Have a blessed Holy Week.

Please note that we have already discussed topics in Session 23, 24, 25, and 26. We are
going to continue with Judicial Ethics on April 6.... I will no longer meet the class on March 30
and April 1.

Find attached these documents which are basic reading for the sessions done and in
preparation for Session 29 and 30 which I will begin to discuss the next time we meet on
April 6.

Introduction to and Discussion on the Judicial Affidavit Rule

On 4 September 2012, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC [full text], approving
theJUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE. The Rule, which is intended to expedite court proceedings,
is new and far from complete, necessitating an extensive discussion to thresh out various
issues. Lawyers could keep their observations to themselves and hope that the other party
commits a mistake, most likely gaining an edge by reason of technicality. Still, considering
that the unstated purpose of the Rule is to ferret out the truth in coming out with a decision
based on the merits, and not on mere technicality, it would be helpful to start an open
discussion to pick the brains of the legal-minded crowd.

I prepared a summary and an initial discussion of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, posted here.
Each topic is contained in a separate post for better presentation/organization. Lumping all
topics in a single post would lead to confusion because it would take more effort to correlate
a comment to the particular portion of the whole discussion. A single-topic post would mean
that all comments pertain only to that specific topic. You are most welcome to disagree with
fellow participants in the discussion, but express the disagreement with the requisite degree
of respect that befits a fellow member of the profession.

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

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.

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.

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?

Required contents of a judicial affidavit under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

The judicial affidavit shall contain the following:

1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;

3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that
he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:

(i) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;

(ii) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and

(iii) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity
in accordance with the Rules of Court;

5. The signature of the witness over his printed name;

6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who
is authorized by law to administer the same.
7. Attestation of the lawyer.

What is a jurat?
A jurat, which is different from an acknowledgment as defined under the Rules on Notarial
Practice, refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person
before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to
the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity
as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document. (Rule 2, Sec. 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)

It is important to note the strict requirement that, in the execution of the jurat, the requisite
competent evidence of identity must include at least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual.

For purposes of comparison, acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a

single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally
complete instrument or document; (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary
public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined
by the notarial rules; and (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the
instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the
instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his
free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that
he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

What is the sworn attestation of the lawyer?

One of the problems with the Rule is the fact that judges only have limited opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

Moreover, even if lawyers briefed the witness, the oral answer given by the witness during
direct examination is almost wholly dependent on the witness. This is no longer true under
this Rule because the lawyer prepares the judicial affidavit which takes the place of the
direct testimony.

Thus, it is now required that the judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end,
executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the
effect that:
1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and

2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the 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.

Offer of Testimony and Objections under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

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.

Documentary and Object Evidence under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

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

How can the party or witness keep the original of the documentary or
object evidence?
Litigants and witnesses, for good reasons, often prefer to keep the original of the document
that is to be presented in and submitted to the court. The Rule provides for the following
procedure:

1. Attach the document or evidence to the judicial affidavit of the witness/es. This
must be done obviously before the pre-trial conference or the hearing. This is done by
attaching the photocopy of the document, or the reproduction or photograph of the object
evidence. The Rule provides that should a party or a witness desire to keep the original
document or object evidence in his possession, he may, after the same has been identified,
marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original.

2. Bring the original during the pre-trial or preliminary conference. This is required
under pre-trial rules, so the document may be preliminarily marked as evidence and
compared with the original, if needed. The Rule provides that the party or witness shall
bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall
not be admitted. As provided under pre-trial rules and reiterated in the Rule, evidence not
pre-marked shall not be admissible as evidence. The Rule indicates that the pre-marking is
done by the parties themselves, not the clerk of court as provided in the existing pre-trial
rules. If so, the requirement of preliminary conference under Circular No. A.M. No. 03-1-09-
SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of
Pre-Trial and use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), which is conducted before the pretrial
conference for the purpose of pre-marking documents before the clerk of court, should be
dispensed with and revised/deleted from the rules of procedure to avoid surplusage.

Nevertheless, there may be an instance when a party would subsequently want to retain an
original previously attached to the judicial affidavit. The Rule does not provide for the
procedure in such case. It is recommended that if the party attached the original to the
judicial affidavit and would want to retain possession of that original document, the party
must, during the presentation of the witness, request that the copy be compared to the
original, request for a stipulation that the copy is a faithful reproduction of the original, and
request that the marking be transferred to the copy.

Cross-examination and Re-Direct Examination under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the
witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the
answers that it needs for resolving the issues.

