ALMOST A century ago, the Supreme Court, speaking

through Justice George A. Malcolm and in reaction to a

six-year delay in the prosecution of a criminal case, MORE STORIES
declared that "[j]ustice delayed is indeed nearly
equivalent to justice denied" (U.S. v. Delgado, G.R. No.
L-16416, Feb. 8. 1921). This maxim is deeply rooted in  Static -- Marvin A. Tort:
our legal system. The Supreme Court has, on several "Forward, not backward"
occasions, acquitted the accused when the constitutional

guarantee to a speedy trial was violated (Const., Art. III, Amicus Curiae -- Jo-Ann Geneive DJ.
Sec. 14 [2]). While the principle finds special application Perez:
in criminal cases where the liberty of the accused is at "A closer look at the liabilities of the
stake, its importance in the adjudication of other types ride-sharing apps in the Philippines"
of cases is equally recognized. Hence, the Constitution 
also provides that "[a]ll persons, shall have the right to Fence Sitter -- A. R. Samson:
a speedy disposition of their cases in all judicial, quasi- "No longer in the news"
judicial, or administrative bodies" (Const., Art. III, Sec. 
16). Facebook and Twitter are too big to
Sadly, delay during trial and in the disposition of cases continues to allow fake users
plague our courts. Through the years, the Supreme Court has

introduced several measures to address the root of the problem -- Thinking Beyond Politics -- Angelica
court congestion. These measures include, but are not limited to, the Mangahas:
introduction of court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute "Walking away from the ASEAN meets"
resolution; recognition of and preference towards alternative modes of
dispute resolution; and the creation of small claims courts. 
Blueboard -- Alma Maria O. Salvador:
"Maute Terror in Marawi: a maritime
The reexamination of the procedure applicable to trial courts led to the
security concern"
approval of the Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts
(A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC) ("Quezon City Guidelines"), which introduced, 
among others, the mandatory oral offer of evidence (Quezon City Ad Lib -- Greg B. Macabenta:
Guidelines, Sec. A[6]) distinguished from the permissive use of written "When the union, politicians, and media
offers of evidence (Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35 [2]); and the gang up on you"
compulsory use of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimony in civil 
cases (Quezon City Guidelines, Sec. B[3]). These innovations were The View From Taft -- Alvin Neil A.
pilot-tested in Quezon City courts and reduced, by about two-thirds, Gutierrez:
the time utilized for presenting the testimonies of witnesses. "Overworked by overtime"

Following the success of the Quezon City Guidelines, on 4 September Yellow Pad -- Filomeno S. Sta Ana III:
2012, the Supreme Court approved the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. "Mocha, Ariana, and free college
No. 12-8-8-SC) (hereafter, the "Rule"). The Rule, a copy of which is education"
available at the Supreme Court’s Web site, seeks to replicate the
success of the Quezon City experience and contains provisions similar 
M. A. P. Insights -- Junie S. del Mundo:
to the Quezon City Guidelines. The Rule is made applicable to all
"Building partnerships in ASEAN and
actions and proceedings before the lower courts; investigating officers
beyond"
and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence; and
those special courts and quasi-judicial bodies whose rules of procedure
are subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court (Rule, Sec. 1).

The most important feature of the Rule is the requirement for

litigating parties to submit "judicial affidavits" of their witnesses, which
shall take the place of the witnesses’ direct testimonies that should
otherwise be given in open court. Ordinarily, the questions
propounded to a witness, and his answers thereto, are given orally
(Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 1). In this regard, the Rule is deemed
to have modified the Rules of Court insofar as the direct examination
of a witness is concerned. The Rule also prescribes the form and
contents of a judicial affidavit (Rule, Sec. 3).

An innovation under the Rule, not found under the Quezon City
Guidelines, is the sworn attestation clause in Section 4. Judicial
affidavits must contain a sworn attestation which states that: (a) the
lawyer, who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness,
faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and (b) neither
he, nor any other person then present or assisting him, coached the
witness regarding the latter’s answers. A false attestation will subject
the lawyer to disciplinary action.

