JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE The applicability of this rule may refer to: (a) the courts where the
cability of this rule may refer to: (a) the courts where the rule will
The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness,
which is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him
on the facts relevant to the issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits,
subject to the usual mode of cross-examination.
When is the Rule effective?
The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal cases without
private prosecutors, the Supreme Court allowed public prosecutors in first-
and second-level courts until the end of 2013 to utilize the affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses prepared and submitted in connection with
the investigation and filing of the Information in court. Public prosecutors
are required to fully comply with the Rule by 1 January 2014.
During the one-year period when the concession is in effect, the attending
public prosecutor, upon presenting the witness, shall require the witness to
affirm what the sworn statement contains and may only ask the witness
additional direct examination questions that have not been amply covered
by the sworn statement.
The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the private
complainant is represented by a duly empowered private prosecutor, who
has the obligation to comply with the Rule.
The reasons for the issuance of the Rule
Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge
volume of cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial
system that the judiciary has in place. About 40% of criminal cases are
dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give up
coming to court after repeated postponements. 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.
In order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of
witnesses in cases under litigation, on 21 February 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. 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. The adoption of the
Rule hopes to replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon City
experience in the use of judicial affidavits.
These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are contained
in the “whereas” clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
What is the scope of application of this rule?
apply; (b) the kinds of cases or proceedings where the rule will apply; (c)
the stage of the proceeding.
Type of cases
This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the
reception of evidence. However, the Rule shall not apply to small claims
cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC.
The Rule may apply to criminal cases in three situations, as follows: (1) The
maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2)
regardless of the penalty involved, with respect to the civil aspect of the
actions, or where the accused agrees to the use of the Rule.
Courts where the Rule are applicable
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
2. Shari’a Circuit Courts, Shari’a District Courts and the Shari’a Appellate
Courts.
3. Regional Trial Courts.
4. Sandiganbayan.
5. Court of Tax Appeals.
6. Court of Appeals.
7. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to
receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP).
8. 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.
The parties shall serve on the adverse party and file with the court not
later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
This Rule amends the existing minimum period, which is three days, for the
service and filing of the pre-trial brief. Under the new Rule, considering that
the judicial affidavit must be attached to the pre-trial brief, the latter must
be served and filed within five days.
Service and filing of the judicial affidavit in criminal cases
This is the only portion of the Rule that provides a separate provision for
criminal cases, veering from the simultaneous filing of judicial affidavits by
the parties. The general rule is reiterated, but this time applicable only to
the prosecution, to submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later
than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of 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.
If the accused, on the other hand, 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.
It is interesting to note that only the paragraph applicable to the
prosecution contains the provision that: “No further judicial affidavit,
documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.” Does this
mean that the accused is covered by the general rule, which allows the
late filing of the affidavit?
How is the service/filing done?
The Rule specifies only two manners of service or filing of the affidavit: by
personal service or by licensed courier service. It is interesting that there is
no express mention of “registered mail” and it is logical that the term
“courier service” does not refer to, and does not include, registered mail.
The purpose of the Rule is to expedite cases and there can be no reliance
on the presumptive receipt by reason of registered mail.
There is no overriding reason why registered mail should be removed as a
manner of service/filing. A party could send the judicial affidavit way in
advance by registered mail. It is the party’s lookout if the other party or
court indeed received the judicial affidavit within the prescribed period.
Another minor issue is when is a courier service considered licensed? The
rule is not clear whether a separate license or accreditation for courier
service providers on top of the SEC registration. It appears that other than
the usual government registration, there is no need for separate Supreme
Court accreditation.
These issues can be dispensed with by deleting the portion providing for
personal service or by courier. This is surplusage. The intent of the Rule is
to ENSURE receipt of the judicial affidavit by the court and other party at
least five days before the pre-trial or hearing, and the Rule can simply so
provide, just like in pre-trial rules.
Can you submit amended or supplemental affidavits?
There may be instances when it is necessary to execute a supplemental or
amended affidavit, like in the case of newly-discovered evidence. Is this
allowed and, if so, how should it be done?
The judicial affidavit shall contain the following:
1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the
witness;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered, that:
(i) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts
upon which he testifies;
(ii) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case
presents; and
(iii) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish
their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;
6. 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.
7. Attestation of the lawyer.
What is a jurat?
A jurat, which is different from an “acknowledgment” as defined under the
Rules on Notarial Practice, refers to an act in which an individual on a
single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and
presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in
the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the
notary public as to such instrument or document. (Rule 2, Sec. 6 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
It is important to note the strict requirement that, in the execution of the
jurat, the requisite competent evidence of identity must include at least
one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing
the photograph and signature of the individual.
For purposes of comparison, “acknowledgment” refers to an act in which
an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary
public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document; (b) is
attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the
notarial rules; and (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on
the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has
executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and
deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the
authority to sign in that capacity.
What is the sworn attestation of the lawyer?
