. PA Marcelo-Domasig manifested that the private complainants,
who are barangay councilors, intimated that they are willing to settle the civil aspect
provided the accused will offer a public apology.

The court then called the accused and the private complainants. The accused was
informed that by reason of his public apology, his cases will be provisionally dismissed,
subject to revival within one year. The accused consented to the provisional dismissal of the
cases. Hence, these cases can be revived without violating the principle of double jeopardy.

The court then issued a joint order, upon a motion for consolidation of the two
cases, since they were founded on the same set of facts and parties. Hence, as prayed for,
this case shall be jointly tried. However, due to the joint manifestation by the counsels that
the parties entered into a compromise agreement by way of public apology, these
consolidated cases are hereby provisionally dismissed subject to revival within one year.

People v. Dacutan

The accused in this case was charged with maltreatment. Before proceeding with
the pre-trial, PA Marcelo-Domasig manifested that since the parties are in fact, siblings, the
private complainant is willing to settle the case amicably on the condition that Dacutan will
offer a public apology. The court then called the two parties and in lieu of a public apology, it
asked the accused and the private complainant to embrace each other in the spirit of amity.
The court also reminded the accused that since the case is provisionally dismissed, it does
not mean that she is absolved of her charge. Her liberty is conditioned on her good conduct
that she will not commit the same offense within one year.

A provisional dismissal is one which does not render the dismissal of the case final,
but subject to the condition that it be revived within one year or two years (depending on
the penalty imposed) if the accused commits the same offense within the said timeframe. In
the case of People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003, the Supreme Court laid down
the requisites of a provisional dismissal:
1. The prosecution, with the express conformity of the accused or the latter's counsel
moves for a provisional dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution or accused
move for a provisional dismissal of the case;
2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case;
3. The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case
provisionally;
4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of
the case.

People v. Parran & Asagra

This case involves the commission of theft and is set for the pre-trial stage. After this
case was called, counsel for the accused Atty. Abastillas moved that her clients be allowed to
enter into a plea-bargaining agreement with the prosecution. She also prayed that the pre-
trial be reset after ten days to allow her to submit a written motion. As prayed for, the court
ordered the case to be reset and gave the prosecution ten days to comment on the said
motion.

People v. Hierro

10
 The accused in this case was charged with theft. In today’s hearing for pre-trial
conference, Atty. Abastillas moved to defer the pre-trial stage to allow the accused to collate
the necessary evidences for his defense. The court granted her motion without any
objection from the prosecution.

People v. Malaga

Similar to the two preceding cases, the accused is facing charges for theft and
today’s setting involves the pre-trial conference for the case. Atty. Abastillas manifested that
the accused is willing to withdraw his previous plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilt as
charged. Additionally, the accused prays for his temporary liberty pending the approval of
his application for community service in lieu of imprisonment.

PA Marcelo-Domasig opposed this motion as she notes that the accused was
previously convicted of the same offense. To this, Atty. Abastillas replied that the previous
judgment ordered the accused to simply pay a fine of Php 1,000.00. Hence, the accused begs
for the consideration of the court not to impose the penalty of imprisonment. The court
reminded the parties that based on the Rules on the Imposition of Penalties, the maximum
penalty should be imposed in the present case, considering that this is the second time the
accused will be convicted of the same offense. Ask for the prayer for temporary liberty, the
court stated that this should be coordinated with the parole officer.

By virtue of Atty. Abastilla’ earlier motion, the accused was re-arraigned. The
accusatory portion of the Information charges Malaga with the commission of theft - that on
or about August 16, 2024, the accused willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, with intent to gain
and without the consent of the owner thereof, take, steal, and carry away a total of Php
584.00 worth of products from LCC EXPRESSMART - Brgy. Rawis, Legazpi City. After the
accused pleaded guilty to the offense charged, the court asked confirmatory questions
regarding his plea. The court was able to ascertain that the accused voluntarily entered his
plea without any coercion, threat, force, or intimidation. Thereafter, the accused was read
the judgment. Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of theft,
the accused is hereby sentenced to 40 days of arresto mayor. The parole officer is directed
to comment on the prayer for the accused’s temporary liberty.

