Justice Abad: Judicial Affidavit Slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Justice Abad: Judicial Affidavit Slides

  • 11,969 views
Uploaded on

Justice Abad's slides on the new Judicial Affidavit Rule as presented at the IBP Social Hall in Cebu.

Justice Abad's slides on the new Judicial Affidavit Rule as presented at the IBP Social Hall in Cebu.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
11,969
On Slideshare
11,953
From Embeds
16
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
310
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 16

https://www.facebook.com 11
http://www.facebook.com 4
https://m.facebook.com&_=1357229373447 HTTP 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CREATING NEW SYSTEMS FOR HEARING AND DECIDING CASES WITHFAIRNESS AND DISPATCH
  • 2. Would you know how many of ourpeople live in crowded cities?
  • 3. 75% of our people live in crowdedcities.
  • 4. With so many living in these cities,occasions for human conflict are inevitable.
  • 5. Thus, courts in these cities aredrowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases aday.
  • 6. Thus, courts in these cities aredrowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases aday.
  • 7. Thus, courts in these cities aredrowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases aday.
  • 8. Thus, courts in these cities aredrowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases aday.
  • 9. Their courtrooms are full.
  • 10. Parties have to wait outside to be called.
  • 11. It takes 3 to 5 years, at times more,for cases to be heard and decided,
  • 12. …inflicting a sense of hopelessness overthe justice system that you and I serve.
  • 13. Because of case congestion, mosthearings are postponed almost under anypretext, prompting complainants in criminalcases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100persons accused of crimes walk free.
  • 14. Because of case congestion, mosthearings are postponed almost under anypretext, prompting complainants in criminalcases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100persons accused of crimes walk free.
  • 15. Because of case congestion, mosthearings are postponed almost under anypretext, prompting complainants in criminalcases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100persons accused of crimes walk free.
  • 16. Because of case congestion, mosthearings are postponed almost under anypretext, prompting complainants in criminalcases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100persons accused of crimes walk free.
  • 17. … Victims of crimes find no speedy justicein our courts.
  • 18. Few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in our country because our courts cannot provideprotection to their investments.
  • 19. Few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in our country because our courts cannot provideprotection to their investments.
  • 20. Result: we do not attain economicgrowth; our people remain poor.
  • 21. Result: we do not attain economicgrowth; our people remain poor.
  • 22. Because people have lost trust in ourability to render justice, many have given up coming to courtwith their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system doesnot work as it should, law practice suffers.
  • 23. Because people have lost trust in ourability to render justice, many have given up coming to courtwith their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system doesnot work as it should, law practice suffers.
  • 24. Because people have lost trust in ourability to render justice, many have given up coming to courtwith their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system doesnot work as it should, law practice suffers.
  • 25. or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. Email Article:
  • 26. What causes these terrible delays inour justice system? There are many causes.
  • 27. What causes these terrible delays inour justice system? There are many causes.
  • 28. Our Courts are few.
  • 29. Prosecutors andpublic attorneys arefew.
  • 30. Recently, the Supreme Court hasintroduced a very significant systemschange. One of the major causes of delaysis our slow and cumbersome system for hearing the testimony ofwitnesses. The witness stand represents thebottleneck in the judicial machinery.
  • 31. Recently, the Supreme Court hasintroduced a very significant systemschange. One of the major causes of delaysis our slow and cumbersome system for hearing the testimony ofwitnesses. The witness stand represents thebottleneck in the judicial machinery.
  • 32. Recently, the Supreme Court hasintroduced a very significant systemschange. One of the major causes of delaysis our slow and cumbersome system for hearing and deciding cases. more specifically, our antiquatedsystem for taking the testimonies ofwitnesses and receiving documentary andobject evidence. Where precisely is the bottleneck inthe system?
  • 33. Recently, the Supreme Court hasintroduced a very significant systemschange. One of the major causes of delaysis our slow and cumbersome system for hearing and deciding cases. Where precisely is the bottleneck inthis system?
  • 34. The bottleneck is where this ladytells her story… the witness stand.
