[A.M. No.

12-8-8-SC, 4 September 2012]

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

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

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be
uniformly referred to here as the court.
Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies . (a) The
parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing
with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and
as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant
in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or
reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or
object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached copy,
reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.
Sec. 3. Contents of Judicial Affidavit. A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known
to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does
so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.
Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn
attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the
witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latters answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
Sec. 5. Subpoena. If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is
neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things
under his control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the
requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in
this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit
shall be understood to be ex parte.
Sec. 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. The party presenting the
judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at
the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or
to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by
placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender
of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.
The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court
shall take active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his
testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.
Sec. 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his
last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object
exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he
offers the particular exhibit.

(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that
exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the
offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Sec. 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before
the 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.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to
the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and
private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2,
3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when
they appear before the court to testify.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. (a) A party who fails to
submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their
submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the
delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party
pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be
deemed to have waived his clients right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before
the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the

opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation
and submission pays a fine of not less than Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of
the court.
Sec. 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. The provisions of the Rules of Court and
the rules of procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to
receive evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Rule.
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
Sec. 12. Effectivity. This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing
cases.
Manila, 4 September 2012.

There are different consequences in case of: (1) failure to file the judicial affidavit; (1) failure to comply
with the prescribed requirements; or (3) absence during the scheduled trial date.

1. Failure to file judicial affidavit

A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have
waived their submission. The Rule allows for an exception, provided the following requirements are
present:
a. It must be with leave of court. The court has the discretion whether to allow it.
b. The delay must be for a valid reason. The Rule does not indicate at what point the late submission is
allowed. The above-quoted provision, which applies to criminal cases, trial starts with the presentation of
the first witness (see Rule 30 of the Rules of Court), which gives the impression that no additional
affidavits or evidence may be allowed upon presentation of the first witness. If this so, will this also apply
to non-criminal cases?
c. It would not unduly prejudice the opposing party. This is quite surprising considering that any additional
evidence naturally favors the presenting party and, therefore, prejudices the other party.

d. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion
of the court.
e. It is availed only once.
This is the general provision and it is not clear whether the exception also applies to criminal cases. The
specific rule for criminal cases provide that: No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence
shall be admitted at the trial. This gives the impression that the exception applies only in criminal cases.

2. Failure to comply with required contents

The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of
Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may, however, allow only once
the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the
delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that
public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than
Pl,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

3. Absence during the scheduled trial date

The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of
the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his clients right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.

The formal offer of documentary or object evidence shall be made upon the termination of the testimony
of a partys last witness. This obviously means that this is done when a party rests its case, and not every
time the testimony of each witness is terminated.
The formal offer is made orally in open court, which shows an obvious intent to do away with the option of
filing a written formal offer of evidence allowed under existing rules. A party shall immediately make an
oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order,
stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.
After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any,
to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offer of evidence, the
objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
There is no need for a judicial affidavit if the witness is called to testify through a subpoena. If the
government employee or official, or the requested witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial
affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may
avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules
of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as
when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex parte.
On the other hand, this provision expressly applies to requested witnesses who are neither the witness of
the adverse party nor a hostile witness. Whats the reason for the exclusion? What rule should apply?
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the
exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.
In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well
as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

How should the party presenting the witness identify and mark
documentary evidence?
The parties documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and
marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2,
3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.

How can the party or witness keep the original of the

documentary or object evidence?
Litigants and witnesses, for good reasons, often prefer to keep the original of the document that is to be
presented in and submitted to the court. The Rule provides for the following procedure:
1. Attach the document or evidence to the judicial affidavit of the witness/es. This must be done
obviously before the pre-trial conference or the hearing. This is done by attaching the photocopy of the
document, or the reproduction or photograph of the object evidence. The Rule provides that should a

party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he may,
after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit
that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original.
2. Bring the original during the pre-trial or preliminary conference. This is required under pre-trial
rules, so the document may be preliminarily marked as evidence and compared with the original, if
needed. The Rule provides that the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence
for comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing
which the latter shall not be admitted. As provided under pre-trial rules and reiterated in the Rule,
evidence not pre-marked shall not be admissible as evidence. The Rule indicates that the pre-marking is
done by the parties themselves, not the clerk of court as provided in the existing pre-trial rules. If so, the
requirement of preliminary conference under Circular No. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines to be
Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and use of DepositionDiscovery Measures), which is conducted before the pretrial conference for the purpose of pre-marking
documents before the clerk of court, should be dispensed with and revised/deleted from the rules of
procedure to avoid surplusage.
Nevertheless, there may be an instance when a party would subsequently want to retain an original
previously attached to the judicial affidavit. The Rule does not provide for the procedure in such case. It is
recommended that if the party attached the original to the judicial affidavit and would want to retain
possession of that original document, the party must, during the presentation of the witness, request that
the copy be compared to the original, request for a stipulation that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the
original, and request that the marking be transferred to the copy.
Under the Rules of Court, as regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the
witness is called to testify (Rule 132, Sec. 34). The Rule, on the other hand, provides that party
presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such
testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. This provision, in relation to the enumerated
required contents of an affidavit, means that the purpose is NOT required to be indicated in the judicial
affidavit. Some judges nevertheless require that the purpose be stated in the judicial affidavit, a practice
unilaterally resorted by some lawyers for convenience.

How does the opposing party make objections?

Objection to a witness may take the form of: (a) a disqualification from testifying; or (b) to a specific
question raised. Under the Rules of Court, objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral

examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36). The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his
affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the
initials of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section
40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
The judicial affidavit shall contain the following:
1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and
the place where the examination is being held;
3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:
(i) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies;
(ii) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
(iii) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity in accordance
with the Rules of Court;
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;
6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized
by law to administer the same.
7. Attestation of the lawyer.

What is a jurat?
A jurat, which is different from an acknowledgment as defined under the Rules on Notarial Practice,
refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public
and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the

notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument
or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as
to such instrument or document. (Rule 2, Sec. 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13SC)
It is important to note the strict requirement that, in the execution of the jurat, the requisite competent
evidence of identity must include at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.
For purposes of comparison, acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument
or document; (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by the notarial rules; and (c) represents to the notary
public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes
stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the
authority to sign in that capacity.

What is the sworn attestation of the lawyer?

One of the problems with the Rule is the fact that judges only have limited opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses.
Moreover, even if lawyers briefed the witness, the oral answer given by the witness during direct
examination is almost wholly dependent on the witness. This is no longer true under this Rule because
the lawyer prepares the judicial affidavit which takes the place of the direct testimony.
Thus, it is now required that the judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by
the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers
that the witness gave; and
2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latters answers.

To put teeth to this prohibition, the Rule provides that a false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment. There is no requirement that the lawyer who
prepared the judicial affidavit must be the one to present the witness in court.

What language should be used in the affidavit?

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
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 pretrial 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.

Can you submit amended or supplemental affidavits?

There may be instances when it is necessary to execute a supplemental or amended affidavit, like in the
case of newly-discovered evidence. Is this allowed and, if so, how should it be done?

What is the scope of application of this 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.
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.