CREATING NEW SYSTEMS

FOR HEARING AND

DECIDING CASES WITH
FAIRNESS AND DISPATCH
Would you know how many of our
people live in crowded cities?
75% of our people live in crowded
cities.
With so many living in these cities,
occasions for human conflict are inevitable.
Thus, courts in these cities are
drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases;
some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a
day.
Thus, courts in these cities are
drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases;
some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a
day.
Thus, courts in these cities are
drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases;
some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a
day.
Thus, courts in these cities are
drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases;
some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a
day.


Their courtrooms are full.

Parties have to wait outside to be called.
It takes 3 to 5 years, at times more,
for cases to be heard and decided,

inflicting a sense of hopelessness over
the justice system that you and I serve.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any
pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal
cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100
persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any
pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal
cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100
persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any
pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal
cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100
persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any
pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal
cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100
persons accused of crimes walk free.
Victims of crimes find no speedy justice
in our courts.
Few foreign businessmen make long-
term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide
protection to their investments.
Few foreign businessmen make long-
term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide
protection to their investments.
Result: we do not attain economic
growth;
our people remain poor.
Result: we do not attain economic
growth;
our people remain poor.




Because people have lost trust in our
ability to render justice,
many have given up coming to court
with their disputes.
They either simply endure their pains
or find just solutions elsewhere.
And when the justice system does
not work as it should,
law practice suffers.
Because people have lost trust in our
ability to render justice,
many have given up coming to court
with their disputes.
They either simply endure their pains
or find just solutions elsewhere.
And when the justice system does
not work as it should,
law practice suffers.
Because people have lost trust in our
ability to render justice,
many have given up coming to court
with their disputes.
They either simply endure their pains
or find just solutions elsewhere.
And when the justice system does
not work as it should,
law practice suffers.
or find just solutions elsewhere.
:
Email Article
What causes these terrible delays in
our justice system?
There are many causes.
What causes these terrible delays in
our justice system?
There are many causes.
Our Courts are few.
Prosecutors and
public attorneys are
few.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of
witnesses.
The witness stand represents the
bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of
witnesses.
The witness stand represents the
bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
more specifically, our antiquated
system for taking the testimonies of
witnesses
and receiving documentary and
object evidence.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in
the system?
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in
this system?
The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story
the witness stand.
The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story
AT THE WITNESS STAND.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two
witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to
be called in courts that have 1,000 cases
in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the
courtroom,
they would form a very long line
indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two
witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to
be called in courts that have 1,000 cases
in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the
courtroom,
they would form a very long line
indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed.
those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed,










with only three witnesses getting in on an
ordinary hearing day.
those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed,










with only three witnesses able to get in
to testify in one day.
Why is our system for hearing
witnesses slow and cumbersome?
Why is our system for hearing
witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of
witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
we require an interpreter to translate
their testimonies into English.

Why is our system for hearing
witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of
witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
our rules require an interpreter to
translate their testimonies into English.
Why is our system for hearing
witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of
witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
our rules require an interpreter to
translate their testimonies into English.
Since the trial takes place in two
languages,
the court has to hear the testimony
of every witness twice.

the court has to hear the testimony
of every witness twice.

How old is our system for hearing and
deciding cases?
How old is our system for hearing and
deciding cases?
The Americans gave it to us over a
hundred years ago.
It was unique to their history and
culture,
yet we adopted it and were taught in
law schools
that there is no right way to hear the
testimonies of witnesses
except the American way.
It was unique to their history and
culture,
yet we adopted it and were taught in
law schools
that there is no right way to hear the
testimonies of witnesses
except the American way.
It was unique to their history and
culture,
yet we adopted it and were taught in
law schools
that there is no right way to hear the
testimonies of witnesses
except the American way.
It was unique to their history and
culture,
yet we adopted it and were taught in
law schools
that there is no right way to hear the
testimonies of witnesses
except the American way.
The American system is adversarial.

The American system is adversarial.
The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide which witness the
judge will hear
and what questions he will answer.

The American system is adversarial.
The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide what evidence the
judge will hear.
and what questions he will answer.

The American system is adversarial.
The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide what evidence the
judge will hear.
Although he will decide the case,
but he is doomed to sit back and
listen.
Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and
listen,
Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and
listen,
allowed to ask only clarificatory
questions of the witness.
The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials.
Result: using their system, we have a
shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.

The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials.
In effect, it is as if we have a shadow
jury sitting in our courtroom.

The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials.
In effect, it is as if we have a shadow
jury sitting in our courtroom.

Why?
Because the rules we adopted
require our judge to pre-screens the
questions
to prevent an unlearned jury from
hearing inadmissible answers.
But this is pointless since the jury in
our court is the judge himself.
With his legal training and
experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears
them.

Why?
Because our borrowed rules require
our judge to pre-screen the questions
to prevent an unlearned jury from
hearing inadmissible answers.
But this is pointless since the jury in
our court is the judge himself.
With his legal training and
experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears
them.

Why?
Because our borrowed rules require
our judge to pre-screen the questions
to prevent that non-existent jury from
hearing inadmissible answers.
But this pre-screening is pointless
since the judge
does not need to pre-screen the
questions for himself.
With his legal training and
experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears
them.

But this pre-screening is pointless
since the judge
does not need to protect himself from
hearing inadmissible evidence.
With his legal training and
experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears
them.

But this pre-screening is pointless
since the judge
does not need to protect himself from
hearing inadmissible evidence.
With his training, he can easily
disregard them.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z
Following that system, our witnesses
tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he
already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z
Following that system, our witnesses
tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he
already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
Following that system, our witnesses
tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he
already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the
record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the
record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the
record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the
members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to
the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the
record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the
facts in issue.
But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we
borrowed from the Americans,
requires the judge to endure
beginning-to-end stories
that are plucked from the witness
mouth bit by bit through direct
examination.
This is a time consuming process.
But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we
borrowed from the Americans,
requires the judge to endure
beginning-to-end testimonies
that are plucked from the witness
mouth bit by bit through direct
examination.
This is a time consuming process.
But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we
borrowed from the Americans,
requires the judge to endure
beginning-to-end testimonies
that are plucked from the witness
mouth bit by bit through direct
examination.++
This is a time consuming process.
Another cause of delay is the often
indiscriminate objections to the questions
asked of the witness. ++

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to
questions asked of the witness
to enable the judge to predetermine
if the expected answers are inadmissible
in evidence.
The judge must see to it that
inadmissible answers do not touch the
ears of the jury,
lest these irreversibly influence the
members of the jury.
But we have no jury, only a judge.
Theoretically, a lawyer objects to
questions asked of the witness
So the judge could prevent
inadmissible answers
from touching the ears of the jurors,
lest such answers irreversibly
influence their thinking.
But we have no jury, only a judge.
Theoretically, a lawyer objects to
questions asked of the witness
So the judge could prevent
inadmissible answers
from touching the ears of the jurors,
lest such answers irreversibly
influence their thinking.
But we have no jury, only a judge.
Theoretically, a lawyer objects to
questions asked of the witness
So the judge could prevent
inadmissible answers
from touching the ears of the jurors,
lest such answers irreversibly
influence their thinking.
But we have no jury, only a judge.
Theoretically, a lawyer objects to
questions asked of the witness
So the judge could prevent
inadmissible answers
from touching the ears of the jurors,
lest such answers irreversibly
influence their thinking.
But we have no jury, only a judge who
is not irreversibly affected by
inadmissible answers.
Another point of delay is the need to
identify,
Another point of delay is the need to
identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits.
The process is tedious and painfully
time consuming. ++
Another point of delay is the need to
identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits.
The process is tedious and painfully
time consuming.
Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
but these personnel are often just as
busy as the judge.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,
identify the documents,
and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy. And even with
such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,
identify the documents,
and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,
identify the documents,
and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,

Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,
identify the documents one by one,
and authenticate them.

Some courts, require pre-markings of
exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear
before the court,
identify the documents one by one,
and authenticate them.
In many courts in cities, the cases on
their calendars often range from 30 to 50
cases.
Just calling the attendance takes
from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
since there are incidents like
postponements that must be acted on.
This leaves only 2 hours for hearing
the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives
the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of
just one witness.
In many courts in cities, the cases on
their calendars often range from 30 to 50
cases.
Just calling the attendance takes
from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
since there are incidents like
postponements that must be acted on.
This leaves only 2 hours for hearing
the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives
the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of
just one witness.
In many courts in cities, the cases on
their calendars often range from 30 to 50
cases.
Just calling the attendance takes
from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
This leaves only 2 hours for hearing
the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives
the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of
just one witness.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives
the parties in each case 10 minutes
to present part of the testimony of
just one witness.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives
the parties in each case 10 minutes
to present part of the testimony of
just one witness.

