A.M. No.

12-8-8-SC
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the
following:

Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each
year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial syste1n that the judiciary has in place;

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses' direct testimonies; and

Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give
up con1ing to court after repeated postponements;

(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the
judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the
respondent or the defendant.

Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are
unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor;
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under
litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the
compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for
presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases;
Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by
Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate
nationwide the success of the Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful
copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original
document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached
copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by
existing rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the
witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain
the following:

Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;

(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the following:

(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;

Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception
of evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that:

(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;

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

(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Shari'a Appellate Courts;

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

(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and

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

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject
to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure
contravene the provisions of this Rule. 1
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall
be uniformly referred to here as the "court."
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file
with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the
end, executed by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:

(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the
witness of the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his control available
for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of the
issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his
deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit
of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of the
presentation of the witness. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit
or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and,
if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right to crossexamine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents
the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining
the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it
needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece
by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have,
marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object
evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his
witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on
the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously
marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the
required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court
may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would
not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor
more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice
shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by cross-examination the witnesses
there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice
the opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their
preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00, at
the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of
procedure governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence
are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.1wphi1
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.

(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that
exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the
offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days
before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public

Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two
newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.
CIRCULAR NO. 38-98 August 11, 1998
IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENSURE A
SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES."
SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF CIRCULAR. This Circular is promulgated for the purpose of implementing the
provisions of Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise known as the "Speedy Trial Act of 1998," as directed in Section
15 hereof.
Sec. 2. TIME LIMIT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AND PRE-TRIAL. The arraignment and the pre-trial, if the
accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The period of the pendency of a motion to quash, or for a
bill of particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of arraignment shall be excluded.

Sec. 3. MANDATORY PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. In all criminal cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial
Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment, order a pre-trial conference to
consider the following:

Sec. 9. EXCLUSIONS. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which
trial must commence:
(a) Any period resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but
not limited to the following:

(a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of facts;
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(1) delay resulting from an examination of the physical and

mental condition of the accused;
(2) delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other
criminal charges against the accused;

(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and

(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and
civil aspects of the case.
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, he may state whether he interposes a negative or
affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution to proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove
such defense by clear and convincing evidence.
Sec. 4. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT. All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre-trial
conference shall be reduced to writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise the same shall not
be used against the accused. The agreements in relation to matters referred to in Section 3 hereof are subject
to the approval of the court; Provided, That the agreement on the please of the accused should be to a lesser
offense necessarily included in the offense charged.
Sec. 5. NON-APPEARANCE AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Where counsel for the accused or the
prosecutor does not appear at the pretrial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties.
Sec. 6. PRE-TRIAL ORDER. After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue an order reciting the
actions taken, the facts stipulated, and the evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to
matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.
Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for
trial which shall commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order.
Sec. 7. EXTENDED TIME LIMIT. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections 2 and 6 for the
first twelve-calendar-month period following its effectivity, the time limit with respect to the period from
arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the second twelvemonth period, the time limit shall be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period the
time limit shall be eighty (80) days.
Sec. 8. TIME LIMIT FOR TRIAL. In criminal cases involving persons charged with a crime, except those
subject to the Rule of Summary Procedure, or where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6)
months imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, the court shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, set the
case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to
ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first
day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Court Administrator pursuant to Section 2, Rule 30 of the
Rules of Court.

(3) delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against

interlocutory orders;
(4) delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; Provided, that the
delay does not exceed thirty (30) days;
(5) delay resulting from orders of inhibition or proceedings
relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other
courts;
(6) delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid
prejudicial question; and
(7) delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed
thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding concerning the
accused is actually under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential
witness.
For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts
are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. An essential witness shall be
considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by
due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent
or physically unable to stand trial.
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a
charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, any period of delay from the
date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run
as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is mentally incompetent or
physically unable to stand trial.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu
propio or on motion of either the accused for the same offense, any period of delay
from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would
commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.

Sec. 10. FACTORS FOR GRANTING CONTINUANCE. The following factors, among others, shall be
considered by a court in determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph (f) of Section 9
hereof:
(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be like to
make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of
justice; and
(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to
the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise, that it is
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established
herein.
No continuance under subparagraph (f) Section 9 hereof shall be granted because of
congestion of the courts calendar, or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain
available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor.
Sec. 11. TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL. If the accused is to be tried again
pursuant to an order of a court for a new trial, the trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from notice of
that order, except that the court retrying the case may extend such period but not to exceed one hundred
eighty (180) days from notice of said order for a new trial if unavailability of witnesses or other factors make
trial within thirty (30) days impractical.
Sec. 12. PUBLIC ATTORNEYS DUTIES WHERE ACCUSED IS IMPRISONED. If the public attorney
assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the latter is preventively detained, either
because he is charged with a bailable crime and has no means to post bail, or is charged with a non-bailable
crime, or is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution:
(a) The public attorney shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner
for trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner
requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.
(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the person having custody of the prisoner shall promptly
advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial, If at any time
thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall
cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public attorney.
(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the
presence of the prisoner for trial.
(d) When the person having custody of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a
properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of the trial,
the prisoner shall be made available accordingly.
Sec. 13. SANCTIONS. In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney or the
public prosecutor:

(a) knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a
necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;
(b) files a motion solely for the purpose of delay which he knows is totally frivolous and
without merit;
(c) makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he know to be
false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or
(d) otherwise willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the
provisions hereof, the court may punish any such counsel, attorney or prosecutor, as
follows:
(1) in the case of a counsel privately retained in connection with
the defense of an accused, by imposing a fine of not exceeding
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00);
(2) by imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public
attorney or public prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00); and
(3) by denying any defense counsel or public prosecutor the
right to practice before the court considering the case for a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days.
The authority to punish provided for by this section shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action
or any other sanction authorized under the Rules of Court.
Sec. 14. REMEDY WHERE ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. If the
accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Sections 2 and 6 hereof, as extended by Section
7, the information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right to speedy
trial. The accused shall have the burden of proving such motion by the prosecution shall have the burden of
going forward with the evidence in connection with the exclusion of time under Section 9 hereof. The dismissal
shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under
this section.
Sec. 15. REPUBLIC ACT NO 8493 NOT A BAR TO PROVISION ON SPEEDY TRIAL IN THE
CONSTITUTION. No provision of Republic Act No. 8493 shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of
denial of speedy trial as provided by Article III, Section 14(2), of the 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 16. EFFECTIVITY. This Circular shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and
shall take effect on September 15, 1998.