Professional Documents
Culture Documents
College of Law
_____________________________
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN
PRACTICE COURT I
&
TRIAL TECHNIQUES
______________________________
Submitted to:
Judge Maria Eloisa Maglana
Submitted by:
Morales, David Gil A.
4 Manresa
During the trial, the witness, Mario, was sworn in. There was an offer to present
the testimony of said witness to identify the accused. There was also a submission of
the judicial affidavit as direct testimony and identification of documents in the affidavit.
The defense subsequently manifested that both accused are not present in court.
One is in Cagayan de Oro City, while the second is in Iligan City. The judge said that
such facts were already stipulated during pretrial.
There were documents reviewed. Question No. 14 referred to one exhibit on a Sun Star
newspaper to confirm that it was the same one.
Atty. Marasigan stated that Question No. 13 had no basis and was leading. The
event asked about allegedly had no basis because there were already previous
statements and questions indicating that there were incidents that happened on
September 22, 2010, which would form the basis for Question No. 14 to 40 including all
the answers thereto. Everything is being objected to. Question No. 41 was also objected
to for having no basis and for being leading. It mentioned of a period from September
24 to October 4, 2010, but in the previous testimony on Question No. 1 to 40, there was
no testimony given that anything happened on such dates.
The judge subsequently ordered to have the judicial affidavit amended and had
the initial reception of evidence reset.
stay there?
f. When he was alive, what was his profession?
g. Who owns the property? How did the husband work on the farm? What was the
size of the property given to him?
h. Who owns the specific area?
i. What proof is present to show that he owned the property?
The prosecution manifested that the witness has a document, and prayed that a
photocopy of the original be made for substitution purposes. The judge asked if the
photocopy is a faithful copy of the original. The defense answered that they did not see
it marked and that there was no signing of the date from the clerk of court. The defense
proceeded to check if it was a faithful representation and had it marked accordingly.
The witness was asked whether he bought the property even without seeing the
land. The witness answered that he only relied on the title and also went to the City
Assessor. The lawyer appeared to be establishing that the property was given as
collateral for said loans. The witness confirmed that he later discovered that there were
illegal occupants on the property, prompting him to file an action against such illegal
occupants.
owner of the subject land. The witness answered in the affirmative. She was also asked
if she possessed the Deed of Sale. The witness answered that she did not have the
Deed of Sale from Unal, because she relied on the extrajudicial settlement that they
allegedly entered into, and not the Deed of Sale.
During the re-direct examination, the plaintiffs counsel confirmed with the
witness that there was a Deed of Sale. However, the witness and her family only relied
on the extrajudicial settlement over said property.