With piecemeal trial, it takes more
than a year to complete the testimony of
just one witness.
Even after the direct examination has
been finished,
It is usual for the adverse lawyer to
postpone his cross examination
on the ground that he needs time to
prepare since:
--he must first have the transcript of
stenographic notes of the direct
examination, and
--he needs to check the truth of the
testimony.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more
than a year to complete the testimony of
just one witness.
And, even after the direct
examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually
want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait
for the transcript to be finished.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more
than a year to complete the testimony of
just one witness.
And, even after the direct
examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually
want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait
for the transcript to be finished.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more
than a year to complete the testimony of
just one witness.
And, even after the direct
examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually
want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait
for the transcript to be finished.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing
cases
and pound hard on the judges to
speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it
is madness to do the same thing the same
way
when it is no longer working.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing
cases
and pound hard on the judges to
speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it
is madness to do the same thing the same
way
when it is no longer working.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing
cases
and pound hard on the judges to
speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it
is madness to do the same thing the same
way
when it is no longer working.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing
cases
and pound hard on the judges to
speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it
is madness to do the same thing the same
way
when it is no longer working.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing
cases
and pound hard on the judges to
speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it
is madness to do the same thing the same
way
when it is no longer working.
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third
cross.
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third
cross.
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third
cross.
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct examination
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct examination
Early this year, we experimented on
the compulsory use of judicial affidavits
in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been
cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct examination
and one-third cross examination.
With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.
Can you imagine that?
With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.
Can you imagine that?
With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.
Can you imagine that?
With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.

With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.

With judicial affidavit as direct
testimony,
the witness is examined in court only
on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a
given time,
the court can now accommodate
three witnesses in that time.

Consequently, the Supreme Court
approved the Judicial Affidavit Rule on
September 4, 2012.
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of the
witnesses direct testimonies; and
2. They shall attach and authenticate
documentary or object evidence of the
parties.
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of direct
testimonies; and
2. They identify and authenticate
documentary or object evidence of the
parties.
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of direct
testimonies; and
2. They identify and authenticate
documentary or object evidence in the
case.
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
The parties shall file them with the
court
and serve copies 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
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and serve copies 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
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and copies served 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
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and copies served 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
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and copies served 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
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and copies served 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.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino.

What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to
be taken in the dialect
provided they are subsequently
translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to
be taken in the dialect
provided they are subsequently
translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to
be taken and kept in the dialect of the
place
provided they are subsequently
translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to
be taken and kept in the dialect of the
place
provided they are subsequently
translated into English or Filipino.
Testimonies will be quoted in
pleadings in their original version
with the English translation in
parenthesis provided by the party,
subject to counter translation by
opposing side.

Testimonies will be quoted in
pleadings in their original version
with the English or Pilipino
translation in parenthesis provided by the
party,
subject to counter translation by
opposing side.

Testimonies will be quoted in
pleadings in their original version
with the English or Pilipino
translation in parenthesis provided by the
party,
subject to counter translation by
opposing side.

For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that
the accused arrived in great haste.
Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si
Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi
po humihingal siya nang dumating. (Because he
was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that
the accused arrived in great haste.
Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si
Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi
po humihingal siya nang dumating. (Because he
was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that
the accused arrived in great haste.
Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si
Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi
po humihingal siya nang dumating. (Because he
was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that
the accused arrived in great haste.
Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si
Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya.
(Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he
arrived.)
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(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; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the
witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness
and the place where the examination
is being held; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the
witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness
and the place where the examination
is being held; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the
witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness
(c) the place where the examination
is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is
answering the questions under oath,

What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the
witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness
(c) the place where the examination
is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is
answering the questions under oath

What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the
witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination
of the witness
(c) the place where the examination
is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is
answering the questions under oath
and that he may face criminal liability
for false testimony or perjury.
Like this
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The person examining me is Atty.
Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente
G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The
examination is being held at the same
address. I am answering his questions
fully conscious that I do so under oath and
may face criminal liability for false
testimony and perjury.
Like this
I, ELNORA S. SABUGO, of legal age,
married, and living at 12 Camalig St.,
Caloocan City, plaintiff in this case, state
under oath as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The person examining me is Atty.
Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente
G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The
examination is being held at the same
address. I am answering his questions
fully conscious that I do so under oath and
may face criminal liability for false
testimony and perjury.
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Questions asked of the witness
and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered,
that show the circumstances under
which the witness acquired the facts upon
which he testifies.
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Numbered questions and answers;
that show the circumstances under
which the witness acquired the facts upon
which he testifies.
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Numbered questions and answers,
showing personal knowledge of the
facts that the witness is testifying on.
Like this
Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the
defendant in this case?
A1. Yes, sir.
Q2. How did you know him?
A2. He borrowed money from me
Like this
Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the
defendant in this case?
A1. Yes, sir.
Q2. How did you know him?
A2. He asked me if he could borrow
money from me, sir.
Q3. Where did this happen?
A.3. At my house in Caloocan City.
Q4. When?
A4. On May 22, 2011, sir.
(b) Questions and answers that elicit
facts relevant to the issues.

Like this
Q3. When did he borrow money from
you?
A3. Sometime in April of 2008, he
asked me if he could borrow P200,000.00
for his family.
Q4. What was your reply?
A4. I agreed to lend him the money..
Q5. Was your transaction in writing?
A5. Yes, sir. We executed a
Kasunduan on April 16, 2008.
(b) Questions and answers that elicit
facts relevant to the issues.
Like this
Q5. What was your response to his
request for loan from you?
A5. I Agreed to lend him the money
he needed.
Q.6. How much?
A.6. He asked for P300,000.00.
Q7. Was your transaction in writing?
A7. Yes, sir. We executed a
Kasunduan on April 16, 2008.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this
Q6: Where is this Kasunduan that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this Kasunduan
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this
Q6: Where is this Kasunduan that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this Kasunduan
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this
Q6: Where is this Kasunduan that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this Kasunduan
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this
Q8: Where is this Kasunduan that
you mentioned?
A8: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q9: I am marking this Kasunduan
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
Do you know whose signature this is?
A9: Yes, sir, that of Gerry Umali.
Q10: How do you know?
A10: I saw him sign it.
Q11: I am marking the signature
above the name Elnora Sabugo on this
document as Exh. A-2. Do you know
whose signature this is?
A11: Yes, sir, that is my signature.
Q11: I am attaching Exhibit A to your
judicial affidavit to form part of it. Do you
confirm my action?
A11: Yes, sir.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit 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
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
Like this

I faithfully recorded the questions I
asked Ms. Sabugo and the corresponding
answers she gave me; and neither I nor
any other person then present coached
Ms. Sabugo regarding her answers.

JULIO C. MAGNO
Affiant
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyers duty to record the
questions and answers faithfully
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyers duty to record the
questions and answers faithfully
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
4. What is wrong with requiring
lawyers to assume responsibility for their
actions?
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
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.
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness
since he can be queried with leading
questions as in cross.
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness
since he can be queried with leading
questions as in cross.
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.
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness
since he can be queried with leading
questions as in cross.
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.
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness
since he can be queried with leading
questions as in cross.
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.
With the judicial affidavit taking the
place of direct testimony,
what remedy does the opposing party
have if inadmissible evidence is
introduced through such affidavit?

The rule requires the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness
to state at the start of the
presentation of the witness
to state his purpose for presenting
such testimony.
With the judicial affidavit taking the
place of direct testimony,
what remedy does the opposing party
have if inadmissible evidence is
introduced through such affidavit?

The rule requires the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness
to state at the start of the
presentation of the witness
to state his purpose for presenting
such testimony.
With the judicial affidavit taking the
place of direct testimony,
what remedy does the opposing party
have if inadmissible evidence is
introduced through such affidavit?

The rule requires the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness
to state at the start of the
presentation of the witness
to state his purpose for presenting
such testimony.
With the judicial affidavit taking the
place of direct testimony,
what remedy does the opposing party
have if inadmissible evidence is
introduced through such affidavit?

The rule requires the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness
to state at the start of the
presentation of the witness
to state his purpose for presenting
such testimony.
With the judicial affidavit taking the
place of direct testimony,
what remedy does the opposing party
have if inadmissible evidence is
introduced through such affidavit?

The rule requires the party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness
to state at the start of the
presentation of the witness
the partys purpose for presenting
such testimony.
The adverse party may then 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.
The adverse party may then 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.
The adverse party may then 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.
The adverse party may then 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.
The court shall promptly rule on the
motion
and, if granted, shall cause the
exclusion of the offending answer
by placing it in brackets under the
initials of an authorized court personnel.
The court shall promptly rule on the
motion
and, if granted, shall cause the
exclusion of the offending answer
by placing it in brackets.
Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the defendant in
this case?
A1. Yes, sir.
Q2. How did you know him?
A2. He asked me if he could borrow money from me,
sir.
[Q3. Do you know what he needed the money for?
A.3. Yes, Sir. His brother told me that he had to pay
for his sons tuition fees.] MJC 5/2/10
Q4. When did he ask you if he could borrow money
from you?
A4. On May 22, 2011, sir.

