inShare

Pre-trial and Pre-trial

Conference
Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory 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 and within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a
shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the
Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:

(a) plea bargaining;

(b) stipulation of facts;

(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;

(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and

(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the
case.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE-

TRIAL?
> The purpose is to expedite proceedings

WHEN IS PRE-TRIAL REQUIRED?

> Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC
and MCTC
WHEN SHOULD IT BE
CONDUCTED?
> After arraignment, and within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the accused
> An exception to the rule is when the accused is under preventive detention. The case shall be
raffled within 3 days. Arraignment shall be done within 10 days after the raffle. Ten days thereafter,
the pre-trial.

WHAT SHOULD THE ORDER

FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
CONTAIN?
1. The presence of the accused and more importantly the offended
party, for purposes of plea bargaining and determination of civil
liability. Remember that plea bargaining isnt allowed in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
2. Referring the matter for preliminary conference to the clerk of court.
3. Warning that evidence not offered during preliminary conference shall be inadmissible
except if because of good cause and under the discretion of the court

WHO SHOULD PRESIDE IN A

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE?
> Clerk of court will preside the preliminary conference

WHAT SHOULD THE CLERK OF

COURT DO IN PRESIDING OVER
THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE?
1. The clerk of court is given a vital role in the speedy disposition of cases
2. He shall serve as the mediator or arbitrator between the accused and offended party for the two
parties to reach a settlement as to the civil liability of the accused
3. He shall serve as mediator between the parties with regard plea bargaining
4. He shall serve as mediator in the stipulation of facts between the accused and offended party
5. He shall oversee the introduction and marking of documentary evidence
6. He shall see that the evidence is genuine and duly executed
7. He shall oversee the conference if there will be any waiver to objections over
admissibility of evidence
8. In case the accused gives a lawful defense, he will indicate that there would be a
modification of the order of trial

N.B
1. A preliminary conference precedes a pre-trial. It is officiated by
the clerk of court. The clerk of court plays a vital role in the speedy disposition of cases.
2. Often times, there would be no pre-trial anymore but the trial would commence and
the judge would issue the decision for the disposition of the case.
3. The pre-trial conference is conducted for the expeditious disposition of the case. What
happens in the conference is more than what meets the eye.
4. There is now an amendment in the new rules providing for the
parties to talk with each other absent their lawyers. Lawyers
often times are stumbling blocks in the speedy disposition of
cases.
5. In the pre-trial and preliminary conference, there is narrowing of conflict between the parties. In
furtherance of this, the judge is sanctioned to allow the number of witnesses to be presented, limit
the trial days, etc.
6. Remember that any evidence not presented or marked during the pre-trial conference shall not
be admitted during the trial. This is done to make the
presentation of evidence mandatory for the
parties to the case. Additional evidence shall only be allowed if there is good cause and for
furtherance of justice
7. Evidence is genuine and duly executedin relation to notarial law when the lawyer admits to
the genuineness and due execution of the documentary evidence presented.
8. The preliminary conference is to minimize the things to be discussed during the pre-trial
conference that would be conducted by the judge. After the pre-trial conference, a pre-trial order
shall
be issued. This will serve as the bible for the rest of the proceedings.
9. See the Revised Rules on Pre-trial issued during August 2004.

WHEN WILL THE JUDGE PRESIDE?

> During the pre-trial

The rules on pre-trial in civil cases

POINT OF LAW By POINT OF LAW by Teresita Herbosa | Updated March 4, 2003 - 12:00am

2 6 googleplus2 2
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which became effective on July 1, 1997 reinforced the
importance of the pre-trial stage in civil cases. Before, notwithstanding that there were already
rules providing for pre-trial in civil cases, in fact as early as 1940, there was no uniform method
of conducting one and in many cases, there was only a mere passing compliance. More often
than not, the judge would merely ask the litigants whether or not there was any possibility of
settlement and if in the negative, would simply terminate the pre-trial and proceed to trial on the
merits. The 1997 Rules have changed the situation in that the provisions on pre-trial are now
being strictly observed making pre-trial a more effective tool toward the expeditious disposition
of civil cases.