  • 35. The bottleneck is where this ladytells her story… AT THE WITNESS STAND.
  • 36. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. Assuming there are just twowitnesses per case, 2,000 witnesses would be waiting tobe called in courts that have 1,000 casesin their dockets. If required to form a line outside thecourtroom, they would form a very long lineindeed.
  • 37. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. Assuming there are just twowitnesses per case, 2,000 witnesses would be waiting tobe called in courts that have 1,000 casesin their dockets. If required to form a line outside thecourtroom, they would form a very long lineindeed.
  • 38. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. If you have 1,000 cases in yourdockets and just two witnesses for eachcase, you would have 2,000 witnesseswaiting to be called. If required to wait outside thecourtroom,
  • 39. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. If you have 1,000 cases in yourdockets and just two witnesses for eachcase, you would have 2,000 witnesseswaiting to be called. If required to wait outside thecourtroom,
  • 40. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. If you have 1,000 cases in yourdockets and just two witnesses for eachcase, you would have 2,000 witnesseswaiting to be called. If required to wait outside thecourtroom,
  • 41. Why? Because courts can hear no morethan one witness at a time. If you have 1,000 cases in yourdockets and just two witnesses for eachcase, you would have 2,000 witnesseswaiting to be called. If required to wait outside thecourtroom,
  • 42. those 2,000 witnesses would form avery long line indeed.
  • 43. those 2,000 witnesses would form avery long line indeed,with only three witnesses getting in on anordinary hearing day.
  • 44. those 2,000 witnesses would form avery long line indeed,with only three witnesses able to get into testify in one day.
  • 45. Why is our system for hearingwitnesses slow and cumbersome?
  • 46. Why is our system for hearingwitnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% ofwitnesses testifies in the local dialect, we require an interpreter to translatetheir testimonies into English.
  • 47. Why is our system for hearingwitnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% ofwitnesses testifies in the local dialect, our rules require an interpreter totranslate their testimonies into English.
  • 48. Why is our system for hearingwitnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% ofwitnesses testifies in the local dialect, our rules require an interpreter totranslate their testimonies into English. Since the trial takes place in twolanguages, the court has to hear the testimonyof every witness twice.
  • 49. the court has to hear the testimonyof every witness twice.
  • 50. How old is our system for hearing anddeciding cases?
  • 51. How old is our system for hearing anddeciding cases? The Americans gave it to us over ahundred years ago.
  • 52. It was unique to their history andculture, yet we adopted it and were taught inlaw schools that there is no right way to hear thetestimonies of witnesses except the American way.
  • 53. It was unique to their history andculture, yet we adopted it and were taught inlaw schools that there is no right way to hear thetestimonies of witnesses except the American way.
  • 54. It was unique to their history andculture, yet we adopted it and were taught inlaw schools that there is no right way to hear thetestimonies of witnesses except the American way.
  • 55. It was unique to their history andculture, yet we adopted it and were taught inlaw schools that there is no right way to hear thetestimonies of witnesses except the American way.
  • 56. The American system is adversarial.
  • 57. The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control theproceedings since they decide which witness thejudge will hear and what questions he will answer.
  • 58. The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control theproceedings since they decide what evidence thejudge will hear. and what questions he will answer.
  • 59. The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control theproceedings since they decide what evidence thejudge will hear.
  • 60. Although he will decide the case, but he is doomed to sit back andlisten.
  • 61. Although he will decide the case, the judge is doomed to sit back andlisten,
  • 62. Although he will decide the case, the judge is doomed to sit back andlisten, allowed to ask only clarificatoryquestions of the witness.
  • 63. The American system is alsodesigned for both jury and bench trials. Result: using their system, we have ashadow jury sitting in our courtroom.
  • 64. The American system is alsodesigned for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadowjury sitting in our courtroom.
  • 65. The American system is alsodesigned for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadowjury sitting in our courtroom.