People v. Boragay

This case was called for the second time after all the other cases for the day were
heard. The prosecution manifested that they were supposed to present their first witness,
who also happens to be the private complainant in the case. However, despite having been
issued a subpoena twice, the complainant failed to appear and testify in court. This has led
PA Marcelo-Domasig to believe that the private complainant is no longer interested in
pursuing the case, notwithstanding that the offense allegedly committed is in the nature of a
public order offense. She also manifested that the other four witnesses set to testify are
essential to this case.

PA Marcelo-Domasig stated that if the witnesses will not appear on the next
scheduled date, November 21, 2024, the prosecution will be constrained to move for a
provisional dismissal of the case. Additionally, she prayed that the scheduled presentation of
the witness Angelica Serrano on November 14, 2024 be reset to November 21 since she will

11
be attending the Capacity Development Program for PNP Law Enforcers and DOJ Prosecutors
at The Pepperland Hotel from November 13-15, 2024.

People v. Magtangob

This case for less serious physical injuries was scheduled for initial presentation of
the prosecution’s evidence. Atty. Abastillas manifested that the accused is willing to settle
the civil aspect of the case. PA Marcelo-Domasig noted that the accused has promised to pay
the full amount of Php 12,000.00 as a form of compromise, but the private complainant has
just received a portion as of present. The private complainant is also willing to settle the case
if the full amount will be paid by the accused. The counsel for the accused begged the
consideration of the prosecution and of the court due to the financial status of the accused.

The court proceeded to facilitate an out-of-court settlement between the private

complainant and the accused. Since the accused is presently doing odd jobs as a pahenante,
he is only capable of paying Php 1,000.00 every fifteen days, or Php 2,000.00 every month.
The prosecution allowed the accused some time to settle his dues, but if on January, the
accused is unable to fulfill his obligation, the private complainant will be constrained to
continue with the case. Due to this, the court cancelled the initial presentation of evidence
for the prosecution and reset the same on January 14, 2024 to give time to settle the civil
aspect of the case.

People v. Alcazar

In this case, the accused was charged with slight physical injuries and is scheduled to
present his initial evidence in court. However, Atty. Abastillas manifested that the accused
entred into a compromise agreement with the prosecution and the private complainant.
Since the defense is yet to present the copy of the said agreement in court, the latter
cancelled today’s setting and reset it on December 12, 2024.

People v. Abiña

The last case to be heard for today involved a direct assault charge set for
arraignment and pre-trial. The accused was arraigned in Bikol, a language known to and
understood by him. The Information accuses Abiña of direct assault, which was allegedly
committed on October 16, 2024, when he attacked the complainant (a barangay councilor)
while the latter was on duty. The accused pleaded not guilty.

Since the accused was the nephew of the private complainant, PA Marcelo-Domasig
manifested that her client is willing to settle the civil aspect of the case on the condition that
the accused will offer a public apology. The case was ordered provisionally dismissed after
obtaining the consent of the accused and the Chief of Police of Legazpi City was directed to
release the accused unless he is detained for other cases in other courts.

12
 COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO. 08

OFFICE: SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ALBAY

PRESIDING OFFICER: HON. REYNALDO B. BRAGAIS
DATE: November 12, 2024 (2:00 PM)

Preliminaries

The 114th Regular Session of the 14th Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Albay was called to
order by Temporary Presiding Officer Hon. Reynaldo B. Bragais, Board Member from the 1st
District of Albay at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Hon. Vicente F. Baltazar III, Board
Member from the 2nd District of Albay, led the SPA prayer. The acting secretary having
certified the presence of a quorum, Floor Leader Hon. Victor V. Ziga, Jr., Board Member from
the 1st District of Albay, moved for the approval of the order of business. Hearing no
objections, the motion was approved by the body. The Minutes of the 113th Session was
likewise approved without objection.