Moreover, if cross examination
reveals an inadmissible testimony in the
judicial affidavit,
the adverse party could of course
also ask for its striking out.
This is without prejudice to a tender
of excluded evidence under Section 40 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, if cross examination
reveals an inadmissible testimony in the
judicial affidavit,
the adverse party could of course
also ask for its striking out.
This is without prejudice to a tender
of excluded evidence under Section 40 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, if cross examination
reveals an inadmissible testimony in the
judicial affidavit,
the adverse party could of course
also ask for its striking out.
This is without prejudice to a tender
of excluded evidence under Section 40 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Is cross examination of the witness
allowed?
Yes. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the
same.
Since he has been given a copy of the
judicial affidavit long before the hearing,
the adverse party would have no
reason to seek postponement.
The party who presents the witness
may also examine him as on re-direct.
Can the court also examine the
witness?
Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
signals the shift in our system for hearing
cases
from purely adversarial to a
combined adversarial and inquisitorial
system,
patterned after many successful
models in the world.
In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness
Can the court also examine the
witness?
Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
signals the shift in our system for hearing
cases
from purely adversarial to a
combined adversarial and inquisitorial
system,
patterned after many successful
models in the world.
In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness
Can the court also examine the
witness?
Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
signals the shift in our system for hearing
cases
from purely adversarial to a
combined adversarial and inquisitorial
system,
patterned after many successful
models in the world.
In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness
Can the court also examine the
witness?
Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
signals the shift in our system for hearing
cases
from purely adversarial to a
combined adversarial and inquisitorial
system,
patterned after many successful
models in the world.
In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness
Can the court also examine the
witness?
Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule
signals the shift in our system for hearing
cases
from purely adversarial to a
combined adversarial and inquisitorial
system,
patterned after many successful
models in the world.
In every case, the judge shall take
active part in examining the witness.








He is not limited to asking
clarificatory questions;
he may also ask questions that will
determine the credibility of the witness,
ascertain the truth of his testimony,
and elicit the answers that the judge
needs for resolving the issues.








He is not limited to asking
clarificatory questions;
he may also ask questions that will
determine the credibility of the witness,
ascertain the truth of his testimony,
and elicit the answers that the judge
needs for resolving the issues.








He is not limited to asking
clarificatory questions;
he may also ask questions that will
determine the credibility of the witness,
ascertain the truth of his testimony,
and elicit the answers that the judge
needs for resolving the issues.








He is not limited to asking
clarificatory questions;
he may also ask questions that will
determine the credibility of the witness,
ascertain the truth of his testimony,
and elicit the answers that the judge
needs for resolving the issues.
Suppose the examination of the
witness by the judge results in eliciting
answers
that are favorable to a party to the
case,
will that not be regarded as showing
bias in favor of that party?
No. The reason the judge under the
jury system avoids asking questions of
the witness
is that the members of the jury, who
are common people,
Suppose the examination of the
witness by the judge results in eliciting
answers
that are favorable to a party to the
case,
will that not be regarded as showing
bias in favor of that party?
No. The reason the judge under the
jury system avoids asking questions of
the witness
is that the members of the jury, who
are common people,
Suppose the examination of the
witness by the judge results in eliciting
answers
that are favorable to a party to the
case,
will that not be regarded as showing
bias in favor of that party?
No. The reason the judge under the
jury system avoids asking questions of
the witness
is that the members of the jury, who
are common people,
Suppose the examination of the
witness by the judge results in eliciting
answers
that are favorable to a party to the
case,
will that not be regarded as showing
bias in favor of that party?
No. The reason the judge under the
jury system avoids asking questions of
the witness
is that the members of the jury, who
are common people,
Suppose the examination of the
witness by the judge results in eliciting
answers
that are favorable to a party to the
case,
will that not be regarded as showing
bias in favor of that party?
No. The reason the judge under the
jury system avoids asking questions of
the witness
is that the members of the jury, who
are common people,
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself to the truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself
to the courts search for truth.
might give undue importance to the
answers the judge elicits
more than what those answers
actually deserve.
But we have no jury.
Besides, a party is not prevented
from objecting to questions from the
judge
if they tend to elicit inadmissible
answers.
In any case, the answer comes not
from the judge but from the witness.
If the answer is admissible, such
answer simply lends itself
to the courts search for truth.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
Trial is not about preventing
unfavorable questions from being asked
but about bringing out the truth no
matter who is favored by it.
What is more, if the judge shows
clear and outright bias,
precluding the idea that he is only
after the truth,
the prejudiced party can seek his
inhibition.
But be aware that the Supreme Court
has been suspending lawyers from
practice
who file frivolous motions for
inhibition against judges.
How are the documentary and object
exhibits of the parties offered for
admission as evidence?
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.
How are the documentary and object
exhibits of the parties offered for
admission as evidence?
After terminating 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.
How are the documentary and object
exhibits of the parties offered for
admission as evidence?
After terminating the testimony of his
last witness,
a party shall immediately make an
oral offer of evidence of his documentary
and object exhibits,
piece by piece, in their chronological
order,
stating the purpose or purposes for
which he offers the particular exhibit.
How are the documentary and object
exhibits of the parties offered for
admission as evidence?
After terminating the testimony of his
last witness,
a party shall immediately make an
oral offer of evidence of his documentary
and object exhibits,
piece by piece, in their chronological
order,
stating the purpose or purposes for
which he offers the particular exhibit.
How are the documentary and object
exhibits of the parties offered for
admission as evidence?
After terminating the testimony of his
last witness,
a party shall immediately make an
oral offer of evidence of his documentary
and 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,

After each piece of exhibit is offered,
the adverse party shall state the
legal ground for his objection to it, if any,
and the court shall immediately make
its ruling respecting that exhibit.

After each piece of exhibit is offered,
the adverse party shall state the
legal ground for his objection to it, if any,
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 offers, the objections, and
the rulings,
dispensing with the description of
each 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 offers, the objections, and
the rulings,
dispensing with the description of
each 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 offers, the objections, and
the rulings,
dispensing with the description of
each 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 offers, the objections, and
the rulings,
dispensing with the description of
each exhibit.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to criminal actions?

Yes (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.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to criminal actions?

Yes (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.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to criminal actions?

Yes (1) where the maximum of the
imposable penalty does not exceed six
years;
(2) irrespective of the penalty
involved, 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.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to criminal actions?

Yes (1) where the maximum of the
imposable penalty does not exceed six
years;
(2) irrespective of the penalty
involved, where the accused agrees to the
use of judicial affidavits;
(3) with respect to the civil aspect of
the actions, whatever the penalties
involved are.
When will the parties in the criminal
case submit their judicial affidavits?
The prosecution shall 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.
When will the parties in the criminal
case submit their judicial affidavits?
The prosecution shall 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.
When will the parties in the criminal
case submit their judicial affidavits?
The prosecution shall 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.
When will the parties in the criminal
case submit their judicial affidavits?
The prosecution shall submit the
judicial affidavits of its witnesses
Not later than five days before the
pre-trial,
serving copies of the same upon the
accused.
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors,
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors,
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors,
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors,
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors
or keep his silence.
No further judicial affidavit or
documentary or object evidence may be
admitted at the trial.
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 of receipt of such
affidavits
and serve a copy of each on the
public and private prosecutors
or keep his silence.
Because the prosecution lays all its
evidence on the table,









the accused can freely and
reasonably make his choice of whether to
remain silent or not.
Because the prosecution lays all its
evidence on the table,









the accused can freely and
reasonably make his choice of whether to
remain silent or not.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance to submit them 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance to submit them 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance
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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance
if 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance
if 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance
if 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the failure of
a party to submit his judicial affidavits?
He shall be deemed to have waived
their submission.
But the court may give him one last
chance
if 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 P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00, at the
discretion of the court.
What are the effects of the absence
of the witness or of counsel at the
scheduled hearing?
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
clients right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
What are the effects of the absence
of the witness or of counsel at the
scheduled hearing?
The court shall not consider the
affidavit of any absent 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
clients right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
What are the effects of the absence
of the witness or of counsel at the
scheduled hearing?
The court shall not consider the
affidavit of any absent witness.
Counsel who fails to appear without
valid cause
shall be deemed to have waived his
clients right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
What are the effects of the absence
of the witness or of counsel at the
scheduled hearing?
The court shall not consider the
affidavit of any absent witness.
Counsel who fails to appear without
valid cause
shall be deemed to have waived his
clients right to cross examine.
What is the effect of submitting
judicial affidavits
to the content requirements of
section 3
and the attestation requirement of
section 4?
The court shall not admit as evidence
such judicial affidavits.
But it may allow only once the
subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial
provided
What is the effect of submitting
judicial affidavits
that do not conform to content
requirements? and the attestation
requirement of section 4?
The court shall not admit as evidence
such judicial affidavits.
But it may allow only once the
subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial
provided
What is the effect of submitting
judicial affidavits
that do not conform to content
requirements?
The court shall not admit them in
evidence.
But it may allow only once the
subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial
provided
What is the effect of submitting
judicial affidavits
that do not conform to content
requirements?
The court shall not admit them in
evidence.
But it may allow only once the
subsequent submission of the compliant
replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial
provided
What is the effect of submitting
judicial affidavits
that do not conform to content
requirements?
The court shall not admit them in
evidence.
But it may 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 P5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court
the delay is for a valid reason,
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 P5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court
the delay is for a valid reason,
would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party,
and the public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and
submission
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court
the delay is for a valid reason,
would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party,
and the public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and
submission
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court
the delay is for a valid reason,
would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party,
and the public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and
submission
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00
nor more than P5,000.00,
at the discretion of the court
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.
Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply
to existing cases?
Yes.
Suppose the existing cases had
already undergone pre-trial
and just a few testimonies remain to
be heard,
will the rule still apply?
Yes.
The remaining testimonies shall be
treated as incidents
to be heard by judicial affidavits.