  • 66. Why? Because the rules we adoptedrequire our judge to pre-screens thequestions to prevent an unlearned jury fromhearing inadmissible answers. But this is pointless since the jury inour court is the judge himself. With his legal training andexperience, he has no difficulty disregardinginadmissible answers even after he hearsthem.
  • 67. Why? Because our borrowed rules requireour judge to pre-screen the questions to prevent an unlearned jury fromhearing inadmissible answers. But this is pointless since the jury inour court is the judge himself. With his legal training andexperience, he has no difficulty disregardinginadmissible answers even after he hearsthem.
  • 68. Why? Because our borrowed rules requireour judge to pre-screen the questions to prevent that non-existent jury fromhearing inadmissible answers.
  • 69. But this pre-screening is pointlesssince the judge does not need to pre-screen thequestions for himself. With his legal training andexperience, he has no difficulty disregardinginadmissible answers even after he hearsthem.
  • 70. But this pre-screening is pointlesssince the judge does not need to protect himself fromhearing inadmissible evidence. With his legal training andexperience, he has no difficulty disregardinginadmissible answers even after he hearsthem.
  • 71. But this pre-screening is pointlesssince the judge does not need to protect himself fromhearing inadmissible evidence. With his training, he can easilydisregard them.
  • 72. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z Following that system, our witnessestell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though healready knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 73. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z Following that system, our witnessestell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though healready knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 74. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. Following that system, our witnessestell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though healready knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 75. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from therecord the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 76. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from therecord the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 77. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from therecord the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 78. Further, since it is assumed that themembers of the American jury knownothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories tothe jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from therecord the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip theadmitted matters and have the witness focus on thefacts in issue.
  • 79. But Section 4 of Rule 132, which weborrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endurebeginning-to-end stories that are plucked from the witnessmouth bit by bit through directexamination. This is a time consuming process.
  • 80. But Section 4 of Rule 132, which weborrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endurebeginning-to-end testimonies that are plucked from the witnessmouth bit by bit through directexamination. This is a time consuming process.
  • 81. But Section 4 of Rule 132, which weborrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endurebeginning-to-end testimonies that are plucked from the witnessmouth bit by bit through directexamination.++ This is a time consuming process.
  • 82. Another cause of delay is the oftenindiscriminate objections to the questionsasked of the witness. ++
  • 83. Theoretically, a lawyer objects toquestions asked of the witness to enable the judge to predetermineif the expected answers are inadmissiblein evidence. The judge must see to it thatinadmissible answers do not touch theears of the jury, lest these irreversibly influence themembers of the jury. But we have no jury, only a judge.
  • 84. Theoretically, a lawyer objects toquestions asked of the witness So the judge could preventinadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversiblyinfluence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.
  • 85. Theoretically, a lawyer objects toquestions asked of the witness So the judge could preventinadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversiblyinfluence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.
  • 86. Theoretically, a lawyer objects toquestions asked of the witness So the judge could preventinadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversiblyinfluence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.
  • 87. Theoretically, a lawyer objects toquestions asked of the witness So the judge could preventinadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversiblyinfluence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge whois not irreversibly affected byinadmissible answers.
  • 88. Another point of delay is the need toidentify,
  • 89. Another point of delay is the need toidentify, mark, and authenticate the exhibits. The process is tedious and painfullytime consuming. ++
  • 90. Another point of delay is the need toidentify, mark, and authenticate the exhibits. The process is tedious and painfullytime consuming.
  • 91. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court but these personnel are often just asbusy as the judge. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.
  • 92. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even withsuch pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.
  • 93. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.
  • 94. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court,
  • 95. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court, identify the documents one by one, and authenticate them.
  • 96. Some courts, require pre-markings ofexhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appearbefore the court, identify the documents one by one, and authenticate them.
  • 97. In many courts in cities, the cases ontheir calendars often range from 30 to 50cases. Just calling the attendance takesfrom 8:30 to 10 a.m. since there are incidents likepostponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearingthe cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge givesthe parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony ofjust one witness.