Question Hour

Under item no. 7 on the order of business, the question hour, Floor Leader Ziga, Jr.
acknowledged Hon. Dra. Eva Josephine L. Ribaya, Board Member from the 3rd District of
Albay, to recognize selected Albayano students for their achievements and awards in their
respective international competitions. Six resolutions were conferred to the six students, to
wit:

1. King Mathew Pandes of Ligao National High School - Silver Medal Awardee in the Asia
International Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) Open Contest 2024 Finals
2. Quennie Margaret Pandes of Philippine Science High School-Bicol Campus - Bronze
Medal Awardee in the Asia International Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) Open Contest
2024 Finals
3. Peter John Brimbuela of Ligao National High School - Bronze Medal Awardee in the
International Mathematics Contest
4. Krista Mae Brimbuela of Ligao National High School - Bronze Medal Awardee in the
International Mathematics Contest
5. Benedict Frondozo of Ligao National High School - Bronze Medal Awardee in the
International Mathematics Contest
6. Audrey Cielo Tominio of Ligao National High School - Bronze Medal Awardee in the
International Mathematics Contest
The said resolutions, congratulating, commending, and providing incentives to the said
achievers, were authored and co-authored by Hon. Ribaya, and Hon. Juan Miguel Ricardo S.
Salceda, Board Member from the 3rd District of Albay, respectively. Hon. Atty. Melissa A.
Abadeza-Armedilla, Board Member from the 2nd District of Albay, likewise recognized
Justtine James B. Vega of Bicol University Legazpi for claiming the top spot in the Chemical
Technician Licensure Exam (CTLE) with a 91.50% rating and the second spot in the Chemist
Licensure Exam (CLE) with a 92.85% rating.

Based on her request in the immediately preceding session, Hon. Ribaya asked for the
presence of Engr. Dante Baclao, the officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Albay Public Safety and
Emergency Management Office (APSEMO) to give an update as to the utilization of the

13
calamity funds and donations received by the Provincial Government of Albay (PGA) due to
Typhoon Kristine.

She proceeded to ask Engr. Baclao as to how the calamity fund was utilized to augment the
needs of the Albayanos who were affected by the typhoon and the manner of distribution of
donations. While Engr. Baclao did not provide a detailed answer, he stated that it is the
Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office (PSWDO) of Albay which has the more
complete report. According to him, the in-kind food packages and donations were received
by the APSEMO, but distributed by the PSWDO.

Hon. Ribaya then requested that the hard copy of the report be furnished to all board
members. She also asked Engr. Baclao regarding the beneficiaries of the said donations.
Before Engr. Baclao could answer, Ms. Jing Cea from the PSWDO was recognized to give a
detailed presentation regarding the utilization of the calamity funds and received donations.
In the middle of the report, Hon. Ziga, Jr., manifested that they should just be given a copy of
the report since the presentation will take up much of their time. Hon. Ribaya submitted to
the manifestation of Hon. Ziga, Jr.

Engr. Baclao manifested that he was not properly notified that he was going to give updates
regarding the utilization of calamity funds and donations. As far as he was concerned, he
was only notified of the invitation to be a resource person for the Proposed Provincial
Ordinance No. 017-2024. A perusal of the communications sent to Engr. Baclao, as
presented by Hon. Bragais, however, provided that his presence was requested to give
updates regarding the calamity funds utilization, as well as for the proposed ordinance. In
order to expedite the proceedings, Hon. Bragais directed Engr. Baclao to furnish all board
members with a copy of the report.

The next to interpose her questions was Hon. Abadeza. She asked Engr. Baclao regarding the
status of available relief goods and the manner of distributing them. Engr. Baclao answered
that the basis for the allotment of relief goods per local government unit (LGU) is based on
the report of individuals or families affected. Hon. Bragais interjected and mentioned that it
is the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) or the City Social Welfare
and Development Office (CSWDO), as the case may be, which provides the PSWDO with the
relevant reports regarding the status of evacuees. Additionally, Engr. Baclao shared that
around 60 percent of the affected families were augmented. He also assured the board
members that there is no repetition in the manner of distribution of goods. When asked
when the state of calamity would be lifted in the province, Engr. Baclao stated that it would
depend mainly on the recommendation of PAG-ASA.

