11. It takes 3 to 5 years, at times more,
for cases to be heard and decided,
12. …inflicting a sense of hopelessness over
the justice system that you and I serve.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. … Victims of crimes find no speedy justice
in our courts.
18. Few foreign businessmen make long-
term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide
protection to their investments.
19. Few foreign businessmen make long-
term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide
protection to their investments.
20. Result: we do not attain economic
growth;
our people remain poor.
21. Result: we do not attain economic
growth;
our people remain poor.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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?
33. 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?
34. The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story…
the witness stand.
35. The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story…
AT THE WITNESS STAND.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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,
39. 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,
40. 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,
41. 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,
43. those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed,
with only three witnesses getting in on an
ordinary hearing day.
44. those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed,
with only three witnesses able to get in
to testify in one day.
45. Why is our system for hearing
witnesses slow and cumbersome?
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. the court has to hear the testimony
of every witness twice.
50. How old is our system for hearing and
deciding cases?
51. How old is our system for hearing and
deciding cases?
The Americans gave it to us over a
hundred years ago.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. The American system is adversarial.
The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide what evidence the
judge will hear.
60. Although he will decide the case,
but he is doomed to sit back and
listen.
61. Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and
listen,
62. Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and
listen,
allowed to ask only clarificatory
questions of the witness.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Why?
Because our borrowed rules require
our judge to pre-screen the questions
to prevent that non-existent jury from
hearing inadmissible answers.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Another cause of delay is the often
indiscriminate objections to the questions
asked of the witness. ++
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
89. Another point of delay is the need to
identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits.
The process is tedious and painfully
time consuming. ++
90. Another point of delay is the need to
identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits.
The process is tedious and painfully
time consuming.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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,
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. 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.
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. 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
115. 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
116. 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.
117. 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?
118. 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?
119. 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?
120. 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.
121. 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.
122. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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
128. 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
129. 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
130. 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
131. 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
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. 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.
137. 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.
138. 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.
139. 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.
140. 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.
141. 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.
142. 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.
143. 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.)
144. 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.)
145. 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.)
146. 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.)
147. 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
148. 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
149. 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
150. 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,
151. 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
152. 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.
153. 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.”
154. 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.”
155. 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.
156. 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.
157. 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.
158. 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
159. 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.
160. (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.
161. (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.
162. (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.
163. (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.
164. (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.
165. (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.
166. 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.
167. 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.
168. 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.
169. 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.
170. 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.
171. 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.
172. 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.
173. 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
174. What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
175. What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
176. What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
177. What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
178. Is this requirement unreasonable?
No. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyer’s 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?
179. Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyer’s 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?
180. 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?
181. 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?
182. 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?
183. 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?
184. 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?
185. 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,
186. 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,
187. 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,
188. 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,
189. 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,
190. 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
191. 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.
192. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.
No judicial affidavit is required for
the adverse party or hostile witness
193. 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.
194. 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.
195. 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.
196. 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.
197.
198. 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.
199. 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.
200. 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.
201. 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.
202. 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 party’s purpose for presenting
such testimony.
203. 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.
204. 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.
205. 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.
206. 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.
207. 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.
208. 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.
209. 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 son’s 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.
210. 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.
211. 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.
212. 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.
213. 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.
214. 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.
215. 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.
216. 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.
217. 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.
218. 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.
219. 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
220. 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
221. 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
222. 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
223. 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.
224. 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.
225. 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.
226. 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.
227. 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.
228. 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,
229. 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,
230. 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,
231. 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,
232. 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,
233. 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.
234. 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.
235. 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.
236. 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.
237. 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.
238. 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.
239. 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 court’s search for truth.
240. 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 court’s search for truth.
241. 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.
242. 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.
243. 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.
244. 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.
245. 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.
246. 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.
247. 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.
248. 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.
249. 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.
250. 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.
251. 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.
252. 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.
254. 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.
255. 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.
256. 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.
257. 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.
258. 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.
259. 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.
260. 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.
261. 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.
262. 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.
263. 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.
264. 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.
265. 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.
266. 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.
267. 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.
268. 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,
269. 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,
270. 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,
271. 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,
272. 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.
273. 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.
274. 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.
275. 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.
276. 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.
277. 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.
278. 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.
279. 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.
280. 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.
281. 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.
282. 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.
283.
284. 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
client’s right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
285. 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
client’s right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
286. 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
client’s right
to confront by cross examination the
witnesses there present.
287. 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
client’s right to cross examine.
288. 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
289. 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
290. 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
291. 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
292. 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
293. 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
294. 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
295. 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
296. 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
297. 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
301. 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.
302. 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.
303. 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.
304. 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.
305. 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.
306. 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.
308. 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.”
309. 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.
310. 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.”