The presentation of this video for free is public service at its best. Law schools should be required to show this to their students instead of clinging to the traditional recitations that serve no other purpose than to kill time and to shield the professor's incompetence. Recitations? Yes, but it should be the students asking questions and clarifications from the mentor and not the other way.
This is very informative. Hope that you can upload more videos like this. This will greatly benefit not only those in the legal practice, but also those people who want a glimpse of what its like in the courtroom. Mabuhay ka! I have subscribed to your channel, kapatid!
This is the flaw of the present rules. The judge discusses the civil aspect when in fact the criminal case is a prejudicial question. If the accused are acquitted no civil liability attaches. There should be a bifurcated trial. First, adjudicate first the criminal aspect. If the accused is guilty, then the second phase is to try the civil case. If the accused are acquitted then, phase two is no longer applicable. This makes more sense than jumping on discussing both the criminal and civil aspect during the pre-trial. The only issue here is ownership. Who owns the car. If the accused owns it there is no carnaping. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The mere fact that the car is registered in the name of the corporation is just a presumption of ownership if the ownership is being question by the accused. The prosecutor would like to prove that the cash advances are not dation in pago because the payment for such subscription. The best evidence therefore are the receipt of payment and the stock certificate not mere the testimony of the account. The testimony of the corporate secretary is very material because he prepares the board resolutions and keep the stock certificates The accountant could just testify as to the amount of advances but not what the advances represent. Which is why the mode of discovery for production of documents is very important. Here, it looks like the defense did not utilize the production of documents for had she done so she would have discovered the truth. Whether her client is telling the truth or not. If she finds from the document that the advances are not really s dation en pago, then it is time to discuss settlement. Since the car was recovered, the settlement of the civil aspect would help the dismissal of the criminal aspect. The defense should not merely rely on the testimony of his client. The testimony of the security is also material to prove that he gave they to the accused because he bekieved that the accused is the owner of the vehicle and somebody instructed him to give the key to accused because the accused now is now believed to be the owner of the car. I don't see these evidence are presented in court. This is the problem when the court runs against just to satisfy Justice Davide's court.
The defense counsel should have raised the issue of prejudicial question in order to hold in abeyance the criminal case -- very clearly, there is a prejudicial question because the accused asserted ownership over the vehicle.
I know this video was made only for educational and demonstration purposes, but is there any chance that the model case was based on actual proceedings? This video was so well done I'm now curious as to how the trial transpired and eventually decided.
Lawyer here. Yup ganyan po talaga :) Pero let just add 20 more cases not just one. Parang yung mga case e nakapila. Some e pre-trial, some me trial na. So halo-halo yung cases for a typical hearing day aka vista
Nope. The proper time to object is at the time the evidence is being formally offered. For all you know the party may decide not to formally offer said evidence
Sana may makasagot din: may the prosecution mark as its own evidence the counter-affidavit of accused the latter filed before the prosecutor? Defense counsel kasi did not mark said counter-affidavit and after presentation of prosecution, he filled a demurrer to evidence. Hindi pinamark ni Defense yung counteraffidavit during pretrial (since the counteraffidavit contains statements that are not beneficial to the accused).
Affidavit cannot anymore be marked as evidence because under the revised rules of evidence provides that out-of-court statements are hearsay except offered to prior inconsistency statements.
@@AttyJorgeCBinas Atty., what if the Defense, in the presentation of the accused in the witness stand, testify that his counter-affidavit is not his or does not admit to the contents of his own counter affidavit (where in fact, he is fully aware of his defenses in the counter-affidavit,having signed and sworn it before the prosecutor) just because the statements in his counter-affidavit is not beneficial to him (e g. He admitted to the crime, but only raised self-defense) . Accused is now saying,"I did not do the crime,someone did it". Would that be unfair to the Prosecution, right? Prosecution relied on the defense the Accused used in the counter-affidavit to which the Fiscal relied on to also when he issued the Resolution for the Court's perusal. The counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation, in effect, has no use if the Accused during trial denies the contents of his counter affidavit. Will the judge allow this tactic sir?
@@kewl800i That counter-affidavit is an exception to hearsay under the new rules on evidence because that is prior inconsistency statements. It can be used by the prosecution during cross-examination.
( Welcome: to site,place what to active in change base,
Pwde na kayo Sumali sa battle of TH-camrs originals Line phillipines, SORORITY/fraternity now patch clans and our society.AE caravan flags race 22/16_08-30 great life ended!?. #NOTEDVOTED/SHAREANDPOLICYADULT.PH!
The presentation of this video for free is public service at its best. Law schools should be required to show this to their students instead of clinging to the traditional recitations that serve no other purpose than to kill time and to shield the professor's incompetence. Recitations? Yes, but it should be the students asking questions and clarifications from the mentor and not the other way.
This is very informative. Hope that you can upload more videos like this. This will greatly benefit not only those in the legal practice, but also those people who want a glimpse of what its like in the courtroom. Mabuhay ka! I have subscribed to your channel, kapatid!
Well done! Thanks for sharing! It augmented my knowledge about criminal procedures which I excelled while in law school.
Very informative and looking forward for more ..Thank you
Very informative. I am learning.
This is very helpful! Thank you for sharing!
this is what i want, the elements of surprise
2019
What program is this? When? We need more!
