CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE
(Court Observation)

CHARLIE COMPANY
(Group 4)
Regional Trial Court

Branch 10, La Trinidad Benguet

Presiding Judge: Jorge S. Manaois Jr.

Clerk of Court V: Atty Charisma Naida S Castillo-Martin

Court Stednographer: Ms Sharon A. Degay

Court Interpreter 3: Ms Jennylyn L. Colingan

Prosecutor: Lilian D. Oliva

Atty for Defense: Esteban Somngi

Criminal case Nr: 19-CR-13028 for the case of Estafa

People of the Philippines vs Jerry M. Botis

Pre-Trial

The hearing starter as the clerk of the court read the case and the case Nr. to the judge. The parties of
both sides are present, together with their respective prosecutor and defense lawyer.

The complaints Florencio Taras, Julan Pataras and Rene Juanito filed a case against Mr. Jerry M. Botis
who is known to be the contractor of the riprapping and flood control project at Labidad Creek, Loakan,
Itogon, Baguio City and also the business partner of the said complaint. The complaints’ claim that Mr.
Jerry M. Botis did not give their shares which is amounting to Php1, 390, 800.00 but the defense denied
the cause clamming that their share was because the project was destroyed during the typhoon
Ompong and he have sufficient evidence to show that. They were arguing whether there was a previous
project before the project of subject matter. The prosecution even mentioned that the received the
third and final payment in Makati but the accused denied it.

The prosecution proceeded to the presentation of their evidence with the following exhibits; Exhibit A as
the complaint affidavit, Exhibit C as the computation of complaints of expenses of the project and
Exhibit D as the certification from Alpha Land that monetary amount was given to Mr. Botis.

After which, the defense presented their counter affidavit with the following exhibits; Exhibit 1 as the
estimate cost of the project, Exhibit 3 as the picture of the project, Exhibit 4 as the picture of the
destroyed project, Exhibit 5 as the letter from the Alpha Land ordering Sonny Builders to restore the
project, Exhibit 6 as the advance knowledge receipt fare amounting to Php300.00, Exhibit 7as the
acknowledgement receipt that Mr. Pataras received Php900.00, Exhibit 8 as the computation of
damaged project and Exhibit 9 as the official receipt dated February 01, 2019 of the partial payment of
the project.

After the presentation of evidence, the presiding judge acknowledged the claim of the defense that the
violation of the accused is misappropriation which is violation of paragraph 16 of Article 315 of Revised
Penal Code. The defense even proposed to settle the case with the complaint but the prosecution
denied it stating that the offense has already been consummated and is already filed in court. In
addition, the presiding judge said that they should finish first the court proceeding before they do an out
of court settlement.

Both parties have no more to say or present for the moment that is why the judge moved the Pre-trial
Conference and set next tr
Actual Observation inside the Courtroom:

The judge, lawyers and staffs are wearing their proper dress codes. All the individuals involved are all
present in the case are present. We observed that theirmanner of questioning and speaking are all in
English language. The people inside the courtroom are quiet except for their lawyers who are making
making statements. The people inside thecourtroom are calmly observing

While the hearing is in session.

Recommendations:

 The courtroom is not conducive for