Page 1 of 6

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A crime of qualified theft was filed by Cindy Uy against Salve Leccio who was
conspiring with Joel Besonia.
Complainant Cindy Uy alleged that in the morning of December 8, 2009, she
saw her wrist watch boxes, pouch and I.Ds scattered outside her room. She
immediately conducted an inventory of her personal belongings and found out
that some of her items were discovered missing. And she checked all the
personal belongings of all the persons inside her house and recovered the same
from the knapsack of the accused. The recovery of the said items was witnessed
by Jasmin Diane Colago (another housemaid) and complainants cousin Patrick
Jun Palma.
The prosecution presented their witnesses (Patrick Jun Palma, Jasmin Diane
Colago and Arnold Caballero) to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
of the accused.


















Page 2 of 6
I. OBSERVATION

A. 1.
During trial, the prosecution offered the testimony of their witnesses as
they called to testify in the witness stand.
Witness Patrick Jun Palma and Jasmin Diane Colago testified as they were
able to witness the recovery of the said items from the bag of the accused
Salve Leccio when the complainant checked her personal belongings.
Witness Arnold Caballero testified that he saw the accused talking to
someone outside the fence of the house of Evelyn Clavecillas ( mother of the
complainant) and the accused handed over a black knapsack to that man,
that in his opinion was the co-accused of Salve Leccio.
The complainant also testified that the night before the incident, she
noticed the accused Salve Leccio going in and out of her room and looking
around for no apparent reason but she did not mind the same because she
thought that the accused was just looking for something and that she trusted
her considering that she had been working with them for around nine months
already.
On the other hand, the defense counsel offered a good moral certificate
of the accused as certified by the Brgy. Captain of Brgy. Central, Ajuy, Iloilo
where the accused resides and it was supported by the testimony of Melchor
Arguilles that the accused has a good reputation to their community and
impossible for her to do such offense.
Likewise, the accused Salve Leccio testified that at the time of the
incident, she was in a deep sleep and she was awaken by the shout of the
complainant while the latter entered her room and immediately checked her
personal belongings and found nothing. And that alleged recovery of the
missing items of the complainant was only setting her up of such offense, that in
fact she did nothing and stole nothing.

2.

The defense counsel has no objection as to the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses Patrick Jun Palma and Jasmin Diane Colago. However, on
the testimony of Arnold Caballero, the defense counsel raised an objection that
the testimony of the witness should not be admitted in evidence because the
prosecutions question as to the identity of the man talking with the accused
Salve Leccio was her co-accused Joel Besonia was a leading question and it
was not allowed.
Page 3 of 6
The court ruled in such objection by ordering the prosecution to rephrase
the question.
On the other hand, the prosecution objected the presentation of the
good moral certificate and the testimony of Mr. Arguilles as to the reputation of
the accused in their community that the same was inadmissible because it was
irrelevant to the issue of the case.
The court overruled the objection.
























Page 4 of 6
B. ANALYSIS

In the case at bar, the trial lawyers presented their evidence in an
accordance with the law. Both the prosecution and the defense counsel
presented testimonial evidences and made an offer at the time the witness
called to testify.

However, in the presentation of the defense counsel of documentary
evidence as to the good character of the accused Salve Leccio, I am not
agree the way the defense counsel offered such evidence. It should be offered
after the presentation of a partys testimonial evidence. That such offer must be
made supposedly after the testimony of Mr. Arguilles.

As to objection, if I am of the defense counsel I will raise an objection at
the time the prosecution witness Arnold Caballero testified that on his opinion
the man talking with Salve Leccio was her co-accused Joel Besonia because
the opinion of a witness as a general rule is not admissible and such opinion of
the witness Arnold Caballero does not fall to the exceptions as stated in Section
49 and 50 Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

As to the rulings made by the court as to the objections raised by the
lawyer were proper.

In the objection raised by the defense counsel as to the testimony of the
prosecution witness Arnold Caballero was right because a misleading question is
not admissible as the law provides in Section 10 Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence. However, the prosecution can be ordered by the court to rephrase
the question in order the testimony of the witness should be admitted and its
entirety shall be affected.

And as to the objection raised by the prosecution, I do agree with the
ruling of the court because the presentation of the accused good moral
character would establish the improbability of the offense charged.

As to the demeanor of the parties during trial, it was so evident that the
trial judge was totally impartial and objective. That he took his responsibilities
very seriously to apply the law as instructed even when his emotions tug him in a
different direction.

As to the prosecution lawyer, she dressed up formally. However, it was so
obvious that she came to trial unprepared. She often scanned her folder finding
something and every time she called their witness into the witness stand, she
always brought a piece of paper wherein she read the question when she was
asking the witness.

Page 5 of 6
As to the defense counsel, he came to the court before his opponent
arrived and that could give an impression that he was ready and confident.

Likewise, the prosecution and the defense counsel maintained the
attitude of politeness and being courteous to the Court.

As to the witnesss demeanor, some of them used irony or sarcasm to
convey their meaning. There were inflections of voice or a particular gesture
that may completely change the meaning of their testimony. That the witness
sincerity was evident that can be observed from the way the witness sounds or
looks. Thus, the court may use the witness's demeanor to determine the truth of
the testimony.

In its entirety, my court observation was impressive because I am able to
witness how the court ruled in certain objections and how the lawyers support
the authority of the court and the dignity of the trial courtroom by strict
adherence to codes of professionalism and manifesting a professional attitude
toward the judge, opposing counsel, witnesses, and others in the courtroom.




























Page 6 of 6













Regional Trial Court
Branch 39

February 13, 2014
9:00 AM to 2:00 PM

Criminal Case No. 10-69427
( NPS No. VI-10-INQ-09L-00707)

People of the Philippines vs Salve Leccio

Qualified Theft
( Article 310, Revised Penal Code)