Resort to subpoena under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

There is no need for a judicial affidavit if the witness is called to testify through a subpoena.
If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, unjustifiably declines to
execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for copying, authentication, and
eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a
subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when
taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be
ex parte.

On the other hand, this provision expressly applies to requested witnesses who are neither
the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness. Whats the reason for the exclusion?
What rule should apply?

Formal offer of evidence and objections under the Judicial Affidavit Rule

The formal offer of documentary or object evidence shall be made upon the termination of
the testimony of a 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.

Effects of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule

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

1. Failure to file judicial affidavit

A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be
deemed to have waived their submission. The Rule allows for an exception, provided the
following requirements are present:

a. It must be with leave of court. The court has the discretion whether to allow it.

b. The delay must be for a valid reason. The Rule does not indicate at what point the late
submission is allowed. The above-quoted provision, which applies to criminal cases, trial
starts with the presentation of the first witness (see Rule 30 of the Rules of Court), which
gives the impression that no additional affidavits or evidence may be allowed upon
presentation of the first witness. If this so, will this also apply to non-criminal cases?

c. It would not unduly prejudice the opposing party. This is quite surprising considering that
any additional evidence naturally favors the presenting party and, therefore, prejudices the
other party.

d. The defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at
the discretion of the court.

e. It is availed only once.

This is the general provision and it is not clear whether the exception also applies to criminal
cases. The specific rule for criminal cases provide that: No further judicial affidavit,
documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial. This gives the impression
that the exception applies only in criminal cases.

2. Failure to comply with required contents

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

3. Absence during the scheduled trial date

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

What is the Judicial Affidavit Rule?

The Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), promulgated on September 4, 2012 and
made effective on January 1, 2013, is a procedural innovation which has the ultimate aim of
decongesting court dockets by replacing the direct testimony of parties and witnesses in
court with sworn affidavits submitted to the court and furnished to the opposing party not
later than 5 days before the pre-trial, preliminary conference, or the scheduled hearing with
respect to motions and incidents.
The JA is not a pleading nor is it a motion.
NOTE: The JA of the main parties are not being marked as exhibits. However, JAs of other
witnesses may be marked as exhibits (this is more for convenience, though not in the Rules
may be subject to further clarifications by the SC).
How will this decongest the court dockets?
 According to a study recognized by the Supreme Court, direct testimonies in court take a
large chunk of court proceedings. Based on pilot testing done in Quezon City courts,
replacing direct testimony with judicial affidavit will reduce about two-thirds of the time spent
in adjudicating cases. This speeds up the disposition of cases in court.
Whats wrong with the direct testimony?
Justice Abad says that the direct testimony is the bottleneck (chokepoint) of the system.
Court can only hear one witness at a time (piecemeal trial). A witnesss presentation of his
testimony takes a while. Witnesses often state their testimonies in the vernacular which
means the same has to be translated to English as required by existing rules (double
testimony).
Add to this are the objections, especially unnecessary ones, being raised by the adverse
party during the direct testimony which can be dispensed with by the implementation of the
JAR.
Functions of the Judicial Affidavit

1. Take the place of direct testimonies

2. Identify and authenticate documentary or object evidence in the case

Scope of the rule

As to kinds of cases:
All actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence. Except: small
claims cases falling under A.M. 08-8-7-SC.
For criminal cases:
1. Those which the maximum penalty imposable does not exceed 6 years;
2. To their civil aspect, regardless of penalty imposed;
3. In any case where the accused agrees to the use of the rule.
As to courts:

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 the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

Service and filing

Period to file:
Not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled
hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
According to some legal pundits, this effectively amends the existing rules. Under existing
rules, the pre-trial brief (PTB) must be submitted not later than 3 days before the pre-trial.
But since the general practice was to attach the JA to the PTB, then that also means that
the PTB must be filed with the court in the same period as the JA.
Second view: Nowhere in the JAR does it say that the JA must be attached to the PTB. So
no amendment.
Modes of filing and service to other party:

1. Personal service;

2. Licensed courier service

NOTE: No mention of service by registered mail. Also, licensed courier service not well
defined by the Rules.
Formalities:
Written in the language known to the witness. If not in English or Filipino, a translation must
be attached.
Contents of the Judicial Affidavit in general:

1. Personal circumstance of the witness;

2. Identity of the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness
including the lawyers address;

3. The place where the examination was held;

4. A statement that the witness answered the questions under oath and that the witness
is aware that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

5. 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 by the examining/supervising lawyer.