  • 98. In many courts in cities, the cases ontheir calendars often range from 30 to 50cases. Just calling the attendance takesfrom 8:30 to 10 a.m. since there are incidents likepostponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearingthe cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge givesthe parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony ofjust one witness.
  • 99. In many courts in cities, the cases ontheir calendars often range from 30 to 50cases. Just calling the attendance takesfrom 8:30 to 10 a.m. This leaves only 2 hours for hearingthe cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge givesthe parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony ofjust one witness.
  • 100. If 10 cases are ready, the judge givesthe parties in each case 10 minutes to present part of the testimony ofjust one witness.
  • 101. If 10 cases are ready, the judge givesthe parties in each case 10 minutes to present part of the testimony ofjust one witness.
  • 102. With piecemeal trial, it takes morethan a year to complete the testimony ofjust one witness. Even after the direct examination hasbeen finished, It is usual for the adverse lawyer topostpone his cross examination on the ground that he needs time toprepare since: --he must first have the transcript ofstenographic notes of the directexamination, and --he needs to check the truth of thetestimony.
  • 103. With piecemeal trial, it takes morethan a year to complete the testimony ofjust one witness. And, even after the directexamination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usuallywant his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to waitfor the transcript to be finished.
  • 104. With piecemeal trial, it takes morethan a year to complete the testimony ofjust one witness. And, even after the directexamination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usuallywant his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to waitfor the transcript to be finished.
  • 105. With piecemeal trial, it takes morethan a year to complete the testimony ofjust one witness. And, even after the directexamination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usuallywant his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to waitfor the transcript to be finished.
  • 106. How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is tostreamline the existing system for hearingcases and pound hard on the judges tospeed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that itis madness to do the same thing the sameway when it is no longer working.
  • 107. How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is tostreamline the existing system for hearingcases and pound hard on the judges tospeed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that itis madness to do the same thing the sameway when it is no longer working.
  • 108. How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is tostreamline the existing system for hearingcases and pound hard on the judges tospeed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that itis madness to do the same thing the sameway when it is no longer working.
  • 109. How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is tostreamline the existing system for hearingcases and pound hard on the judges tospeed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that itis madness to do the same thing the sameway when it is no longer working.
  • 110. How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is tostreamline the existing system for hearingcases and pound hard on the judges tospeed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that itis madness to do the same thing the sameway when it is no longer working.
  • 111. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct and one-thirdcross.
  • 112. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct and one-thirdcross.
  • 113. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct and one-thirdcross.
  • 114. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct examination
  • 115. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct examination
  • 116. Early this year, we experimented onthe compulsory use of judicial affidavitsin all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have beencut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usuallyconsists of two-thirds direct examination and one-third cross examination.
  • 117. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?
  • 118. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?
  • 119. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?
  • 120. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time.
  • 121. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time.
  • 122. With judicial affidavit as directtestimony, the witness is examined in court onlyon cross. Instead of one witness testifying at agiven time, the court can now accommodatethree witnesses in that time.
  • 123. Consequently, the Supreme Courtapproved the “Judicial Affidavit Rule” onSeptember 4, 2012.
  • 124. What functions do judicial affidavitstake? 1. They take the place of thewitnesses’ direct testimonies; and 2. They shall attach and authenticatedocumentary or object evidence of theparties.
  • 125. What functions do judicial affidavitstake? 1. They take the place of directtestimonies; and 2. They identify and authenticatedocumentary or object evidence of theparties.
  • 126. What functions do judicial affidavitstake? 1. They take the place of directtestimonies; and 2. They identify and authenticatedocumentary or object evidence in thecase.
  • 127. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? The parties shall file them with thecourt and serve copies on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents
  • 128. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and serve copies on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents
  • 129. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents
  • 130. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents
  • 131. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents
  • 132. How and when are judicial affidavitsto be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverseparty, personally or by licensed courierservice, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing withrespect to motions and incidents.
  • 133. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation inEnglish or Filipino.
  • 134. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation inEnglish or Filipino.
  • 135. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English orFilipino, accompanied by a translation inEnglish or Filipino.