The 1997 Rules require that after the last pleading has been served and filed, the plaintiff must
promptly move ex-parte that the civil case be set for pre-trial. This is in lieu of the old rule which
placed such burden on the court. Further, while it was only in the heading of the old rule that the
words "[P]re-trial mandatory" appeared, the 1997 Rules now expressly provide that "[T]he pre-
trial is mandatory."

And so what is the purpose of the pre-trial in a civil case? The purpose is for the court to
consider the: (1) the possibility of an amicable settlement or submission to alternative mode of
dispute resolution; (2) the simplification of issues; (3) the necessity or desirability of
amendments to the pleadings; (4) the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts
and of documents to avoid unnecessary proofs; (5) the limitation of the number of witnesses; (6)
the advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner, (7) the propriety of
rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should
a valid ground therefore be found; (8) the advisability or necessity of suspending the
proceeding; and (9) such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action. As
may be seen, the overall purpose is really to simplify, abbreviate, facilitate and expedite the
case.

The 1997 Rules, moreover, affirmed prevailing jurisprudence on notice to, and appearance of,
parties. Thus, notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel.
It is counsel’s duty therefore to notify his client. And, the non-appearance of a party may
be excused only if a valid cause is shown or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully
authorized in writing. It is important to note that such authority in writing or special power of
attorney must specifically state that the representative of the party is authorized to do the
following three acts: (1) to enter into an amicable settlement; (2) to submit to alternative modes
of dispute resolution; and (3) to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
It bears to stress that a defective special power of attorney results in the representative not
being fully authorized to appear on behalf of the party. For all intents and purposes, therefore,
the party is not represented and deemed not to have appeared at the pre-trial.

There is also a reiteration in the 1997 Rules of the consequence of a failure to appear at the
pre-trial conference. Accordingly, the plaintiff who does not appear personally or by a properly
authorized representative is "non-suited" in that his case shall be dismissed and such dismissal
shall be with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. The defendant who does not
appear personally or by a properly authorized representative is considered "as in default" in that
the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex-parte on the basis of which the court shall
render judgment.

The 1997 Rules have a section devoted to the pre-trial brief. In the past, lawyers submitted their
own versions of the pre-trial brief. While some go to great lengths to provide the court with a
good overview of their case and the evidence they intended to present, many others filed merely
a brief summary of their complaint or answer, as the case may be, and nothing more. Now, pre-
trial briefs follow a standard format containing, among others: (1) a statement of the
party’s willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute
resolution, indicating the desired terms; (2) a summary of admitted facts and proposed
stipulation of facts; (3) the issues to be tried or resolved; (4) the documents or exhibits to be
presented, stating the purpose thereof; (5) a manifestation of having availed or their intention to
avail of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and, (6) the number and names of
witnesses and substance of their respective testimonies. The pre-trial brief’s
indispensability is shown by the fact that failure to file one has the same effects as failure to
appear at the pre-trial. However, there is no particular sanction against the submission of an
incomplete or non-complying pretrial brief:

As to the effect of presenting evidence other than those a party has specified in the pre-trial
brief, recent jurisprudence tends to preclude a party from doing so because allowing him would
defeat the very purpose of the pre-trial brief which is the simplification, abbreviation and
expedition of trial. According to the Supreme Court in the case of Tiu vs. Middleton, et al, 310
SCRA 580, judges have the discretion to exclude witnesses and other pieces of evidence not
listed in the pre-trial brief, provided the parties are given prior notice to this effect.

After the pre-trial, the court issues a pre-trial order which, under the 1997 Rules, shall recite in
detail the matters taken up in the conference and explicitly define and limit the issues. Going
back to the above-cited case, the Supreme Court resolved therein that where in the pre-trial
order, the judge did not exercise his discretion to exclude unlisted or unnamed witnesses, but
simply provided that a party will present so many witnesses without mentioning at all that they
would be barred from testifying unless named, and the other party did not challenge said order
nor compel the submission of names of witnesses and summaries of their testimonies, the latter
was deemed to have acquiesced to the order allowing the presentation of unnamed witnesses.

