Effectivity and Purpose of the Judicial Affidavit Rule

The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness, which is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the
party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to the usual mode of
cross-examination.
When is the Rule effective?
The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal cases without private prosecutors, the Supreme Court allowed
public prosecutors in first- and second-level courts until the end of 2013 to utilize the affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses prepared and submitted in connection with the investigation and filing of the Information in court. Public
prosecutors are required to fully comply with the Rule by 1 January 2014.
During the one-year period when the concession is in effect, the attending public prosecutor, upon presenting the witness,
shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement contains and may only ask the witness additional direct
examination questions that have not been amply covered by the sworn statement.
The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the private complainant is represented by a duly empowered private
prosecutor, who has the obligation to comply with the Rule.
The reasons for the issuance of the Rule
Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and the slow and
cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place. About 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to
the fact that complainants simply give up coming to court after repeated postponements. Few foreign businessmen make
long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their
investments, keeping its people poor.
In order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on 21 February 2012
the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the
direct testimonies of witnesses. It is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time
used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases. The adoption of the
Rule hopes to replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits.
These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are contained in the whereas clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
Scope of Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
The applicability of this rule may refer to:
(a) the courts where the rule will apply;
(b) the kinds of cases or proceedings where the rule will apply;
(c) the stage of the proceeding.
Type of cases
This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence. However, the Rule shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC.
The Rule may apply to criminal cases in three situations, as follows:
(1) The maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) regardless of the penalty involved, with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, or where the accused agrees to the use
of the Rule.
Courts where the Rule are applicable
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
2. Sharia Circuit Courts, Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Appellate Courts.
3. Regional Trial Courts.
4. Sandiganbayan.
5. Court of Tax Appeals.
6. Court of Appeals.
7. Investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the
Philippine (IBP).

8. Special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar
as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule.
Service and filing of the Judicial Affidavit
The parties shall serve on the adverse party and file with the court not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
This Rule amends the existing minimum period, which is three days, for the service and filing of the pre-trial brief. Under the
new Rule, considering that the judicial affidavit must be attached to the pre-trial brief, the latter must be served and filed
within five days.
Service and filing of the judicial affidavit in criminal cases
This is the only portion of the Rule that provides a separate provision for criminal cases, veering from the simultaneous filing
of judicial affidavits by the parties. The general rule is reiterated, but this time applicable only to the prosecution, to submit
the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the
accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may
have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be
admitted at the trial.
If the accused, on the other hand, desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution,
he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days from
receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object
evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and
his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.
It is interesting to note that only the paragraph applicable to the prosecution contains the provision that: No further judicial
affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial. Does this mean that the accused is covered by the
general rule, which allows the late filing of the affidavit?
How is the service/filing done?
The Rule specifies only two manners of service or filing of the affidavit: by personal service or by licensed courier service. It is
interesting that there is no express mention of registered mail and it is logical that the term courier service does not refer
to, and does not include, registered mail. The purpose of the Rule is to expedite cases and there can be no reliance on the
presumptive receipt by reason of registered mail.
There is no overriding reason why registered mail should be removed as a manner of service/filing. A party could send the
judicial affidavit way in advance by registered mail. It is the partys lookout if the other party or court indeed received the
judicial affidavit within the prescribed period.
Another minor issue is when is a courier service considered licensed? The rule is not clear whether a separate license or
accreditation for courier service providers on top of the SEC registration. It appears that other than the usual government
registration, there is no need for separate Supreme Court accreditation.
These issues can be dispensed with by deleting the portion providing for personal service or by courier. This is surplusage.
The intent of the Rule is to ENSURE receipt of the judicial affidavit by the court and other party at least five days before the
pre-trial or hearing, and the Rule can simply so provide, just like in pre-trial rules.