  • 136. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English orFilipino, it is to be accompanied by atranslation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies tobe taken in the dialect provided they are subsequentlytranslated into English or Filipino.
  • 137. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English orFilipino, it is to be accompanied by atranslation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies tobe taken in the dialect provided they are subsequentlytranslated into English or Filipino.
  • 138. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English orFilipino, it is to be accompanied by atranslation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies tobe taken and kept in the dialect of theplace provided they are subsequentlytranslated into English or Filipino.
  • 139. In what language will the judicialaffidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English orFilipino, it is to be accompanied by atranslation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies tobe taken and kept in the dialect of theplace provided they are subsequentlytranslated into English or Filipino.
  • 140. Testimonies will be quoted inpleadings in their original version with the English translation inparenthesis provided by the party, subject to counter translation byopposing side.
  • 141. Testimonies will be quoted inpleadings in their original version with the English or Pilipinotranslation in parenthesis provided by theparty, subject to counter translation byopposing side.
  • 142. Testimonies will be quoted inpleadings in their original version with the English or Pilipinotranslation in parenthesis provided by theparty, subject to counter translation byopposing side.
  • 143. For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said thatthe accused arrived in great haste. “Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali siJulio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julioarrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasipo humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because hewas breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
  • 144. For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said thatthe accused arrived in great haste. “Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali siJulio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julioarrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasipo humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because hewas breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
  • 145. For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said thatthe accused arrived in great haste. “Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali siJulio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julioarrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasipo humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because hewas breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)
  • 146. For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said thatthe accused arrived in great haste. “Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali siJulio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julioarrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya.”(Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when hearrived.)
  • 147. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The name, age, residence, orbusiness address, and occupation of thewitness; (b) The name and address of thelawyer who conducts or supervises theexamination of the witness and the place where the examinationis being held; and
  • 148. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The personal circumstance of thewitness; (b) The identity of the lawyer whoconducts or supervises the examinationof the witness and the place where the examinationis being held; and
  • 149. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The personal circumstance of thewitness; (b) The identity of the lawyer whoconducts or supervises the examinationof the witness and the place where the examinationis being held; and
  • 150. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The personal circumstance of thewitness; (b) The identity of the lawyer whoconducts or supervises the examinationof the witness (c) the place where the examinationis being held; and (d) A statement that the witness isanswering the questions under oath,
  • 151. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The personal circumstance of thewitness; (b) The identity of the lawyer whoconducts or supervises the examinationof the witness (c) the place where the examinationis being held; and (d) A statement that the witness isanswering the questions under oath
  • 152. What will the judicial affidavitcontain? (a) The personal circumstance of thewitness; (b) The identity of the lawyer whoconducts or supervises the examinationof the witness (c) the place where the examinationis being held; and (d) A statement that the witness isanswering the questions under oath and that he may face criminal liabilityfor false testimony or perjury.
  • 153. Like this … “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty.Julio C. Magno with address at 45 VicenteG. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. Theexamination is being held at the sameaddress. I am answering his questionsfully conscious that I do so under oath andmay face criminal liability for falsetestimony and perjury.”
  • 154. Like this … “I, ELNORA S. SABUGO, of legal age,married, and living at 12 Camalig St.,Caloocan City, plaintiff in this case, stateunder oath as follows: “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty.Julio C. Magno with address at 45 VicenteG. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. Theexamination is being held at the sameaddress. I am answering his questionsfully conscious that I do so under oath andmay face criminal liability for falsetestimony and perjury.”
  • 155. Then there is the affidavit proper thatcontains: (a) Questions asked of the witnessand his corresponding answers,consecutively numbered, that show the circumstances underwhich the witness acquired the facts uponwhich he testifies.
  • 156. Then there is the affidavit proper thatcontains: (a) Numbered questions and answers; that show the circumstances underwhich the witness acquired the facts uponwhich he testifies.
  • 157. Then there is the affidavit proper thatcontains: (a) Numbered questions and answers, showing personal knowledge of thefacts that the witness is testifying on.