The rules on pre-trial in criminal cases

POINT OF LAW By POINT OF LAW by Teresita J. Herbosa | Updated March 18, 2003 - 12:00am

0 11 googleplus1 2

Prior to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which became effective on Dec. 1, 2000, pre-
trial in criminal cases was not mandatory. It was only if the accused and counsel agree, that the
court was to conduct a pre-trial conference without impairing the rights of the accused. The
Revised Rules provide that pre-trial is now mandatory in criminal cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and ordinary courts. Further, the subjects that could be taken up were
expanded to include – apart from plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking of evidence
and waiver of objections of admissibility of evidence – modification of the order of trial if
the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.
To strengthen the mandatory character of the pre-trial in a criminal case, if the counsel for the
accused or the prosecutor does not appear and has no acceptable excuse for his lack of
cooperation, the court may now impose proper sanctions or penalties. Further, the Revised
Rules reiterate that, after the pre-trial, 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 the action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice.

The Revised Rules also reiterate the requirement of a pre-trial agreement and that the same
must be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel in order that the same may
be used against the accused. The Revised Rules added that such agreement covering the
matters considered during the pre-trial shall be approved by the court.

It is interesting to note that in the past, even prior to the old rules on criminal procedure which
preceded the Revised Rules, a stipulation of facts was not allowed in criminal cases. In the case
of US vs. Donato, 9 Phil 701, the Supreme Court held that agreements between attorneys for
the prosecution and for the defense in criminal cases, by which it is stipulated that certain
witnesses, if present, would testify to certain facts prevent a review of the evidence by the
Supreme Court and are in violation of the law. In a later case, the Supreme Court reiterated the
impropriety and impermissibility of rendering judgment in a criminal case on the basis of such an
agreement rather than on any evidence being adduced for testimony taken from witnesses, as
such practice defeats the purposes of criminal law, and is an open violation of the rules of
criminal procedure. The rule prohibiting the stipulation of facts in criminal cases is grounded on
the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the
corollary duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution is duty-bound to prove all the elements of the crime and may not be relieved of this
obligation by the mere expedient of stipulating with defense counsel on a matter constitutive of
an essential element of the crime charged (People vs. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 36).

The rationale behind the proscription against this class of agreements was reiterated in the case
of US vs. Manlimos, 11 Phil, 547. There, the Supreme Court said that it is not supposed to be
within the knowledge or competence of counsel to predict what a proposed witness would say
under the sanction of his oath and the test of cross-examination.

Of course, under the Revised Rules, a stipulation of facts in criminal cases is now expressly
allowed by law, particularly during pre-trial. In fact, as stated in People vs. Hernandez, although
not expressly sanctioned under the old rules of court, a stipulation of facts made by the parties
during the trial itself of a criminal case has long been allowed and recognized as declarations
constituting judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties. Thus, although the
requirement is for an agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference to
be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel before the same may be used
in evidence against the accused, the Supreme Court ruled in the afore-cited case that where the
stipulation of facts was made during trial and therefore automatically reduced into writing and
contained in the official transcript of the proceedings had in court, the conformity of the accused
in the form of his signature affixed thereto is unnecessary. Another reason for its ruling,
according to the Supreme Court, is that the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine
the witnesses against him is a personal privilege which may be waived. Hence, a stipulation of
facts or judicial admission by the accused that witnesses if present would testify to certain facts
stated in the affidavit of the prosecution was precisely in the nature of such waiver.

Another case pertinent to the subject of pre-trial in a criminal case is People vs. Webb, 312
SCRA 573. There, the principal issue was whether or not the trial judge gravely abused her
discretion in denying the motion to take testimony by oral depositions in the United States which
would be used in the criminal case. The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Court of Appeals,
quoted the definition of an oral deposition to be a pre-trial discovery device by which one party
through his attorney asks oral questions of the other party or of a witness for the other party,
which is conducted under oath outside of the court room. Further, the purposes of taking
depositions, as noted by the Supreme Court, are, among others, to expedite litigation, prevent
delay, simplify and narrow the issues, facilitate both preparation and trial, educate the parties in
advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses thereby encouraging
settlements. Thus, a deposition, in keeping with its nature as a mode of discovery, should be
taken before and not during trial. Supporting this is American jurisprudence to the effect that the
rules on criminal practice, particularly on the defense of alibi, which is the accused main
defense, state that when a person intends to rely on such defense, the accused must move for
the taking of the deposition of his witnesses within the time provided for filing a pre-trial motion.