THANK YOU
Like this
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The person examining me is Atty.
Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente
G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The
examination is being held at the same
address. I am answering his questions
fully conscious that I do so under oath and
may face criminal liability for false
testimony and perjury.
Ako, si PO1 Renato Y. Robles, 34
taon, may-asawa, isang pulis, at
nakatalaga sa Sampaloc Police Station,
Sampaloc, Manila, matapos
makapanumpa ng ayon sa batas ay
nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:
Pangunang Salita
Ang nagtatanong sa akin sa judicial
affidavit kong ito ay si PO2 Jaime C.
Ramos na isang pulis na nakatalaga din
sa Sampaloc Police Station, Manila,
Ginanap ang pagtatanong niya sa akin sa
Station ding ito.
Sinagot ko ang mga tanong sa akin
sa ilalim ng aking sinumpaan na magsabi
ng katotohanan lamang at batid ko na
maaari akong managot kung sakaling ako
ay magsinungaling.
T1. Natatandaan mo ba kung nasaan
ka nuong umaga ng Mayo 21, 2012?
S1. Opo, nasa aming opisina po ako,
sa Sampaloc Police Station, Anti-Drugs
Unit.
T2. Ano ang ginagawa mo doon
nuong umagang iyon?
S2. Pinag-aaralan po namin ng mga
kasamahan kong pulis kung paano naming
huhulihin si Alex Samson na ini-report sa
amin na nagtitinda ng shabu sa Dapitan,
malapit sa UST.
T3. Ano ang napagpasyahan ninyo?
S3. Napagpasyahan naming gumawa
ng isang buy-bust operation.
T4. Anong hakbang ang ginawa ninyo
para mangyari ang inyong binalak?
S4. Naghanda kami ng pera na aming
minarkahan para ipambili ng shabu kay
Alex Samson at lumakad na kami upang
magkunwaring bibili ng shabu sa kanya.
T5. Makikilala mo ba ang perang
inihanda ninyo na iyong minarkahan?
S5. Opo.
T6. Tignan mo itong P100 na may
markang RYR 5/21/2012, may kinalaman
ba ito doon sa sinabi mong pera na inyong
inihanda pambili ng shabu?
S6. Iyan po iyon.
T7: Minamarkahan ko ang P100 na ito
bilang Exhibit A. Kaninong sulat kamay
ang markang ito na RYR 5/21/2012?
S7: Sa akin po.
T8: Ikinakabit ko ang Exhibit A na ito
sa iyong judicial affidavit upang maging
bahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka ba sa
ginawa ko?
S8: Opo.
T9. Ano ang ginawa ninyo matapos
kayong maghanda ng perang pambili ng
shabu?
S9. Inabangan po namin si Alex
Samson sa Dapitan Street at nang
dumating siya, lumapit ako sa kanya
kasama ang isang informer at nagtanong
kung puwede akong bumili ng pisong
shabu.
T10. Ano ang sagot niya?
S10. Inabutan niya ako ng isang
maliit na plastic na may lamang tila
pulbos at inabot ko naman sa kanya iyong
P100 na inihanda namin?
T11. Ano ang sumunod na
pangyayari?
S11. Nang makita ng mga
kasamahan ko na nagkabilihan na kami,
lumapit sila at hinuli namin si Alex
Samson.
T12. Ano ang nangyari sa nasamsam
ninyong plastic na may lamang tila
pulbos?
S12. Minarkahan ko ito ng aking
initial at kung anong araw namin ito
nakuha.
T13. Masdan mo ang plastic na ito at
sabihin mo sa akin kung ano ang
kinalaman nito sa binanggit mong plastic?
A13. Iyan po iyong nakuha naming
kay Alex Samson. Ang marka po dito na
RYR 5/2/2012 ay ako ang naglagay.
T14 Ano ang ginawa ninyo dito?

A14. Pinadala namin sa crime
laboratory sa ganoon ding kalagayan,
silyado.
T15: Minamarkahan ko ang plastic
sachet na ito bilang Exhibit B at ikinakabit
ko sa iyong judicial affidavit upang
maging bahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka ba
sa ginawa ko?
S15: Opo.
T16: Mayroon pa ba kayong ibang
ebidensya laban kay Alex Samson?
S16: Kumuha din po kami ng mga
larawan bago namin siya hulihin, habang
hinuhuli namin siya, at matapos namin
siyang hulihin.
T17: Ito ba ang mga larawang iyon?
S17: Opo.
T18: Paano ma nakilala ang mga
larawang ito?
S18: Kasama po ako ng kunan ang
mga larawang iyan.
T19: Minamarkahan ko ang mga
larawang ito bilang Exh. C, C-1, at C-2.
Saan kinunan ang mga larawang ito?
S19: Sa Dapitan Street po kung saan
namin nahuli si Alex Samson.
T20: Sino-sinong nasa larawang ito?
S20: Si Alex Samson, ako, si PO2
Jose Pangan, at si PO3 Ramon Asis.




IMPLEMENTING
PRESENT POLICIES ON
THE RIGHT TO BAIL
Many of us live with our familes in
comfort and freedom,

not once were we locked against our
will in a room crammed with strangers

and reeking with the foul smell of
dried sweat.
One of the great tragedies in life that
could strike you
is for you or a loved one to be
detained in any of these jails
while the case against you or the
loved one is being heard.
One of the great tragedies in life that
could strike you
is for you or a loved one to be
detained in any of these jails
while the case against you or the
loved one is being heard.
One of the great tragedies in life that
could strike you
is for you or a loved one to be
detained in any of these jails
while the case against you or that
loved one is being heard.
Although those kept in detention jails
are presumed innocent,
they suffer worse fate than convicted
felons in the penitentiary
who enjoy larger living spaces,
hospitals, libraries,
basketball courts, gyms, craftworks,
trades education,
and psychological monitoring.
Although those kept in detention jails
are presumed innocent,
they suffer worse fate than convicted
felons in the national penitentiary
who enjoy larger living spaces,
hospitals, libraries,
basketball courts, gyms, craftworks,
trades education,
and psychological monitoring.
who enjoy larger living spaces
Hospitals.
Sports facilities
Recreation
Craftworks
Our detention jails, especially in
cities, are so deplorably congested
that those awaiting trial in our courts
exist in sub-human conditions:
extremely poor ventilation and
sanitation;
widespread cases of boils, asthma,
tuberculosis, depressions, and psychotic
behavior;
and inadequate food.
Our detention jails, especially in
cities, are so deplorably congested
that those awaiting trial in our courts
exist in sub-human conditions:
extremely poor ventilation and
sanitation;
widespread cases of boils, asthma,
tuberculosis, depressions, and psychotic
behavior;
and inadequate food.
Our detention jails, especially in
cities, are so deplorably congested
that those awaiting trial in our courts
exist in sub-human conditions:
extremely poor ventilation and
sanitation
and widespread cases of boils,
asthma, tuberculosis, depressions, and
psychotic behavior and inadequate
food.
The detention of accused persons
are meant to ensure attendance at trial,
not punish them,
yet delays in the hearing of their
cases result in their incarceration
under extremely deplorable
conditions for 3 to 8 years or more,
inviting a rightful concern from the
International Committee of the Red Cross
that our justice system has become a
party to the violation of the guarantees of
due process
and internationally set humane
conditions of detention.
The detention of accused persons
are meant to ensure attendance at trial,
not punish them,
yet delays in the hearing of their
cases result in their incarceration
under extremely deplorable
conditions for 3 to 8 years or more,
inviting a rightful concern from the
International Committee of the Red Cross
that our justice system has become a
party to the violation of the guarantees of
due process
and internationally set humane
conditions of detention.
The detention of accused persons
are meant to ensure attendance at trial,
not punish them,
yet delays in the hearing of their
cases result in their incarceration
under extremely deplorable
conditions for 3 to 8 years or more,
inviting a rightful concern from the
International Committee of the Red Cross
that our justice system has become a
party to the violation of the guarantees of
due process
and internationally set humane
conditions of detention.
The detention of accused persons
are meant to ensure attendance at trial,
not punish them,
yet delays in the hearing of their
cases result in their incarceration
under extremely deplorable
conditions for 3 to 8 years or more,
inviting a rightful concern from the
International Committee of the Red Cross
that our justice system has become a
party to the violation of the guarantees of
due process
and internationally set humane
conditions of detention.
The detention of accused persons
are meant to ensure attendance at trial,
not punish them,
yet delays in the hearing of their
cases result in their incarceration
under extremely deplorable
conditions for 3 to 8 years or more,
inviting a rightful concern from the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
The Constitution provides that,
except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong,
all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties
or released on recognizance as the
law may provide.
Further, excessive bail shall not be
required.
But what do we do?
The Rules of Criminal Procedure
require courts to fix a reasonable amount
of bail for accused persons,
taking into account their financial
ability.
In practice, however, the courts
simply adopt the amounts of bail that the
prosecutors recommend
pursuant to the bail bond guide
issued by the Department of Justice.
But what do we do?
The Rules of Criminal Procedure
require courts to fix a reasonable amount
of bail for accused persons,
taking into account their financial
ability.
In practice, however, the courts
simply adopt the amounts of bail that the
prosecutors recommend
pursuant to the bail bond guide
issued by the Department of Justice.
But what do we do?
The Rules of Criminal Procedure
require courts to fix a reasonable amount
of bail for accused persons,
taking into account their financial
ability.
In practice, however, the courts
simply adopt the amounts of bail that the
prosecutors recommend
pursuant to the bail bond guide
issued by the Department of Justice.
But what do we do?
The Rules of Criminal Procedure
require courts to fix a reasonable amount
of bail for accused persons,
taking into account their financial
ability.
In practice, however, the courts
simply adopt the amounts of bail that the
prosecutors recommend
pursuant to the bail bond guide
issued by the Department of Justice.
But what do we do?
The Rules of Criminal Procedure
require courts to fix a reasonable amount
of bail for accused persons,
taking into account their financial
ability.
In practice, however, the courts
simply adopt the amounts of bail that the
prosecutors recommend
pursuant to the bail bond guide
issued by the Department of Justice.
Such bail amounts are based solely
on the gravity of each offense,
with the result that the bail for the
very rich and the very poor are the same.
Yet many of those in our jails are
poor first-time offenders,
held for non-violent crimes,
and have children to feed and look
after.
Such bail amounts are based solely
on the gravity of each offense,
with the result that the bail for the
very rich