  • 158. Like this … Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, thedefendant in this case? A1. Yes, sir. Q2. How did you know him? A2. He borrowed money from me
  • 159. Like this … Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, thedefendant in this case? A1. Yes, sir. Q2. How did you know him? A2. He asked me if he could borrowmoney from me, sir. Q3. Where did this happen? A.3. At my house in Caloocan City. Q4. When? A4. On May 22, 2011, sir.
  • 160. (b) Questions and answers that elicitfacts relevant to the issues.Like this … Q3. When did he borrow money fromyou? A3. Sometime in April of 2008, heasked me if he could borrow P200,000.00for his family. Q4. What was your reply? A4. I agreed to lend him the money.. Q5. Was your transaction in writing? A5. Yes, sir. We executed a“Kasunduan” on April 16, 2008.
  • 161. (b) Questions and answers that elicitfacts relevant to the issues.Like this … Q5. What was your response to hisrequest for loan from you? A5. I Agreed to lend him the moneyhe needed. Q.6. How much? A.6. He asked for P300,000.00. Q7. Was your transaction in writing? A7. Yes, sir. We executed a“Kasunduan” on April 16, 2008.
  • 162. (c) Questions and answers thatidentify the attached documentary andobject evidence and establish their authenticity inaccordance with the Rules of Court.Like this … Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” thatyou mentioned? A6: This is the one, sir (handing overa document). Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”as Exhibit A and the bracketed signatureabove the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
  • 163. (c) Questions and answers thatidentify the attached documentary andobject evidence and establish their authenticity inaccordance with the Rules of Court.Like this … Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” thatyou mentioned? A6: This is the one, sir (handing overa document). Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”as Exhibit A and the bracketed signatureabove the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
  • 164. (c) Questions and answers thatidentify the attached documentary andobject evidence and establish their authenticity inaccordance with the Rules of Court.Like this … Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” thatyou mentioned? A6: This is the one, sir (handing overa document). Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”as Exhibit A and the bracketed signatureabove the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
  • 165. (c) Questions and answers thatidentify the attached documentary andobject evidence and establish their authenticity inaccordance with the Rules of Court.Like this … Q8: Where is this “Kasunduan” thatyou mentioned? A8: This is the one, sir (handing overa document). Q9: I am marking this “Kasunduan”as Exhibit A and the bracketed signatureabove the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
  • 166. Do you know whose signature this is? A9: Yes, sir, that of Gerry Umali. Q10: How do you know? A10: I saw him sign it. Q11: I am marking the signatureabove the name Elnora Sabugo on thisdocument as Exh. A-2. Do you knowwhose signature this is? A11: Yes, sir, that is my signature. Q11: I am attaching Exhibit A to yourjudicial affidavit to form part of it. Do youconfirm my action? A11: Yes, sir.
  • 167. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 168. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 169. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 170. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 171. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 172. What is required of the lawyer whoexamined the witness or supervised suchexamination? He must execute a sworn attestationat the end of the judicial affidavit that: (1) He faithfully recorded or causedto be recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding answers thatthe witness gave; and (2) Neither he nor any other personthen present coached the witness regarding hisanswers.
  • 173. Like this … I faithfully recorded the questions Iasked Ms. Sabugo and the correspondinganswers she gave me; and neither I norany other person then present coachedMs. Sabugo regarding her answers. JULIO C. MAGNO Affiant
  • 174. What is the consequence of a falseattestation? It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer todisciplinary action, including disbarment.
  • 175. What is the consequence of a falseattestation? It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer todisciplinary action, including disbarment.
  • 176. What is the consequence of a falseattestation? It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer todisciplinary action, including disbarment.
  • 177. What is the consequence of a falseattestation? It will subject the lawyer-examiner or the supervising lawyer todisciplinary action, including disbarment.
