CREATING NEW SYSTEMS
FOR HEARING AND
DECIDING CASES WITH
FAIRNESS AND DISPATCH
Would you know how many of our people live in crowded cities?
75% of our people live in crowded cities.
With so many living in these cities,
Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.
Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases;
some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.
Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.
Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases.
Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus.
Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.
It takes 3 to 5 years, at times more, for cases to be heard and decided,
…inflicting a sense of hopelessness over the justice system that you and I serve.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.
Because of case congestion, most
hearings are postponed almost under any pretext,
prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court.
As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.
… Victims of crimes find no speedy justice in our courts.
Few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide protection to their investments.
Few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in our country
because our courts cannot provide protection to their investments.
Result: we do not attain economic growth;
Result: we do not attain economic growth;
our people remain poor.
Because people have lost trust in our ability to render justice,
many have given up coming to court with their disputes.
They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere.
And when the justice system does not work as it should,
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,
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,
or find “just“ solutions elsewhere.
:
What causes these terrible delays in our justice system?
What causes these terrible delays in our justice system?
Prosecutors and public attorneys are few.
Recently, the Supreme Court has introduced a very significant systems change.
One of the major causes of delays is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of witnesses.
The witness stand represents the bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has introduced a very significant systems change.
One of the major causes of delays is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of witnesses.
The witness stand represents the bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has introduced a very significant systems change.
One of the major causes of delays is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
more specifically, our antiquated system for taking the testimonies of witnesses
and receiving documentary and object evidence.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in the system?
Recently, the Supreme Court has introduced a very significant systems change.
One of the major causes of delays is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in this system?
The bottleneck is where this lady tells her story…
The bottleneck is where this lady tells her story…
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to be called in courts that have 1,000 cases in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the courtroom,
they would form a very long line indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to be called in courts that have 1,000 cases in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the courtroom,
they would form a very long line indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your dockets
and just two witnesses for each case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your dockets
and just two witnesses for each case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your dockets
and just two witnesses for each case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your dockets
and just two witnesses for each case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the courtroom,
those 2,000 witnesses would form a very long line indeed.
those 2,000 witnesses would form a very long line indeed,
with only three witnesses getting in on an ordinary hearing day.
those 2,000 witnesses would form a very long line indeed,
with only three witnesses able to get in to testify in one day.
Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome?
Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
we require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English.
Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
our rules require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English.
Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome?
For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect,
our rules require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English.
Since the trial takes place in two languages,
the court has to hear the testimony of every witness twice.
the court has to hear the testimony of every witness twice.
How old is our system for hearing and deciding cases?
How old is our system for hearing and deciding cases?
The Americans gave it to us over a hundred years ago.
It was unique to their history and culture,
yet we adopted it and were taught in law schools
that there is no right way to hear the testimonies of witnesses
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
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
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
The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide which witness the judge will hear
The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide what evidence the judge will hear.
The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the
proceedings
since they decide what evidence the judge will hear.
Although he will decide the case,
but he is doomed to sit back and listen.
Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and listen,
Although he will decide the case,
the judge is doomed to sit back and listen,
allowed to ask only clarificatory questions of the witness.
The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials.
Result: using their system, we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.
The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.
The American system is also
designed for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.
Why?
Because the rules we adopted require our judge to pre-screens the questions
to prevent an unlearned jury from hearing inadmissible answers.
But this is pointless since the jury in our court is the judge himself.
With his legal training and experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears them.
Why?
Because our borrowed rules require our judge to pre-screen the questions
to prevent an unlearned jury from hearing inadmissible answers.
But this is pointless since the jury in our court is the judge himself.
With his legal training and experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears them.
Why?
Because our borrowed rules require our judge to pre-screen the questions
to prevent that non-existent jury from hearing inadmissible answers.
But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge
does not need to pre-screen the questions for himself.
With his legal training and experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears them.
But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge
does not need to protect himself from hearing inadmissible evidence.
With his legal training and experience,
he has no difficulty disregarding
inadmissible answers even after he hears them.
But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge
does not need to protect himself from hearing inadmissible evidence.
With his training, he can easily disregard them.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z
Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z
Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge
from beginning to end though he already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties.
Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know
nothing of the case,
witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end.
From A to Z.
But our judge already knows from the record
the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the
admitted matters
and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.
But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we borrowed from the Americans,
requires the judge to endure beginning-to-end stories
that are plucked from the witness mouth bit by bit through direct
examination.
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.
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.++
Another cause of delay is the often
indiscriminate objections to the questions asked of the witness. ++
Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness
to enable the judge to predetermine if the expected answers are inadmissible in evidence.
The judge must see to it that
inadmissible answers do not touch the ears of the jury,
lest these irreversibly influence the members of the jury.
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.
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.
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.
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
Another point of delay is the need to identify,
Another point of delay is the need to identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits.
The process is tedious and painfully time consuming. ++
Another point of delay is the need to identify,
mark, and authenticate the exhibits. The process is tedious and painfully time consuming.
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
but these personnel are often just as busy as the judge.