Contents of the Judicial Affidavit proper:

1. Numbered questions and answers, showing personal knowledge of the facts that the
witness is testifying on;

2. Questions and answers that elicit facts relevant to the issues;

3. Questions and answers that identify the attached documentary and object evidence
and establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Contents of the Attestation by the Examining/Supervising lawyer:

1. That he faithfully recorded or caused the recording of the questions he asked and
the corresponding answers that the witness gave;

2. Neither he nor any person then present coached the witness regarding his answers;

3. 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.

NOTE: A false attestation will subject the erring lawyer to disciplinary actions or even
disbarment.
Resort to Subpoena ad testificandum
A party may ask the court to issue a subpoena ad testificandum against an uncooperative
witness. An uncooperative witness is one who unjustifiably refuses to execute a JA or
 refuses without just cause to make relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court.
Except: No JA may be required against the adverse party or a hostile witness who refuse to
execute a JA for the other party. This is because JA is not required in this case since they
can be queried with leading questions as in cross. In this instance, follow rules of discovery
on taking witnesss deposition, but this is ex-parte.
Remedies if inadmissible evidence is introduced through the JA by one party
The other party may:

1. Move to disqualify the witness;

2. Move to strike out the said witnesss judicial affidavit;

3. Move to strike out the particular portion/ answer of the JA.

In number 3, if granted by the court, the excluded portion shall be enclosed in brackets with
the initials of an authorized court personnel.
Example:
Question 21: Do you know who stole the wallet of Petra Saavedra?
Answer 21: Yes.
Question 22: Who?
Answer 22: Pedro Penduko sir.
[Question 23: How did you know?
Answer 23: Because Anna Montana told me sir.] HYC
Question 24: And who is this Anna Montana?
Answer 24: My girlfriend sir.
Remedy of a party whose JA or a portion thereof or an evidence introduced therein is
excluded
Tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Offer of Testimony
Rule: Counsel shall state the purpose of the JA at the start of the presentation of the
witness. It does not say that the such purpose must be stated in the JA itself.
 In actual practice and for convenience, the purpose of the JA as well as the purpose/s of the
evidence introduced therein are stated in the JA itself.
Offer of Evidence (Documentary and Object)
After presenting the last witness (on either side), counsel must ORALLY offer evidence. In
practice though, judges, on discretion, may still allow a written offer of evidence.
After terminating the testimony of his last witness, counsel makes the oral offer of evidence
through the following:
1. Make an oral offer of evidence;
2. Piece by piece, in their chronological order stating the purpose/s for which he offers the
particular exhibit;
3. 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 dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Objections to Evidence (Documentary and Object)
After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection to it, if any. The piece of evidence in point may be referred to by its marking.
The court shall then immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit. In ruling, the court
may also refer to that particular evidence by its marking.
Application to criminal cases
This rule is applicable to criminal cases in the following respect:
1. Those which the maximum penalty imposable does not exceed 6 years;
2. To their civil aspect, regardless of penalty imposed;
3. In any case where the accused agrees to the use of the rule.
NOTE: The application of the JAR is suspended as far as criminal cases is concerned due
to lack of manpower in the prosecution service. Initially, the suspension was only until
December 31, 2013 but on December 10, 2013, the Supreme Court resolved to extend the
suspension until December 31, 2014. This resolution was made public on January 2, 2014.
Rule in criminal cases is different:

1. The prosecution shall submit the JA of his witnesses not later than five (5) days
before the pre-trial the accused shall likewise be furnished a copy within the same period;

2. Once the JA is received, no further JA or evidence (object or documentary) may be

admitted at the trial;
3. On the part of the accused, it is optional for him to submit a JA. If he chooses to
submit a JA, then he has 10 (ten) days from receipt of the prosecutions JA/s within which to
submit his own JA copies to be furnished by the accused to the prosecutors (private and
public). This is in keeping with the accuseds right to remain silent. Also, if the prosecution
evidence is weak, then theres no need for him to present his evidence via the JA.