Hon. Baltazar manifested that the question and answer forum should have been done within
the Committee on Disaster and Risk Response with the help of the technical staff.

Taking advantage of the fact that Engr. Baclao was already in front of the podium, Hon.
Sheena Onrubia-Delacruz from the 1st District of Albay was the next to ask questions. She
focused her interpellation on the Proposed Provincial Ordinance No. 017-2024. The said
ordinance was about the approval of the purchase of vehicles from seven offices and
departments within the PGA, one of which is the Provincial Engineer’s Office (PEO). Engr.
Baclao, as the head of the PEO, was asked regarding the quotation which was earmarked at
P2.5M and P2.6M respectively.

Hon. Abadeza inquired as to the specifications of the proposed vehicles to be purchased and
the reason for its high cost. According to Engr. Baclao, the PEO intends to purchase a 4x4

14
vehicle, preferably a Toyota or a Mitsubishi car, which can be used in rough terrains.
However, Hon. Abadeza replied that there are other models which are relatively cheaper in
price such as a Hilux and a Range Raptor, which were priced at P2M and P2.3M. She added
that while it is recognized that the department needs a reliable model to attend to its needs,
it would be difficult to justify the quotation that was presented by the PEO and also
expressed qualms as to potential misuse of the funds. To this, Engr. Baclao assured her that
the request will undergo a strict and competitive bidding process.

After a short recess, and before the proceedings were continued, Hon. Ziga Jr. read to the
plenary a communication from the DILG Secretary designating Hon. Bragais as Acting Vice-
Governor of the PGA to fill in the resultant temporary vacancy of the said post. This is in
connection to the preventive suspension of Atty. Edcel Greco Lagman as Governor of the
province.

First Reading

All seventeen ordinances were referred to their appropriate committees.

Messages and Communications

Three items were referred to their appropriate committees.

Items for Direct Referral

The following were the items identified for direct referral:

1) Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by and between the Provincial Government

of Albay (PGA) and the Provincial Government of Cebu (PGC) for the Construction of a
Tourist Rest Area (TRA) at the Albay Farmers’ Bounty Village, Cabangan, Camalig, Albay
for the Authority of the Governor to Sign the Aforesaid MOA - Referred to the
Committee on Laws, Rules, and Oversight
2) Requesting for a Resolution Authorizing the Local Chief Executive of Albay to Request
for Exemption Pursuant to COMELEC’s Resolution No. 11060, Entitled “Rules and
Regulations on the Prohibition Against the Release, Disbursement, or Expenditure of
Public Funds for Social Services and Housing-Related Projects and Issuance of Treasury
Warrants and Similar Devices under Section 2615” and a VNW of the Omnibus Election
Code in Connection with the May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections - Referred to
the Committee on Laws, Rules, and Oversight
3) Request for Authority to the Governor to Enter Into and Sign the Memorandum of
Understanding between the PGA and the DOH Bicol Center for Health Development
Relative to the Temporary Office Space in the Provincial DOH Office Located at
Salvacion, Daraga, Albay - Referred to the Committee on Laws, Rules, and Oversight
4) Request for Authority to Enter Into and Sign the Promissory Notes, Disclosures,
Statements and Instruments and Other Documents Required to be Signed for and in
Behalf of the PGA for the Full Implementation of the Loan Intended for the Completion
of the Construction of Hospital Facility of the Josefina Belmonte Duran Albay Provincial
Hospital and the Acquisition of Various Medical Equipment and Supplies - Referred to
the Committee on Laws, Rules, and Oversight

For Second Reading

15
After the clarificatory questions pounded against Engr. Baclao, Hon. Onrubia-Dela Cruz once
again presented PPO No. 017-2024. She impressed upon the body that without approving
the said proposed ordinance, the purchase of the vehicles will not push through. Despite a
motion from the proponent to approve the said ordinance on second reading, none from the
body seconded. Thus, the said proposal was deemed dead for second reading.