One of the problems with the Rule is the fact that judges only have limited
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Moreover, even if lawyers briefed the witness, the oral answer given by the
witness during direct examination is almost wholly dependent on the
witness. This is no longer true under this Rule because the lawyer prepares
the judicial affidavit which takes the place of the direct testimony.
Thus, it is now required that 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.
To put teeth to this prohibition, the Rule provides that a false attestation
shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment. There is no requirement that the lawyer who prepared the
judicial affidavit must be the one to present the witness in court.
What language should be used in the 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.
Under the Rules of Court, as regards the testimony of a witness, the offer
must be made at the time the witness is called to testify (Rule 132, Sec.
34). The Rule, on the other hand, provides that 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.
This provision, in relation to the enumerated required contents of an
affidavit, means that the purpose is NOT required to be indicated in the
judicial affidavit. Some judges nevertheless require that the purpose be
stated in the judicial affidavit, a practice unilaterally resorted by some
lawyers for convenience.
How does the opposing party make objections?
Objection to a witness may take the form of: (a) a disqualification from
testifying; or (b) to a specific question raised. Under the Rules of Court,
objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of
a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36). 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.
How should the party presenting the witness identify and mark
documentary evidence?
The parties’ documentary 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.
How can the party or witness keep the original of the documentary or
object evidence?
Litigants and witnesses, for good reasons, often prefer to keep the original
of the document that is to be presented in and submitted to the court. The
Rule provides for the following procedure:
1. Attach the document or evidence to the judicial affidavit of the
witness/es. This must be done obviously before the pre-trial conference or
the hearing. This is done by attaching the photocopy of the document, or
the reproduction or photograph of the object evidence. The Rule provides
that 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.
2. Bring the original during the pre-trial or preliminary conference.
This is required under pre-trial rules, so the document may be preliminarily
marked as evidence and compared with the original, if needed. The Rule
provides that 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. As provided under pre-trial rules and reiterated in the Rule,
evidence not pre-marked shall not be admissible as evidence. The Rule
indicates that the pre-marking is done by the parties themselves, not the
clerk of court as provided in the existing pre-trial rules. If so, the
requirement of preliminary conference under Circular No. A.M. No. 03-1-09-
SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in
the Conduct of Pre-Trial and use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), which
is conducted before the pretrial conference for the purpose of pre-marking
documents before the clerk of court, should be dispensed with and
revised/deleted from the rules of procedure to avoid surplusage.
Nevertheless, there may be an instance when a party would subsequently
want to retain an original previously attached to the judicial affidavit. The
Rule does not provide for the procedure in such case. It is recommended
that if the party attached the original to the judicial affidavit and would
want to retain possession of that original document, the party must, during
the presentation of the witness, request that the copy be compared to the
original, request for a stipulation that the copy is a faithful reproduction of
the original, and request that the marking be transferred to the copy.
Cross-examination and Re-Direct Examination under the Judicial
Affidavit Rule
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine 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.
Resort to subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule
There is no need for a judicial affidavit if the witness is called to testify
through a subpoena. If the government employee or official, or the
requested 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 shall be understood to be ex parte.
On the other hand, this provision expressly applies to requested witnesses
who are neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness.
What’s the reason for the exclusion? What rule should apply?
Formal offer of evidence and objections under the Judicial Affidavit
Rule
The formal offer of documentary or object evidence shall be made upon
the termination of the testimony of a party’s last witness. This obviously
means that this is done when a party rests its case, and not every time the
testimony of each witness is terminated.
The formal offer is made orally in open court, which shows an obvious
intent to do away with the option of filing a written formal offer of evidence
allowed under existing rules. 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.
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.
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 offer of evidence, the objections,
and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Effects of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule
There are different consequences in case of: (1) failure to file the judicial
affidavit; (1) failure to comply with the prescribed requirements; or (3)
absence during the scheduled trial date.
1. Failure to file judicial affidavit
A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on
time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The Rule allows for
an exception, provided the following requirements are present:
a. It must be with leave of court. The court has the discretion whether to
allow it.
b. The delay must be for a valid reason. The Rule does not indicate at what
point the late submission is allowed. The above-quoted provision, which
applies to criminal cases, trial starts with the presentation of the first
witness (see Rule 30 of the Rules of Court), which gives the impression that
no additional affidavits or evidence may be allowed upon presentation of
the first witness. If this so, will this also apply to non-criminal cases?
c. It would not unduly prejudice the opposing party. This is quite surprising
considering that any additional evidence naturally favors the presenting
party and, therefore, prejudices the other party.
d. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more
than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
e. It is availed only once.
This is the general provision and it is not clear whether the exception also
applies to criminal cases. The specific rule for criminal cases provide that:
“No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.” This gives the impression that the exception applies
only in criminal cases.
2. Failure to comply with required contents
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 Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of
the court.

3. Absence during the scheduled trial date

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.