Such bail amounts are based solely
on the gravity of each offense,
with the result that the bail for the
very rich and the very poor are the same.

Yet many of those in our jails are
poor first-time offenders,
held for non-violent crimes,
and have children to feed and look
after.
Yet many of those in our jails are
poor first-time offenders,
held for non-violent crimes,
and have children to feed and look
after.
Yet many of those in our jails are
poor first-time offenders,
held for non-violent crimes,
and have children to feed and look
after.

Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Our bail system is anti-poor.
Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Our bail system is anti-poor.
Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Our bail system is anti-poor.
Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Our bail system is anti-poor.
Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Our bail system is anti-poor.
Question: who are not entitled to
bail?
Answer: only those accused of
capital crimes when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
Wrong answer!
Include the poor who cannot afford
bail.
They do no enjoy the right to bail.
Quite shamefully, our bail system is
anti-poor.
The rules allow those who have
served the minimum imposable penalty
to be released on recognizance.
But in practice, courts order the
release of only those
who have served the maximum.
The rules allow those who have
served the minimum imposable penalty
to be released on recognizance.
But in practice, courts order the
release of only those
who have served the maximum.
The rules allow those who have
served the minimum imposable penalty
to be released on recognizance.
But in practice, courts order the
release of only those
who have served the maximum.
The rules allow those who have
served the minimum imposable penalty
to be released on recognizance.
But in practice, courts order the
release of only those
who have served the maximum of
their imposable penalties.
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail pending trial.
Result: many are freed only after
years in detention,
absolved of the charges, most of in
drugs cases,
for lack of evidence.
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail pending trial.
Result: many are freed only after
years in detention,
absolved of the charges, most of in
drugs cases,
for lack of evidence.
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail pending trial.
Result: many are freed only after
years in detention,
absolved of the charges, most of in
drugs cases,
for lack of evidence.
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail when the evidence of guilt is not
strong.
Result: many are freed only after
years in detention,
absolved of the charges, most of in
drugs cases,
for lack of evidence.
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail when the evidence of guilt is not
strong.
Result: many who have been
absolved
are freed only after years in
detention,
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail when the evidence of guilt is not
strong.
Result: many who have been
absolved
are freed only after years in
detention,
Further, the hearing of applications
for bail of persons charged with capital
offenses
are supposed to be summary.
But in actual practice, most courts
insist on hearing the prosecutions entire
evidence as in a full-blown trial,
in effect denying the accuseds right
to bail when the evidence of guilt is not
strong.
Result: many who have been
absolved
are freed only after years in
detention,
mostly involved in drugs cases.
Although absolved, the scars of pain,
degradation, and hopelessness remain
with them.
Quite often, they return to families
that have been broken by a parents long
absence.
They are permanently damaged.
Quite often, they return to families
that have been broken by a parents long
absence.
They are permanently damaged.
Quite often, they return to families
that have been broken by a parents long
absence.
They are permanently damaged.
Society has no right to punish them
and take them away from their
families
until they are proven guilty.
Quite often, they return to families
that have been broken by a parents long
absence.
They are permanently damaged.
Society has no right to punish them
and take them away from their
families
until they are proven guilty.
Quite often, they return to families
that have been broken by a parents long
absence.
They are permanently damaged.
Society has no right to punish them
and take them away from their
families
until they are proven guilty.
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Yet, we may have already become
indifferent to their sufferings.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Yet, we may have already become
indifferent to their sufferings.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Yet, we may have already become
indifferent to their sufferings.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
They are children of God like us,
made out of His image
and entitled to dignity and respect.
Unless we do something for them,
Jesus could very well say to us,
I was in prison and you did not care
for me. (Mathew 25:43)
Why have our judges been reluctant
given them by the law and the rules
in the matter of granting bail or
recognizance to accused persons?
Because doing so often make them
vulnerable to motions for inhibition,
if not to administrative charges,
for allegedly being overly lenient with
accused persons.
Why have our judges been reluctant
in the matter of granting bail or
recognizance to accused persons?
Because doing so often make them
vulnerable to motions for inhibition,
if not to administrative charges,
for allegedly being overly lenient with
accused persons.
Why have our judges been reluctant
in the matter of granting bail or
recognizance to accused persons?
Because doing so often made them
vulnerable to motions for inhibition,
if not to administrative charges,
for allegedly being overly lenient with
accused persons.
Why have our judges been reluctant
in the matter of granting bail or
recognizance to accused persons?
Because doing so often made them
vulnerable to motions for inhibition,
if not to administrative charges,
for allegedly being overly lenient with
accused persons.
Why have our judges been reluctant
in the matter of granting bail or
recognizance to accused persons?
Because doing so often made them
vulnerable to motions for inhibition,
if not to administrative charges,
for allegedly being overly lenient with
accused persons.
We need to fully implement the
policies laid down by our laws and rules
respecting the accuseds right to bail
in the context of decongesting our
detention jails
and humanizing the conditions under
which they are detained pending the
hearing of their cases.
We also need to protect our judges by
providing clearer guidance
for the exercise of discretion in
granting bail or recognizance
and by penalizing those who harrass
such judges.
We need to fully implement the
policies laid down by our laws and rules
respecting the accuseds right to bail
in the context of decongesting our
detention jails.
and humanizing the conditions under
which they are detained pending the
hearing of their cases.
We also need to protect our judges by
providing clearer guidance
for the exercise of discretion in
granting bail or recognizance
and by penalizing those who harrass
such judges.
We need to fully implement the
policies laid down by our laws and rules
respecting the accuseds right to bail
in the context of decongesting our
detention jails.
We also need to protect our judges by
providing clearer guidance
for the exercise of discretion in
granting bail or recognizance
and by penalizing those who harrass
such judges.
We need to fully implement the
policies laid down by our laws and rules
respecting the accuseds right to bail
in the context of decongesting our
detention jails.
We also need to protect our judges by
providing clearer guidance
for the exercise of discretion in
granting bail or recognizance
and by penalizing those who harrass
such judges.
We need to fully implement the
policies laid down by our laws and rules
respecting the accuseds right to bail
in the context of decongesting our
detention jails.
We also need to protect our judges by
providing clearer guidance
for the exercise of discretion in
granting bail or recognizance
and by penalizing those who harass
such judges.