NOTE: The filing and service of JA in all cases except criminal cases is more or less
simultaneous considering the period of filing and service. In criminal cases, the prosecution
has to file and serve its JA/s before the accused does, if the latter chooses to.
Effect of Failure to Submit a Judicial Affidavit
The defaulting party is deemed to have waived his right to make a submission;
Exception:
He may be given one last chance to submit his JA if:
1. If the delay or non-submission is due to valid reasons;
2. The granting of the second chance will not unduly prejudice the opposing party;
3. The defaulting party pays a fine ranging from P1,000.00 to P5,000.00 at the discretion of
the court.
Effect of submitting non-compliant Judicial Affidavits
NOTE: A judicial affidavit is non-compliant if it does not conform to the content requirements
provided for by the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
They are inadmissible.
Except:
The party may rectify this error by submitting a compliant Judicial Affidavit before the
hearing or trial, provided:
1. The error was due to a valid reason;
2. The granting of the chance to submit a compliant JA would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party;
3. The erring prosecutor (private or public) shall pay a fine ranging from P1,000.00 to
P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
Effect of the absence of the witness at the scheduled hearing
Court shall not consider the affidavit of the absent witness because of the hearsay rule.
Except: If absence is due to valid cause/s.
Effect of the absence of the counsel at the scheduled hearing
Right to cross-examine is deemed waived.
Except: If absence is due to valid cause/s.
Applicability to pending cases
Rule: The JAR is applicable to pending cases.
If the case has already undergone pre-trial, the JAR is still applicable to the remaining
testimonies. Such remaining testimonies shall be heard via judicial affidavits.

The Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC)

Recognizing that the judiciary uses excessive quantities of costly paper (for the purpose of
saving trees, conserving precious water and helping mother earth), the Supreme Court
issued theEfficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC; see full text). This Rule, which
took effect on 1 January 2013, prescribes the format of pleadings, motions and documents
filed in courts.

Format and Style

a) All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial bodys
consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall written in single space with one-and-a
half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the partys choice, of
14-size font, and on a 13 inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and

b) All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with these requirements.
Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts and transcripts of stenographic
notes.

Margins and Prints

The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand
margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right
hand margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge.

Every page must be consecutively numbered.

Copies to be filed
Unless otherwise directed by the court, the number of court- bound papers that a party is
required or desires to file shall be as follows:

a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is
referred to the Court En Banc, in which event, the parties shall file ten additional copies. For
the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two sets of annexes, one attached to the
original and an extra copy. For the Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of
annexes, one attached to the original and an extra copy. All members of the Court shall
share the extra copies of annexes in the interest of economy of paper.

Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the
first six months following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the
period is extended, to submit, simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies of
the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by email to the Courts e-mail
address or by compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for the eventual
establishment of an e-filing paperless system in the judiciary.

b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original (properly marked) and two
copies with their annexes;

c. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly marked) and two copies with annexes.
On appeal to the En Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight copies with annexes;
and

d. In other courts, one original (properly marked) with the stated annexes attached to it.

Annexes Served on Adverse Party

A party required by the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound on the adverse party need
not enclose copies of those annexes that based on the record of the court such party already
has in his possession. In the event a party requests a set of the annexes actually filed with
the court, the part who filed the paper shall comply with the request within five days from
receipt.

Applicability
This Rule applies to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision
of the Supreme Court.

The Rule, however, is silent on the effect/s of failure to comply with the requirements.
SC Establishes E-Mail Address for E-Filing and Other Requirements for
Efficient Use of Paper
Posted: December 29, 2012; By Gleo Sp. Guerra

In preparation for the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless system in the Judiciary, the Supreme Court,
through its Management Information System Office, has set up the e-mail address efile@sc.judiciary.gov.ph.

This is pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (AM No. 11-9-4-SC, November 13, 2012) which takes
effect on January 1, 2013 after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation. In promulgating this Rule, the
Court noted the need to cut the judicial systems use of excessive quantities of costly paper, save the forests, avoid
landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change.

E-filing, under the Rule, requires parties before the Supreme Court to submit, simultaneously with their court-bound
papers, soft copies of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by e-mail to the Courts e-mail
address or by compact disc (CD). E-filing will, initially, be ona voluntary basis for the first six months following the
effectivity of the Rule. Thereafter, it shall be compulsory, unless six-month voluntary period is extended. For efficient
use of paper, the Rule also requires that all pleadings, motions, and similar papers intended for the consideration of
all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the supervision of the Supreme Court must be written in single space with a
one-and-a-half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the partys choice, of 14-size font, and
on a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bond paper. The same requirements apply to all decisions, resolutions, and orders
issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court, as well as
reports submitted to the courts and transcripts of stenographic notes.

All court-bound papers to be submitted by every party shall likewise maintain a left hand margin of 1.5 inches from
the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of one inch from the edge; and a lower
margin of one inch from the edge. Every page must be consecutively numbered.

The Rule specifies the number of copies of court-bound papers in a particular court that a party is required or desires
to file unless otherwise directed by the court. In the Supreme Court for instance, parties are required to file one
original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is referred to the Court En Banc, in which event, the
parties shall file 10 additional copies. For the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two sets of annexes, one
attached to the original and one extra copy. For the Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of annexes, one
attached to the original, as well as an extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra copies of annexes in
the interest of economy of paper.