Committee Reports

The following were the committee reports delivered by the respective committee heads:

HON. MELISSA A. ABADEZA-ARMEDILLA (Committee on Women, Children, Family, Gender

and Development)
a. Municipal Ordinance No. 011-038 s. of 2024 of the Municipality of Polangui, Albay: An
Ordinance Strengthening the Anti-trafficking and Anti-Violence against Women and
their Children by Institutionalizing the Local Communities on Anti-trafficking and VAWC,
and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Every Barangay within the
Municipality of Polangui, Albay for Other Purposes - This ordinance vows to
institutionalize the Empowerment and Reaffirmation Paternal Abilities (ERPAT) and
creating a committee for ELCAT-VAWC down to every barangay of the said municipality.
b. Municipal Ordinance No. 011-034 s. of 2024 in the Municipality of Polangui, Albay: An
Ordinance Enacting the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Code of the
Municipality of Polangui, Albay and Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes - In addition to the existing RH Code which focused on women and children.
This ordinance included ERPAT and some provisions which focus on pre-marriage
orientations.

HON. HISHAM B. ISMAIL (Committee on Barangay Affairs)

a. Municipal Ordinance No. 116 s. of 2024 of the Municipality of Jovellar, Albay: An
Ordinance on Collection of Corresponding Barangay Clearance Fee by the Municipal
Treasurer in the Application for Business Permit and Locational Clearance in the
Municipality of Jovellar, Albay - This ordinance authorizes the Municipal Treasurer of
Jovellar to collect fees for business clearance fees and locational clearance in relation to
RA 11032.

HON. SHEENA MARIE ONRUBIA-DELACRUZ (Committee on Laws, Rules, and Oversight)

a. Review of the Municipality of Guinobatan’s Ordinance Prohibiting the Use, Sale,
Distribution, and Advertisement of Electronic Cigarettes to All Minors by All Persons and
All Establishments in the Municipality of Guinobatan - This is in line with Section 15, Art.
II of the 1987 Constitution which mandates the State to promote public health.
Additionally, Section 13 emphasizes the Protection of the youth’s physical and moral
well-being, supporting the ordinance’s focus on restricting minors’ access to e-
cigarettes.
b. An Ordinance Approving the Creation of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineer Unit
Under the Office of the City Mayor and the Positions of Engineer with SG 12 and
Engineer IV (ABE) with SG 22 and Providing Funds Therefor for the Year 2024 and
Thereafter - The creation of the said units will facilitate salary increase and
strengthening of organizational structures of the LGU of Ligao.

HON. JESAP SALCEDA (Committee on Senior Citizens and Persons with Disabilities)
a. City Ordinance No. 16-0027-2023 of Legazpi City: An Ordinance Requiring
Establishments to Honor Valid Identification Cards Other Than Senior Citizen’s ID Cards

16
 in Availment of Benefits, Privileges, Under RA 9994, Otherwise Known as the Expanded
Senior Citizens Act of 2010 - The committee recommends the same for consideration as
this ordinance was enacted in accordance with applicable national policies.
b. Municipal Ordinance No. 18-2024 of Guinobatan, Albay: Amending Further Section 6 of
the Municipal Ordinance No. 05-2017 As Amended, Thereby Increasing the Travelling
Incentives Granted to the Presidents of Senior Citizens in the 44 Barangays of
Guinobatan, Albay from P1,000.00 to P1,500.00 per Month and For Other Purposes -
This ordinance was likewise enacted in accordance with applicable national policies.

HON. DANTE ARANDIA (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources)

a. Municipal Ordinance No. 117 s. of 2024 of the Municipality of Jovellar, Albay: An
Ordinance Adopting the Local Wetland Policy in the Municipality of Jovellar, Albay and
Providing Mechanisms for Institutionalization - The ordinance seeks to ensure the
protection, conservation, and wise use of wetland contributing to the human well-being
of the present and future generations.