1. GUIDELINES
FOR FIXING BAIL
Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail
Bond Guide under the proposed scheme?
Yes. The bail bond guide, fixed and
periodically adjusted by the Department
of Justice,
shall be the beginning point for
determining the amount of bail
that the accused may post for his or
her provisional liberty.
Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail
Bond Guide under the proposed scheme?
No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall
be the beginning point for determining the
amount of bail
that the accused may post for his or
her provisional liberty.
Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail
Bond Guide under the proposed scheme?
No. The DOJ bail bond guide
shall be the beginning point for
determining the amount of bail
that the accused may post for his or
her provisional liberty.
Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail
Bond Guide under the proposed scheme?
No. The DOJ bail bond guide
shall be the beginning point for
determining the amount of bail
that the accused may post for his
provisional liberty.
How will the court itself fix the
amount of bail?
The court shall, after finding
sufficient cause to hold the accused for
trial,
fix the amount of bail that the latter
must post for his provisional release,
taking into account the public
prosecutors recommendation
and any relevant data that the latter
may have submitted.
How will the court itself fix the
amount of bail?
The court shall, after finding
sufficient cause to hold the accused for
trial,
fix the amount of bail that the latter
must post for his provisional release,
taking into account the public
prosecutors recommendation
and any relevant data that the latter
may have submitted.
How will the court itself fix the
amount of bail?
The court shall, after finding
sufficient cause to hold the accused for
trial,
fix the amount of bail taking into
account the public prosecutors
recommendation
and any relevant data that the latter
may have submitted.
How will the court itself fix the
amount of bail?
The court shall, after finding
sufficient cause to hold the accused for
trial,
fix the amount of bail taking into
account the public prosecutors
recommendation,
any relevant data from the
information and its supporting documents,
and the various criteria provided
under the rules.
How will the court itself fix the
amount of bail?
The court shall, after finding
sufficient cause to hold the accused for
trial,
fix the amount of bail taking into
account the public prosecutors
recommendation,
any relevant data from the
information and its supporting documents,
and the various criteria provided
under the rules.
In no case shall the court require
excessive bail
in the context of the accuseds
financial ability.
Bail, whether originally fixed,
reduced, or increased,
may be in the form of cash, property,
or surety bond.
In no case shall the court require
excessive bail
in the context of the accuseds
financial ability.
Pending the raffle of the case to a
regular branch of the court,
the accused may move for the fixing
of the amount of bail,
in which event, the Executive Judge
shall cause the immediate raffle of the
case for the hearing of the motion.
Pending the raffle of the case to a
regular branch of the court,
the accused may move for the fixing
of the amount of bail,
in which event, the Executive Judge
shall cause the immediate raffle of the
case for the hearing of the motion.
Pending the raffle of the case to a
regular branch of the court,
the accused may move for the fixing
of the amount of bail,
in which event, the Executive Judge
shall cause the immediate raffle of the
case for the hearing of the motion.
When may the accused seek
reduction of the amount of bail?
If the accused does not have the
financial ability to post the amount of bail
that the court initially fixed,
he may move for its reduction,
submitting supporting documents or
affidavits.
When may the accused seek
reduction of the amount of bail?
If the accused does not have the
financial ability to post the amount of bail
that the court initially fixed,
he may move for its reduction,
submitting supporting documents or
affidavits.
When may the accused seek
reduction of the amount of bail?
If the accused does not have the
financial ability to post the amount of bail
that the court initially fixed,
he may move for its reduction,
submitting supporting documents or
affidavits.
When may the accused seek
reduction of the amount of bail?
If the accused does not have the
financial ability to post the amount of bail
that the court initially fixed,
he may move for its reduction,
submitting supporting documents or
affidavits.
When may the court increase the
amount of bail?
If the accused lies about his income
and properties
and those of his immediate relatives
or jumps bail and is rearrested
or the risk of flight in his case has
increased,
the court may on motion or motu
proprio
increase the amount of bail for his
provisional release.
When may the court increase the
amount of bail?
If the accused lies about his income
and properties
and those of his immediate relatives
or jumps bail and is rearrested
or the risk of flight in his case has
increased,
the court may on motion or motu
proprio
increase the amount of bail for his
provisional release.
When may the court increase the
amount of bail?
If the accused lies about his income
and properties
or jumps bail and is rearrested
or the risk of flight in his case has
increased.
When may the court increase the
amount of bail?
If the accused lies about his income
and properties
or jumps bail and is rearrested
or the risk of flight in his case has
increased.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
Recognizance is an undertaking of
record
entered by the accused to appear
before the court when required.
The undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental and non-profit organization
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
The undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental and non-profit organization
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?

In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
To relieve the judge of some worries,
by a governmental or non-
governmental and non-profit organization
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
To relieve the judge of some worries,
the undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental and non-profit organization
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
To relieve the judge of some worries,
the undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental entity or organization,
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
To relieve the judge of some worries,
the undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental entity or organization,
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
What is recognizance and who may
undertake it?
In recognizance, the accused
undertakes under oath to appear before
the court when required.
To relieve the judge of some worries,
the undertaking may likewise be
entered on behalf of the accused
by a governmental or non-
governmental entity or organization,
with proven capability of monitoring
his whereabouts
and counselling him on his need to
make such court appearance.
They shall include the barangay unit
in the place where the accused lives,
local church groups, and similar
organizations
that have been pre-qualified by the
Executive Judge
for the purpose of giving
recognizance on behalf of the accused.
They shall include the barangay unit
in the place where the accused lives,
responsible local church groups, and
similar groups
that have been pre-qualified by the
Executive Judge
for the purpose of giving
recognizance on behalf of the accused.
They shall include the barangay unit
in the place where the accused lives,
responsible local church groups, and
similar groups
that have been pre-qualified by the
Executive Judge
for the purpose of giving
recognizance on behalf of the accused.
They shall include the barangay unit
in the place where the accused lives,
responsible local church groups, and
similar groups
that have been pre-qualified by the
Executive Judge
for the purpose of giving
recognizance on behalf of the accused.
They shall include the barangay unit
in the place where the accused lives,
responsible local church groups, and
similar groups
that have been pre-qualified by the
Executive Judge
for the purpose of giving
recognizance on behalf of the accused.
He shall regularly review their
performance and weed out those who fail
to meet the requirements.
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
recognizance shall, upon motion, be
allowed the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He is able to prove his lack of
financial ability to post bail;
(2) He has not been previously
convicted of any crime;
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
recognizance shall, upon motion, be
allowed the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He is able to prove his lack of
financial ability to post bail;
(2) He has not been previously
convicted of any crime;
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
the court may, on motion, grant
recognizance to the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He is able to prove his lack of
financial ability to post bail;
(2) He has not been previously
convicted of any crime;
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
the court may, on motion, grant
recognizance to the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He is able to prove his lack of
financial ability to post bail;
(2) He has not been previously
convicted of any crime;
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
the court may, on motion, grant
recognizance to the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He proves his lack of financial
ability to post bail;
(2) He has not been previously
convicted of any crime;
When may the court release the
accused on recognizance?
Apart from the other instances
provided by law and the rules,
the court may, on motion, grant
recognizance to the accused
who has absolutely no ability to post
any amount of bail, provided:
(1) He proves his lack of financial
ability to post bail;
(2) He has no prior conviction;
(3) He has not been previously
charged twice or more for the same
offense;
(4) He has already been arraigned,
permitting trial to continue even in his
absence;
(5) There exists no report that he has
threatened harm on the complainant or
his family;
(6) He has a confirmed identity and
place of abode; and
(7) There is no clear risk of flight in
his case.
(3) He has not been previously
charged twice or more for the same
offense;
(4) He has already been arraigned,
permitting trial to continue even in his
absence;
(5) There exists no report that he has
threatened harm on the complainant or
his family;
(6) He has a confirmed identity and
place of abode; and
(7) There is no clear risk of flight in
his case.
(3) He has not been previously
charged twice or more for the same
offense;
(4) He has already been arraigned,
permitting trial to continue even in his
absence;
(5) He has not threatened harm on
the complainant or his family;
(6) He has a confirmed identity and
place of abode; and
(7) There is no clear risk of flight in
his case.
(3) He has not been previously
charged twice or more for the same
offense;
(4) He has already been arraigned,
permitting trial to continue even in his
absence;
(5) He has not threatened harm on
the complainant or his family;
(6) He has a confirmed identity and
place of abode; and
(7) There is no clear risk of flight in
his case.
(3) He has not been previously
charged twice or more for the same
offense;
(4) He has already been arraigned,
permitting trial to continue even in his
absence;
(5) He has not threatened harm on
the complainant or his family;
(6) He has a confirmed identity and
place of abode; and
(7) No clear risk of flight exists in his
case.
What is the consequence if the
accused, who is on recognizance, fails to
appear at his hearing?
The accused who fails to appear at
his hearing
or refuses to cooperate with the
entity that provided him with
recognizance
shall be ordered rearrested and
detained
until he posts the required amount of
bail.
What is the consequence if the
accused, who is on recognizance, fails to
appear at his hearing?
The court shall order him rearrested
and detained
until he posts the required amount of
bail.
What is the consequence if the
accused, who is on recognizance, fails to
appear at his hearing?
The court shall order him rearrested
and detained
until he posts the required amount of
bail.
The courts order fixing the amount
of bail or allowing recognizance
need not state the basis for it and
shall not be subject to appeal.
The courts order fixing the amount
of bail or allowing recognizance
need not state the basis for it and
shall not be subject to appeal.
What is the effect of service by the
accused of the minimum imposable
sentence in his case?
The accused who has been detained
for a period at least equal to the minimum
of the penalty for the offense charged
against him
shall be ordered released on motion
and after notice and hearing,
on his own recognizance or of that of
any of the organizations or entities
authorized by this memorandum circular
to provide the same,
without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him.
What is the effect of service by the
accused of the minimum imposable
sentence in his case?
The accused who has been detained
for a period at least equal to the minimum
of the penalty for the offense charged
against him
shall be ordered released on motion
and after notice and hearing,
on his own recognizance or of that of
any of the organizations or entities
authorized by this memorandum circular
to provide the same,
without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him.
What is the effect of service by the
accused of the minimum imposable
sentence in his case?
The accused who has been detained
for a period at least equal to the minimum
of the penalty for the offense charged
against him
shall be ordered released on motion
and after notice and hearing,
on his own recognizance or of that of
any of the organizations or entities
authorized by this memorandum circular
to provide the same,
without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him.
What is the effect of service by the
accused of the minimum imposable
sentence in his case?
The accused who has been detained
for a period at least equal to the minimum
of the penalty for the offense charged
against him
shall be ordered released on motion
and after notice and hearing,
on his own recognizance or of that of
any of the organizations or entities
authorized by this memorandum circular
to provide the same,
without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him.
What is the effect of service by the
accused of the minimum imposable
sentence in his case?
The accused who has been detained
for a period at least equal to the minimum
of the penalty for the offense charged
against him
shall be ordered released on motion
and after notice and hearing,
on his own recognizance or of that of
any of the organizations or entities
authorized by this memorandum circular
to provide the same,
without prejudice to the continuation
of the proceedings against him.
What is the nature of the hearing of
an application for bail in capital offenses?