And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
identify the documents, and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
identify the documents, and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings,
still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
identify the documents, and authenticate them.
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
identify the documents one by one,
Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court
who are also busy.
And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court,
identify the documents one by one, and authenticate them.
In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases.
Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
since there are incidents like
postponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of just one witness.
In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases.
Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
since there are incidents like
postponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of just one witness.
In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases.
Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m.
This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes
to present part of the testimony of just one witness.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 10 minutes
to present part of the testimony of just one witness.
If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 10 minutes
to present part of the testimony of just one witness.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness.
Even after the direct examination has been finished,
It is usual for the adverse lawyer to postpone his cross examination
on the ground that he needs time to prepare since:
--he must first have the transcript of stenographic notes of the direct
examination, and
--he needs to check the truth of the testimony.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness.
And, even after the direct examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness.
And, even after the direct examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.
With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness.
And, even after the direct examination has been finished,
the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred
on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.
How do we solve the problem?
The conventional solution is to
streamline the existing system for hearing cases
and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings.
But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way
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
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
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
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
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually
consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination
Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City.
Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts.
Why two-thirds?
The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
With judicial affidavit as direct testimony,
the witness is examined in court only on cross.
Instead of one witness testifying at a given time,
the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.
Consequently, the Supreme Court approved the “Judicial Affidavit Rule” on September 4, 2012.
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of the witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
2. They shall attach and authenticate documentary or object evidence of the
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of direct testimonies; and
2. They identify and authenticate documentary or object evidence of the parties.
What functions do judicial affidavits
take?
1. They take the place of direct testimonies; and
2. They identify and authenticate documentary or object evidence in the case.
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
The parties shall file them with the court
and serve copies on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court
and serve copies on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents
How and when are judicial affidavits
to be submitted?
They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service,
not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness
and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to be taken in the dialect
provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to be taken in the dialect
provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to be taken and kept in the dialect of the place
provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.
In what language will the judicial
affidavits be prepared?
In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or
Filipino,
it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.
What is the significance of this?
We are now allowing testimonies to be taken and kept in the dialect of the place
provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.
Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version
with the English translation in parenthesis provided by the party,
subject to counter translation by opposing side.
Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version
with the English or Pilipino
translation in parenthesis provided by the party,
subject to counter translation by opposing side.
Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version
with the English or Pilipino
translation in parenthesis provided by the party,
subject to counter translation by opposing side.
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.
“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
“A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.
“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
“A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.
“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
“A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
For example:
When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.
“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio
arrived in haste?)
“A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The name, age, residence, or
business address, and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held; and
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
(c) the place where the examination is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath,
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
(c) the place where the examination is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath
What will the judicial affidavit
contain?
(a) The personal circumstance of the witness;
(b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
(c) the place where the examination is being held; and
(d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath
and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.
Like this …
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
“The person examining me is Atty.
Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The
examination is being held at the same address. I am answering his questions
fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for false
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
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered,
that show the circumstances under
which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies.
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Numbered questions and answers;
that show the circumstances under
which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies.
Then there is the affidavit proper that
contains:
(a) Numbered questions and answers, showing personal knowledge of the
Like this …
Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the defendant in this case?
A1. Yes, sir.
Q2. How did you know him?
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?
(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
(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
(c)
Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “
Kasunduan
” that you mentioned?A6: This is the one, sir (handing over a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan” as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “
Kasunduan
” that you mentioned?A6: This is the one, sir (handing over a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan” as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “
Kasunduan
” that you mentioned?A6: This is the one, sir (handing over a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan” as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q8: Where is this “
Kasunduan
” that you mentioned?A8: This is the one, sir (handing over a document).
Q9: I am marking this “Kasunduan” as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
Do you know whose signature this is? A9: Yes, sir, that of Gerry Umali. Q10: How do you know?
A10: I saw him sign it.
Q11: I am marking the signature above the name Elnora Sabugo on this document as Exh. A-2. Do you know
whose signature this is?
A11: Yes, sir, that is my signature.
Q11: I am attaching Exhibit A to your judicial affidavit to form part of it. Do you confirm my action?
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present
coached the witness regarding his answers.
Like this …
I faithfully recorded the questions I asked Ms. Sabugo and the corresponding answers she gave me; and neither I nor any other person then present coached Ms. Sabugo regarding her answers.
JULIO C. MAGNO Affiant
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to disciplinary action,
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No. Even without this requirement, it is the lawyer’s duty to record the questions and answers faithfullyand prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without this requirement, it is the 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?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without it, the lawyer is responsible for faithfully recording the questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without it, the lawyer is responsible for faithfully recording the questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without it, the lawyer is responsible for faithfully recording the questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without it, the lawyer is responsible for faithfully recording the questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well. 3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.1. Even without it, the lawyer is responsible for faithfully recording the questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well. 3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place of direct testimony in court.
4. What is wrong with requiring
lawyers to assume responsibility for their actions?
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or official, or the requested witness,
who is neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court,