CIRCULAR NO.

38-98 August 11, 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF
ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF CIRCULAR. This Circular is promulgated for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Republic
Act No. 8493, otherwise known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998," as directed in Section 15 hereof.
Sec. 2. TIME LIMIT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL. The arraignment and the pre-trial, if the accused pleads not guilty to
the crime charged, shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The period of the pendency of a motion to quash, or for a bill of particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of arraignment
shall be excluded.
Sec. 3. MANDATORY PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall,
after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
(a) Plea bargaining;
(b) Stipulation of facts;
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and
(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A
negative defense shall require the prosecution to proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative
defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and convincing evidence.
Sec. 4. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT. All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial conference shall be
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise the same shall not be used against the accused. The
agreements in relation to matters referred to in Section 3 hereof are subject to the approval of the court; Provided, That the
agreement on the please of the accused should be to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged.
Sec. 5. NON-APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Where counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear
at the pretrial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper
sanctions or penalties.
Sec. 6. PRE-TRIAL ORDER. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts
stipulated, and the evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the
course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial which shall
commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order.
Sec. 7. EXTENDED TIME LIMIT. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections 2 and 6 for the first twelve-calendarmonth period following its effectivity, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall
be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and
for the third twelve-month period the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.
Sec. 8. TIME LIMIT FOR TRIAL. In criminal cases involving persons charged with a crime, except those subject to the Rule of
Summary Procedure, or where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, or a fine of one

thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, the court shall, after consultation with the public
prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the
earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from
the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator pursuant to Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 9. EXCLUSIONS. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:
(a) Any period resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the
accused;
(2) delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the
accused;
(3) delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders;
(4) delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; Provided, that the delay does not exceed
thirty (30) days;
(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition or proceedings relating to change of venue of
cases or transfer from other courts;
(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial question; and
(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which
any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness.
For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his
whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. An essential witness shall be considered unavailable whenever his
whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to
stand trial.
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the
accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time
limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is mentally incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu propio or on motion of either the
accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time
limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
Sec. 10. FACTORS FOR GRANTING CONTINUANCE. The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in
determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 9 hereof:
(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be like to make a continuation of
such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the number of accused
or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the
periods of time established herein.
No continuance under subparagraph (f) Section 9 hereof shall be granted because of congestion of the courts
calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the public
prosecutor.
Sec. 11. TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order of a
court for a new trial, the trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from notice of that order, except that the court retrying the case
may extend such period but not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of said order for a new trial if unavailability of
witnesses or other factors make trial within thirty (30) days impractical.
Sec. 12. PUBLIC ATTORNEYS DUTIES WHERE ACCUSED IS IMPRISONED. If the public attorney assigned to defend a
person charged with a crime knows that the latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged with a bailable crime and
has no means to post bail, or is charged with a non-bailable crime, or is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution:
(a) The public attorney shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial, or cause a
notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so advise the
prisoner of his right to demand trial.
(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of
the charge and of his right to demand trial, If at any time thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he
demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public attorney.
(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for
trial.
(d) When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported
request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of the trial, the prisoner shall be made available
accordingly.
Sec. 13. SANCTIONS. In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney or the public prosecutor:
(a) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be
unavailable for trial;
(b) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;
(c) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he know to be false and which is material
to the granting of a continuance; or
(d) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provisions hereof, the court
may punish any such counsel, attorney or prosecutor, as follows:
(1) in the case of a counsel privately retained in connection with the defense of an accused,
by imposing a fine of not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
(2) by imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney or public prosecutor a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and
(3) by denying any defense counsel or public prosecutor the right to practice before the
court considering the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days.
The authority to punish provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action or any other sanction
authorized under the Rules of Court.

Sec. 14. REMEDY WHERE ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. If the accused is not brought to
trial within the time limit required by Sections 2 and 6 hereof, as extended by Section 7, the information may be dismissed on motion
of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving such motion by the
prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of time under Section 9
hereof. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
Sec. 15. REPUBLIC ACT NO 8493 NOT A BAR TO PROVISION ON SPEEDY TRIAL IN THE CONSTITUTION. No provision of
Republic Act No. 8493 shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided by Article III, Section 14(2), of
the 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 16. EFFECTIVITY. This Circular shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and shall take effect on
September 15, 1998

A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year
and the slow and cumbersome adversarial syste1n that the judiciary has in place;
Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give up
con1ing to court after repeated postponements;
Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to
provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor;
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on
February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of
judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for
presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases;
Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate Justice
Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate
Justice Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the
success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:
Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of
evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small claims
cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to
disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene the
provisions of this Rule.1
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be
uniformly referred to here as the "court."

Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file with
the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff,
and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he
may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit
that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In
addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the
preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be
admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing
rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the
place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by
law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end,
executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and

(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding
the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of
the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just
cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena
to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the
witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers
found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the
marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without
prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to crossexamine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the
witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness
to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the
issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a
party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if
any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections,
and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;
or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pretrial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so
on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution,
he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within
ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor,
including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These
affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the
court to testify.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the required
judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however,
allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice
the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the
discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of
the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements
of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once
the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the
delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that
public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less
than P1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of
procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are
repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.1wphi1
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.