Similar to the Quezon City Guidelines, the Rule requires that the
judicial affidavits are filed and served, including the object or
documentary evidence attached thereto, five (5) days before the pre-
trial or preliminary conference, or the scheduled hearing with respect
to motions and incidents for civil cases (Rule, Secs. 2 and 2[2]). The
Rule requires the parties to bring the original document or object
evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference.
Otherwise, the document or object will generally not be admitted in
evidence. In this regard, should the original of the documentary or
object evidence be unavailable to the party offering the same, litigants
should be mindful to lay the basis for the introduction of secondary
evidence in the witness’ judicial affidavit.

Curiously, the Rule did not replicate the provision in the Quezon City
Guidelines which mandates that "no additional oral direct testimony
shall be allowed by the court save for the witness’ identification and
confirmation of his Affidavit and its marking" (Quezon City Guidelines,
Sec. B(3)[b]). Nonetheless, the Rule: (a) declares that the adverse
party shall be allowed to cross-examine the witness on his judicial
affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same; and (b) provides
for re-direct examination. The Rule, however, did not explicitly provide
that the testimony of the witness shall be completed on the same day
(Quezon City Guidelines, Sec. B(3)[d]).

Another innovation is the active role given to the court during cross-
examination. The Rule expressly provides that it "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" (Rule, Sec. 7).

As with the Quezon City Guidelines, the Rule expressly mandates that
the offer of exhibits, and any objections thereto, shall be made orally.
The adverse party must state his objection as soon as a piece of
evidence is offered, and the court has to immediately rule on the
objection before the next piece of evidence is offered (Rule, Sec. 8).

For criminal cases, the Rule is made expressly applicable to those

actions: (a) where the imposable penalty does not exceed six (6)
years; (b) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits,
regardless of the penalty; or (c) with respect to the civil aspect of the
actions. Unlike in civil cases where the defendant has the same
deadline as the plaintiff to submit judicial affidavits, the accused is
given ten (10) days from receipt of the judicial affidavits submitted by
the prosecution to submit his own judicial affidavit, as well as that of
his witnesses, should he desire to be heard on his defense (Sec. 9).

The Rule also provides that the failure to submit judicial affidavits and
exhibits on time shall be deemed to be a waiver of their submission.
Late submissions may be allowed by the court, however, provided
that: (a) the delay is for a valid reason; (b) the delay would not
unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (c) the defaulting party pays
a fine. The delayed submission of judicial affidavits may only be
allowed once. Further, should the judicial affidavit fail to conform with
the content and attestation requirements, the court shall not admit
the non-compliant judicial affidavit. The court may allow the
submission of compliant replacement affidavits, but subject to the
same conditions provided for in the submission of delayed judicial
affidavits (Rule, Sec. 10).

Notwithstanding the submission of a judicial affidavit, the witness is

still required to appear in court for the identification and confirmation
of his affidavit, and to be subjected to cross-examination and re-direct
examination as stated above. The Rule provides for the exclusion of
the judicial affidavits of witnesses who fail to appear at the scheduled
hearing as required by the court. A counsel’s failure to appear at a
scheduled hearing without valid cause shall be deemed as a waiver of
his client’s right to cross-examine the witnesses presented before the
court (Rule, Sec. 10).

The Rule will take effect on Jan. 1. 2013 and will apply to existing
cases (Rule, Sec. 12). Despite the Rule’s noble goals of delivering
speedy justice, reactions from law practitioners were varied. However,
the Rule needs to be tested and tried. Only time will tell whether the
new measure introduced by the Highest Tribunal will replicate the
success in Quezon City courts. The promulgation of the Rule
demonstrates that the Supreme Court is aware of the impending need
to accelerate trial and curb unnecessary delay in order to decongest
the courts and afford justice to litigants. It cannot be denied that the
Supreme Court is not remiss in addressing the problem of delay in the
administration of justice.
Anthony Raphael V. Jacoba is an Associate of Angara Abello
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. He may be contacted
at avjacoba@accralaw.com or Tel No. 830-8000.

Home About BusinessWorld Jobs Advertise Subscribe Contact Us