The hearing of an application for bail
in capital offenses
shall be summary and continuous,
with the prosecution bearing the
burden of showing
that the evidence of guilt in its
possession is strong.
What is the nature of the hearing of
an application for bail in capital offenses?

The hearing of an application for bail
in capital offenses
shall be summary and continuous,
with the prosecution bearing the
burden of showing
that the evidence of guilt in its
possession is strong.
What is the nature of the hearing of
an application for bail in capital offenses?

The hearing of an application for bail
in capital offenses
shall be summary and continuous.
with the prosecution bearing the
burden of showing
that the evidence of guilt in its
possession is strong.
Whose testimonies shall the
prosecution present at that hearing?
The prosecution shall present only its
important witnesses
or those whose testimonies cover the
substance of the crime charged,
such as witnesses who saw the
commission of the crime.
Witnesses attesting to collateral
matters that do not constitute elements
of the crime
need not be presented.
Whose testimonies shall the
prosecution present at that hearing?
Only the testimonies of its important
witnesses
or those whose testimonies cover the
substance of the crime charged,
such as witnesses who saw the
commission of the crime.
Witnesses attesting to collateral
matters that do not constitute elements
of the crime
need not be presented.
Whose testimonies shall the
prosecution present at that hearing?
Only the testimonies of its important
witnesses
or those whose testimonies cover the
substance of the crime charged,
such as witnesses who saw the
commission of the crime.
Witnesses attesting to collateral
matters that do not constitute elements
of the crime
need not be presented.
Whose testimonies shall the
prosecution present at that hearing?
Only the testimonies of its important
witnesses
or those whose testimonies cover the
substance of the crime charged,
such as witnesses who saw the
commission of the crime.
Witnesses attesting to collateral
matters that do not constitute elements
of the crime
need not be presented.
Witnesses on collateral matters that
do not constitute elements of the crime
need not be presented.
The prosecution shall present the
judicial affidavits of these witnesses
in place of their direct testimonies.
Witnesses on collateral matters that
do not constitute elements of the crime
need not be presented.
The prosecution shall present the
judicial affidavits of these witnesses
in place of their direct testimonies.
Witnesses on collateral matters that
do not constitute elements of the crime
need not be presented.
The prosecution shall present the
judicial affidavits of these witnesses
in place of their direct testimonies.
Witnesses on collateral matters that
do not constitute elements of the crime
need not be presented.
The prosecution shall present the
judicial affidavits of these witnesses
in place of their direct testimonies.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
What actions will the court take
during such hearing?
The court will ask questions of the
witnesses
to ascertain the credibility and the
strength of their testimonies,
without prejudice to their being
recalled at the trial for examination by the
parties.
The court shall afterwards hear the
oral arguments of the parties
on whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
The court shall within twenty-four
hours after hearing issue an order,
denying or granting bail.
Apart from stating its finding
that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong or is not strong
based on a provisional assessment of
the evidence so far presented,
the court need not explain its reason
or reasons for such finding.
Its order shall not be appealable.
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with all the requisites of a valid
drugs related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused before he commits the crime (if
this has been doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with all the requisites of a valid
drugs related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused before he commits the crime (if
this has been doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with the requisites of a valid drugs
related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused before he commits the crime (if
this has been doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with the requisites of a valid drugs
related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused before he commits the crime (if
this has been doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with the requisites of a valid drugs
related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused before he commits the crime (if
this has been doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with the requisites of a valid drugs
related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused shortly before he commits the
crime (if this was doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
What is the consequence of failure of
the prosecution
to establish police compliance
with the requisites of a valid drugs
related arrest?

In dangerous drugs cases that
constitute capital offenses,
the public prosecutor shall during the
bail hearing present evidence of
(1) photos or video recordings of the
accused shortly before he commits the
crime (if this was doable),
during its commission, and
afterwards,
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
with sufficient background in the
photos or video for identifying
the place where the crime was
committed
and the police officers involved in his
apprehension;
(2) the preservation of the integrity
of the seized items
and the chain of custody over the
same; and
(3) compliance with the other
requirements of Section 21 of Republic
Act 9165 and established judicial
precedents.
Lacking any of these requirements,
the evidence of guilt shall be deemed
not strong,
warranting the release of the
accused on bail or recognizance pending
the trial of his case.
Lacking any of these requirements,
the evidence of guilt shall be deemed
not strong,
warranting the release of the
accused on bail or recognizance
pending the trial of his case.
Lacking any of these requirements,
the evidence of guilt shall be deemed
not strong,
warranting the release of the
accused on bail or recognizance
pending the trial of his case.
Lacking any of these requirements,
the evidence of guilt shall be deemed
not strong,
warranting the release of the
accused on bail or recognizance
pending the trial of his case.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.
What is the consequence of filing a
frivolous motion for inhibition
or complaint against a judge for
releasing the accused on bail or
recognizance?
A party or his lawyer or both of them
who file a frivolous motion to inhibit
or administrative action against the
judge
for allowing the accused to be
released on bail or recognizance
shall be liable for indirect contempt
of court and accordingly punished.






2. GUIDELINES
FOR SPEEDY TRIAL
What are the set time limits for
prosecuting criminal actions?
The trial court, the public or private
prosecutor, and the defense counsel
must ensure, subject to the excluded
delays specified by law,
compliance with the following time
limits in the prosecution of criminal
cases:
(a) The case of the accused shall be
raffled and assigned within 3 days from
the filing of the information;
What are the set time limits for
prosecuting criminal actions?
(a) The case of the accused shall be
raffled and assigned within 3 days from
the filing of the information;
(b) The court shall arraign the
accused within 10 days from raffle;

What are the set time limits for
prosecuting criminal actions?
(a) The case of the accused shall be
raffled and assigned within 3 days from
the filing of the information;
(b) The court shall arraign the
accused within 10 days from raffle;