Thanks for this video...God bless
This is the flaw of the present rules. The judge discusses the civil aspect when in fact the criminal case is a prejudicial question. If the accused are acquitted no civil liability attaches. There should be a bifurcated trial. First, adjudicate first the criminal aspect. If the accused is guilty, then the second phase is to try the civil case. If the accused are acquitted then, phase two is no longer applicable. This makes more sense than jumping on discussing both the criminal and civil aspect during the pre-trial. The only issue here is ownership. Who owns the car. If the accused owns it there is no carnaping. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The mere fact that the car is registered in the name of the corporation is just a presumption of ownership if the ownership is being question by the accused. The prosecutor would like to prove that the cash advances are not dation in pago because the payment for such subscription. The best evidence therefore are the receipt of payment and the stock certificate not mere the testimony of the account. The testimony of the corporate secretary is very material because he prepares the board resolutions and keep the stock certificates
The accountant could just testify as to the amount of advances but not what the advances represent. Which is why the mode of discovery for production of documents is very important. Here, it looks like the defense did not utilize the production of documents for had she done so she would have discovered the truth. Whether her client is telling the truth or not. If she finds from the document that the advances are not really s dation en pago, then it is time to discuss settlement. Since the car was recovered, the settlement of the civil aspect would help the dismissal of the criminal aspect. The defense should not merely rely on the testimony of his client. The testimony of the security is also material to prove that he gave they to the accused because he bekieved that the accused is the owner of the vehicle and somebody instructed him to give the key to accused because the accused now is now believed to be the owner of the car. I don't see these evidence are presented in court. This is the problem when the court runs against just to satisfy Justice Davide's court.
Pwede po bang humingi ng advice sainyo po Sir Efren CAstro
The defense counsel should have raised the issue of prejudicial question in order to hold in abeyance the criminal case -- very clearly, there is a prejudicial question because the accused asserted ownership over the vehicle.
I am in hongkong i learned a lot in this pre trial in court i will apply to my self thanks
This is great.
Thanks po.
God bless
My fav crim procedure professor, justice ma cristina cornejo
sana maka upload pa po kayo ❤ learned a lot god bless and more power
When are you going to post the rest of the 5 part video.. :( please share!!
Is it possible to have pre trial hearing evethough there is pending motion to quash that has not resolved by the court
Very informative...
I know this video was made only for educational and demonstration purposes, but is there any chance that the model case was based on actual proceedings? This video was so well done I'm now curious as to how the trial transpired and eventually decided.
Ka Rolding iii
Lawyer here. Yup ganyan po talaga :) Pero let just add 20 more cases not just one. Parang yung mga case e nakapila. Some e pre-trial, some me trial na. So halo-halo yung cases for a typical hearing day aka vista
@@marvindiego1958 lawyer ka po sir ? mgttnung lng po sna ko
RIP to the great Justice Cornejo
Thank you po! It helps a lot
can we object the documents to be marked during the pre trial conference?
Nope. The proper time to object is at the time the evidence is being formally offered. For all you know the party may decide not to formally offer said evidence
Wow bata pa si Justice Velasco dito Court Admin pa lang sya
At ngayon siya ay retirado na sa hudikatorya at nahalal bilang gobernador ng lalawigan ng Marinduque.
Asking for the summary of this video presentation.😊
More of this po sana
❤
Nakaka2long ito sa mga students 2lad ko.pero mukhang wala ng na a upload..kasi kami mag mock trial kami
uy si justice guillen.. :)
bata pa si justice cornejo...for educational purposes only.
Sana ginawa nyong tagalog kasi mas maraming mahihirap ang di nakakaunawa ng English.. sila pa yung madalas nalalabag ang karapatan
Sana nilagyan ng subtitle na Tagalog
Sana may makasagot din: may the prosecution mark as its own evidence the counter-affidavit of accused the latter filed before the prosecutor? Defense counsel kasi did not mark said counter-affidavit and after presentation of prosecution, he filled a demurrer to evidence. Hindi pinamark ni Defense yung counteraffidavit during pretrial (since the counteraffidavit contains statements that are not beneficial to the accused).
Affidavit cannot anymore be marked as evidence because under the revised rules of evidence provides that out-of-court statements are hearsay except offered to prior inconsistency statements.
@@AttyJorgeCBinas Atty., what if the Defense, in the presentation of the accused in the witness stand, testify that his counter-affidavit is not his or does not admit to the contents of his own counter affidavit (where in fact, he is fully aware of his defenses in the counter-affidavit,having signed and sworn it before the prosecutor) just because the statements in his counter-affidavit is not beneficial to him (e g. He admitted to the crime, but only raised self-defense) . Accused is now saying,"I did not do the crime,someone did it". Would that be unfair to the Prosecution, right? Prosecution relied on the defense the Accused used in the counter-affidavit to which the Fiscal relied on to also when he issued the Resolution for the Court's perusal. The counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation, in effect, has no use if the Accused during trial denies the contents of his counter affidavit. Will the judge allow this tactic sir?
@@kewl800i That counter-affidavit is an exception to hearsay under the new rules on evidence because that is prior inconsistency statements. It can be used by the prosecution during cross-examination.
@@AttyJorgeCBinas thank you very much atty.!
@@AttyJorgeCBinas atty pwd po b mgtnung ? sna po aktib p din po kau dto
Kuya RANDY OCC RTC🙂
Is the juge a woman or a man
mukhang di naman carnapper
pakinggan mo ang elements of the crime, para malaman mo anong nangyari
( Welcome:
to site,place what to active in change base,
Pwde na kayo Sumali sa battle of TH-camrs originals
Line phillipines, SORORITY/fraternity now patch clans and our society.AE
caravan flags race 22/16_08-30 great life ended!?.
#NOTEDVOTED/SHAREANDPOLICYADULT.PH!