HON. JUAN MIGUEL SALCEDA (Committee Housing and Land Utilization)

a. Municipal Ordinance No. 2024-65 of Camalig, Albay: An Ordinance Re-classifying from
Agricultural to Commercial a Portion of Land within an Area of 1,500 sqm Taken from
Lot No. 6504-B-9 under TCT No. 078-2019001584 Owned by Mark Philip P. Canaveral,
Situated Along Maharlika Highway, Libod, Camalig, Albay - The LGU is hereby requested
to provide the Sanggunian of PGA with copies of the tax declaration and title of the said
lot for technical validation

17
 COURT OBSERVATION NOTES ENTRY NO. 09

COURT: FAMILY COURT (FC) - BRANCH 2, DARAGA

PRESIDING JUDGE: HON. POCHOLO R. DEL ROSARIO
DATE: November 26, 2024 (8:30 AM)
LIST OF CASES ATTENDED:

1. PEOPLE v. CARL MALONE MONTECIDO y JALBUENA a.k.a. “CARL”; For

Promulgation of Judgment; For Violation of Sec. 5(i) of RA No. 9262
2. PEOPLE v. RODERICK OCBINA y OLIQUINO; For Hearing on Motion for Release on
Recognizance; For Violations of Secs. 5(i) and 5(h) of RA No. 9262
3. PEOPLE v. AL RELLORES y SIERRA; For Hearing on Motion for Release on
Recognizance; For Violations of Secs. 5(b), 5(e) and 5(i) of RA No. 9262
4. PEOPLE v. NOE ANSANO y NAVARRO; For Continuation of Presentation of
Defense Evidence; For Violation of Sec. 10(a) of RA No. 7610
5. PEOPLE v. ELMER MAGDAONG y CONDA; For Initial Presentation of Prosecution’s
Evidence; For Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA
No. 11648
6. PEOPLE v. ALEX VALEZA MAGDARAOG; For Initial Presentation of Prosecution’s
Evidence; For Simulation of Birth under Article 347 of the RPC

People v. Montecido

This case is for violation of Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against
Women and Children Act. The said provision penalizes the act of “causing mental or
emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but
not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.” Prosecution Attorney
(PA) Michael Angelo B. Laurio appeared for the Government. Atty. Marcus Aurelian F. Vaflor,
who came all the way from Bacolod, appeared for the accused.

Initially, Atty. Vaflor filed a motion for the accused to attend the promulgation via
videoconferencing, which the court granted. However, according to him, his client had a
change of heart and wanted to be physically present when the court reads his verdict.

For violation of Sec. 5(i) of RA No. 9262, the court found the accused not guilty.
Based on the evidences presented, the court was not satisfied that all the elements of the
offense were satisfied. After the promulgation, Hon. Del Rosario personally talked to Mr.
Montecido and reminded him that while he is acquitted, this does not mean that he no
longer has the obligation to support his family. The court, in absolving Mr. Montecido of
guilt, prioritized the well-being of his child with the private complainant.

People v. Magdaraog

Initially, this case was supposed to be the last case to be called for the day. However,
since counsel for the accused, Atty. Hanil B. Almoguera, was already in the courtroom, the
court interpreter called this case after the first one was disposed. In this case, the accused
was charged with simulation of birth under Art. 347 of the RPC. This refers to the act of
deceptively making it appear that the parents of a newly born child are persons other than
the biological parents. The following are the modes of its commission:

18
 a. Offender simulates birth and substitutes child for another;
b. Offender conceals or abandons legitimate child with intent to cause child to lose
civil status; or
c. Offender is a physicial or surgeon or public officer who cooperates in any of the
above.

In the present case, Atty. Almoguera manifested that his client was currently
detained in Catanduanes. Additionally, they are yet to receive the copy of the DNA paternity
test. The prosecution was also not yet furnished with a copy, according to PA Laurio. Hence,
the court reset the hearing to January 8, 2025.