What are the set time limits for
prosecuting criminal actions?
(a) The case of the accused shall be
raffled and assigned within 3 days from
the filing of the information;
(b) The court shall arraign the
accused within 10 days from raffle;
(c) The court shall hold the pre-trial
conference within 10 days of arraignment;
(d) But where the direct testimonies
of the witnesses are to be presented
through judicial affidavits,
the court shall give the prosecution
not more than 120 days from arraignment
within which to call its witnesses,
prepare their judicial affidavits,
and submit the same in time for the
pre-trial conference;
(d) But where the direct testimonies
of the witnesses are to be presented
through judicial affidavits,
the court shall give the prosecution
not more than 120 days from arraignment
within which to call its witnesses,
prepare their judicial affidavits,
and submit the same in time for the
pre-trial conference;
(d) But where the direct testimonies
of the witnesses are to be presented
through judicial affidavits,
the court shall give the prosecution
not more than 120 days from arraignment
within which to call its witnesses,
prepare their judicial affidavits,
and submit the same in time for the
pre-trial conference;
(d) But where the direct testimonies
of the witnesses are to be presented
through judicial affidavits,
the court shall give the prosecution
not more than 120 days from arraignment
within which to call its witnesses,
prepare their judicial affidavits,
and submit the same in time for the
pre-trial conference;
(d) But where the direct testimonies
of the witnesses are to be presented
through judicial affidavits,
the court shall give the prosecution
not more than 120 days from arraignment
within which to call its witnesses,
prepare their judicial affidavits,
and submit the same in time for the
pre-trial conference;
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(e) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
both periods reckoned from the date
trial begins,
minus the excluded delays or
postponements specified by law and the
rules
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(e) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
both periods reckoned from the date
trial begins,
minus the excluded delays or
postponements specified by law and the
rules
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(f) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
both periods reckoned from the date
trial begins,
minus the excluded delays or
postponements specified by law and the
rules
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(f) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(f) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
both periods reckoned from the date
trial begins,
(e) After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue a pre-trial order
which shall set the trial of the case
within 30 days from such pre-trial
conference; and
(f) The court shall terminate the trial
within 180 days, in the case of regular
trial,
or within 60 days, in the case of trial
by judicial affidavits,
both periods reckoned from the date
trial begins,
minus the excluded delays or
postponements specified by law and the
rules.
But, even when some of the delays
or postponements are subject to
exclusion,
trial shall be terminated irrespective
of such exclusions within one year from
the time it is set to begin,
minus only the times of delays that
are directly attributable
to any action taken or
postponements sought by the detained
accused in the case.
But, even when some of the delays
or postponements are subject to
exclusion,
trial shall be terminated irrespective
of such exclusions within one year from
the time it is set to begin,
minus only the times of delays that
are directly attributable
to any action taken or
postponements sought by the detained
accused in the case.
But, even when some of the delays
or postponements are subject to
exclusion,
trial shall be terminated irrespective
of such exclusions within one year from
the time it is set to begin,
minus only the times of delays that
are directly attributable
to any action taken or
postponements sought by the detained
accused in the case.
But, even when some of the delays
or postponements are subject to
exclusion,
trial shall be terminated irrespective
of such exclusions within one year from
the time it is set to begin,
minus only the times of delays that
are directly attributable
to any action taken or
postponements sought by the detained
accused in the case.
What is the consequence of failure to
observe these time limits in the
prosecution of criminal cases?
The case against the detained
accused may be dismissed
on ground of denial of the right to
speedy trial.
What is the consequence of failure to
observe these time limits in the
prosecution of criminal cases?
The case against the detained
accused may be dismissed
on ground of denial of the right to
speedy trial.
What is the consequence of failure to
observe these time limits in the
prosecution of criminal cases?
The case against the detained
accused may be dismissed
on ground of denial of the right to
speedy trial.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
When may the court order the
provisional dismissal of criminal cases?
(a) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness
whose whereabouts are unknown or
cannot be determined
and, therefore, are normally regarded
as justified delays,
but which delays have already lasted
more than 180 days from the time trial
was set to begin,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action.
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
also provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
also provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
(b) When the delays are due to the
absence of an essential witness,
whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence
though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall, with the express
consent of the detained accused,
also provisionally dismiss the action
provided:
(1) the hearing in the case has been
previously twice postponed
due to the non-appearance of the
essential witness
and both he and the offended party, if
they are two different persons,
have been given notice of the setting
of the case for third hearing,
which notice contains a warning that
the case would be provisionally
dismissed if the essential witness
continues to be absent; and
(2) there is proof of service of the
pertinent notices of hearings or
subpoenas
upon the essential witness and the
offended party at their last known
postal or email addresses or mobile
phone numbers.
and both he and the offended party, if
they are two different persons,
have been given notice of the setting
of the case for third hearing; and
which notice contains a warning that
the case would be provisionally
dismissed if the essential witness
continues to be absent; and
(2) there is proof of service of the
pertinent notices of hearings or
subpoenas
upon the essential witness and the
offended party at their last known
postal or email addresses or mobile
phone numbers.
and both he and the offended party, if
they are two different persons,
have been given notice of the setting
of the case for third hearing; and
(2) there is proof of service of the
pertinent notices of hearings or
subpoenas
upon the essential witness and the
offended party at their last known
postal or email addresses or mobile
phone numbers.
and both he and the offended party, if
they are two different persons,
have been given notice of the setting
of the case for third hearing; and
(2) there is proof of service of the
pertinent notices of hearings or
subpoenas
upon the essential witness and the
offended party.
(c) For the above purpose, the public
or private prosecutor shall first present
during the trial
the essential witness or witnesses to
the case before anyone else.
An essential witness is one whose
testimony dwells on the presence of some
or all of the elements of the crime
and whose testimony is
indispensable to a conviction of the
accused.
(c) For the above purpose, the public
or private prosecutor shall first present
during the trial
the essential witness or witnesses to
the case before anyone else.
An essential witness is one whose
testimony dwells on the presence of some
or all of the elements of the crime
and whose testimony is
indispensable to a conviction of the
accused.
What is required for the issuance of a
notice of hearing or subpoena?
When requesting the court to issue a
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for
their witnesses,
the parties shall provide the court
with the postal and email addresses and
mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
What is required for the issuance of a
notice of hearing or subpoena?
When requesting the court to issue a
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for
their witnesses,
the parties shall provide the court
with the postal and email addresses and
mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
What is required for the issuance of a
notice of hearing or subpoena?
When requesting the court to issue a
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for
their witnesses,
the parties shall provide the court
with the postal and email addresses and
mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
Proof of service shall be
(1) by a written return, if done by
personal service or registered mail,
(2) by printouts of outgoing or sent
email or short message service if done by
using the courts transmission equipment
or device, or
(3) by reports of the calls made, if
done using the courts transmission
service.
Proof of one form of service is
sufficient.
Proof of service shall be
(1) by a written return, if done by
personal service or registered mail,
(2) by printouts of outgoing or sent
email or short message service if done by
using the courts transmission equipment
or device, or
(3) by reports of the calls made, if
done using the courts transmission
service.
Proof of one form of service is
sufficient.
Proof of service shall be
(1) by a written return, if done by
personal service or registered mail,
(2) by printouts of outgoing or sent
email or short message service if done by
using the courts transmission equipment
or device, or
(3) by reports of the calls made, if
done using the courts transmission
service.
Proof of one form of service is
sufficient.
Proof of service shall be
(1) by a written return, if done by
personal service or registered mail,
(2) by printouts of outgoing or sent
email or short message service if done by
using the courts transmission equipment
or device, or
(3) by reports of the calls made, if
done using the courts transmission
service.
Proof of one form of service is
sufficient.
Proof of service shall be
(1) by a written return, if done by
personal service or registered mail,
(2) by printouts of outgoing or sent
email or short message service if done by
using the courts transmission equipment
or device, or
(3) by reports of the calls made, if
done using the courts transmission
service.
Proof of one form of service is
sufficient.
In cases of police officers whose
testimonies are essential to the
prosecution of the case,
service of the notice of hearing or
subpoena on them
shall be made through the police unit
responsible for the arrest and prosecution
of the accused,
copy furnished the Personnel
Department of the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
In cases of police officers whose
testimonies are essential to the
prosecution of the case,
service of the notice of hearing or
subpoena on them
shall be made through the police unit
responsible for the arrest and prosecution
of the accused,
copy furnished the Personnel
Department of the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
In cases of police officers whose
testimonies are essential to the
prosecution of the case,
service of the notice of hearing or
subpoena on them
shall be made through the police unit
responsible for the arrest and prosecution
of the accused,
copy furnished the Personnel
Department of the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
In cases of police officers whose
testimonies are essential to the
prosecution of the case,
service of the notice of hearing or
subpoena on them
shall be made through the police unit
responsible for the arrest and prosecution
of the accused,
copy furnished the Personnel
Department of the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
It shall be the responsibility of the
head of that police unit
to ensure the transmission of the
notice or subpoena to the addressee.
Service upon the police unit shall be
deemed service upon such police officers.
(e) The court shall cause the service
of a copy of the order of provisional
dismissal upon the offended party in the
manner provided above.
It shall be the responsibility of the
head of that police unit
to ensure the transmission of the
notice or subpoena to the addressee.
Service upon the police unit shall be
deemed service upon such police officers.
(e) The court shall cause the service
of a copy of the order of provisional
dismissal upon the offended party in the
manner provided above.
It shall be the responsibility of the
head of that police unit
to ensure the transmission of the
notice or subpoena to the addressee.
Service upon the police unit shall be
deemed service upon such police officers.
(e) The court shall cause the service
of a copy of the order of provisional
dismissal upon the offended party in the
manner provided above.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
How are reports of government
experts to be treated?
(a) A certified copy of the report of a
government medical, chemical, or
laboratory expert
relating to a criminal case
shall be admissible as prima facie
evidence of the truth of what such report
states,
rendering unnecessary the personal
appearance in court of such expert
unless demanded by the accused for
the purpose of cross examination.
(b) If the report includes a specimen
of the substance, which the government
expert examined, and its container,
both substance and container shall
be sealed in transparent plastic envelope
and attached securely to the report.
(c) The public prosecutor who
presents such certified copy of the report
after officially receiving the same
from the government expert
shall be deemed to warrant its
genuineness and authenticity.
(b) If the report includes a specimen
of the substance, which the government
expert examined, and its container,
both substance and container shall
be sealed in transparent plastic envelope
and attached securely to the report.
(c) The public prosecutor who
presents such certified copy of the report
after officially receiving the same
from the government expert
shall be deemed to warrant its
genuineness and authenticity.
(b) If the report includes a specimen
of the substance, which the government
expert examined, and its container,
both substance and container shall
be sealed in transparent plastic envelope
and attached securely to the report.
(c) The public prosecutor who
presents such certified copy of the report
after officially receiving the same
from the government expert
shall be deemed to warrant its
genuineness and authenticity.
(b) If the report includes a specimen
of the substance, which the government
expert examined, and its container,
both substance and container shall
be sealed in transparent plastic envelope
and attached securely to the report.
(c) The public prosecutor who
presents such certified copy of the report
after officially receiving the same
from the government expert
shall be deemed to warrant its
genuineness and authenticity.
(b) If the report includes a specimen
of the substance, which the government
expert examined, and its container,
both substance and container shall
be sealed in transparent plastic envelope
and attached securely to the report.
(c) The public prosecutor who
presents such certified copy of the report
after officially receiving the same
from the government expert
shall be deemed to warrant its
genuineness and authenticity as he
received it.
These guidelines shall take effect on
January 1, 2013
after its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines
and shall apply to all accused
persons,
including those currently under
detention pending the hearing of their
cases.
These guidelines shall take effect on
January 1, 2013
after its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines
and shall apply to all accused
persons,
including those currently under
detention pending the hearing of their
cases.
These guidelines shall take effect on
January 1, 2013
after its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines
and shall apply to all accused
persons,
including those currently under
detention pending the hearing of their
cases.
These guidelines shall take effect on
January 1, 2013
after its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines
and shall apply to all accused
persons,
including those currently under
detention pending the hearing of their
cases.






THANK YOU!