People v. Ocbina

This accused in this case was charged with violating Secs. 5(i) and 5(h) of RA 9262.
Today’s hearing was set on the motion of the accused to be released on recognizance. Under
RA 10389, recognizance is defined as a mode of securing the release of any person in
custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due to
abject poverty. The court where the case of such person has been filed shall allow the
release of the accused on recognizance to the custody of a qualified member of the
barangay, city, or municipality where the accused resides.

PA Laurio appeared for the government, while Atty. Judessa Mae D. Adrales from
the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) represented the accused. The defense presented Hon.
James L. Mongaya, a barangay councilor of Tandarora, Guinobatan, Albay as its witness.
Hon. Mongaya was to take custody of the accused if the motion is granted. On cross-
examination, PA Laurio inquired the witness whether it was his first time to take someone in
custody by virtue of a recognizance, to which the latter answered in the affirmative. The
witness also testified that he is aware of his legal obligations and that he can be held liable if
he is unable to deliver the accused in court whenever the latter’s presence is required.

With that, the court granted the motion of the accused to be released on
recognizance. The presence of Hon. Jomar Nantes, another barangay councilor of Tandarora,
was likewise noted.

People v. Rellores

This case was likewise for hearing on the motion for release on recognizance. The
accused was charged with violations of Secs. 5(b), 5(e), and 5(i) of RA 9262. Barangay
councilor Felicisimo Barrion of Inascan, Guinobatan, Albay was presented as witness for the
defense. He testified that it was his first time to take an accused in custody on recognizance
and like Hon. Mongaya, he was also aware of his duties and responsibilities as the custodian
of the accused. The motion for release on recognizance was also granted by the court.

Before dismissing the two accused in the aforementioned cases, Hon. Del Rosario
personally talked to them and reminded the two that there are protection orders issued
against them by their respective spouses which they should not violate.

People v. Magdaong

19
 This case was set for initial presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. The accused
in this case was charged with statutory rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by
RA 11648. PA Laurio manifested that the parties are considering the possibility of entering
into a plea-bargaining agreement. However, Atty. Adrales also stated that she has not yet
conferred with her client regarding the provisions of this agreement. Hence, as prayed for,
the hearing shall be reset for the last time to January 15, 2025.

People v. Ansano

This case was set for the continuation of presentation of defense evidence. The
accused was charged with violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610.

Section 10(a) falls under Article VI (Other Acts of Abuse), which refers to other acts
of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development. Specifically, it penalizes any person who “shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child’s development, including those covered by Article 59 of PD No. 603, as amended, but
not covered by the RPC, as amended xxx.”

The defense presented to the witness stand the accused himself, Mr. Noe N. Ansano
to deny the charges against him, identify his sworn Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay, and to
testify as to other matters relevant to this case. Mr. Ansano was accused with squeezing
and/or touching the breasts of the private minor-complainant. The accused denied that he
squeezed and/or touched the breasts of the complainant. According to him, he merely
blocked himself from the complainant who was about to fall down on him when she slipped
due to the wet ground. He further testified that the only reason why the complainant filed
charges against him was because she was angry at him for having discovered that she was
stealing the root crops and other plants of the accused.

Things soon heated up during the cross-examination, when Atty. Adrales

continuously and consistently objected to the line of questioning of PA Laurio. According to
her, PA Laurio should desist from asking misleading questions. The court, however, stated
that the prosecution’s questions were not misleading, but were merely leading questions.
Misleading questions, according to the court, are those which assume a fact that is not
established following the rules on evidence, which is not true in this case. During cross-
examination, each question asked must be a leading question. This enables the cross-
examiner to direct the witness in the direction he/she wishes them to go while also limiting
their ability to explain their answers by asking yes or no questions. The court noted the
continuous objection of Atty. Adrales.

After a series of clarificatory questions from the court, the witness was dismissed.
The next setting of the case will be on December 3, 2024.

20