  • 178. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. Even without this requirement, it is the lawyer’s duty to record thequestions and answers faithfully and prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavits since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 179. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without this requirement, it is the lawyer’s duty to record thequestions and answers faithfully and prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavits since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 180. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without it, the lawyer isresponsible for faithfully recording thequestions and answers and prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavits since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 181. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without it, the lawyer isresponsible for faithfully recording thequestions and answers and prevent coaching of the witness. It is fair since the attestation isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavits since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 182. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without it, the lawyer isresponsible for faithfully recording thequestions and answers and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavits since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 183. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without it, the lawyer isresponsible for faithfully recording thequestions and answers and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. 3. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavit since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. What is wrong with requiring lawyersto assume responsibility for their work?
  • 184. Is this requirement unreasonable? No. 1. Even without it, the lawyer isresponsible for faithfully recording thequestions and answers and prevent coaching of the witness. 2. The attestation is fair since it isrequired of the opposing lawyer as well. 3. We need to trust the fidelity ofjudicial affidavit since it takes the placeof direct testimony in court. 4. What is wrong with requiringlawyers to assume responsibility for theiractions?
  • 185. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of theadverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court,
  • 186. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness who is neither the witness of theadverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court,
  • 187. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court,
  • 188. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court,
  • 189. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court,
  • 190. How will the judicial affidavits ofuncooperative witnesses be taken? If the government employee orofficial, or the requested witness, unjustifiably declines to execute ajudicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to makethe relevant books, documents,or other things under his control available for copying, authentication,and eventual production in court, the requesting party may availhimself of the issuance of a subpoena adtestificandum
  • 191. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of asubpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking hisdeposition except that the taking of a judicialaffidavit shall be understood to be exparte.
  • 192. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required forthe adverse party or hostile witness
  • 193. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required forthe adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leadingquestions as in cross.
  • 194. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required forthe adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leadingquestions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of asubpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking hisdeposition except that the taking of a judicialaffidavit shall be understood to be exparte.
  • 195. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required forthe adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leadingquestions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of asubpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking hisdeposition except that the taking of a judicialaffidavit shall be understood to be exparte.
  • 196. or duces tecum under Rule 21 of theRules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required forthe adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leadingquestions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of asubpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking hisdeposition except that the taking of a judicialaffidavit shall be understood to be exparte.
  • 197. With the judicial affidavit taking theplace of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing partyhave if inadmissible evidence isintroduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the partypresenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness to state at the start of thepresentation of the witness to state his purpose for presentingsuch testimony.
  • 198. With the judicial affidavit taking theplace of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing partyhave if inadmissible evidence isintroduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the partypresenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness to state at the start of thepresentation of the witness to state his purpose for presentingsuch testimony.
  • 199. With the judicial affidavit taking theplace of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing partyhave if inadmissible evidence isintroduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the partypresenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness to state at the start of thepresentation of the witness to state his purpose for presentingsuch testimony.
  • 200. With the judicial affidavit taking theplace of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing partyhave if inadmissible evidence isintroduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the partypresenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness to state at the start of thepresentation of the witness to state his purpose for presentingsuch testimony.
  • 201. With the judicial affidavit taking theplace of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing partyhave if inadmissible evidence isintroduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the partypresenting the judicial affidavit of hiswitness to state at the start of thepresentation of the witness the party’s purpose for presentingsuch testimony.
  • 202. The adverse party may then move todisqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it onground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause themarking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under theinitials of an authorized court personnel.
  • 203. The adverse party may then move todisqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it onground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause themarking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under theinitials of an authorized court personnel.
  • 204. The adverse party may then move todisqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it onground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause themarking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under theinitials of an authorized court personnel.
  • 205. The adverse party may then move todisqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it onground of inadmissibility.
  • 206. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause themarking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under theinitials of an authorized court personnel.
  • 207. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause theexclusion of the offending answer by placing it in brackets under theinitials of an authorized court personnel.
  • 208. The court shall promptly rule on themotion and, if granted, shall cause theexclusion of the offending answer by placing it in brackets. Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the defendant in this case? A1. Yes, sir. Q2. How did you know him? A2. He asked me if he could borrow money from me, sir. [Q3. Do you know what he needed the money for? A.3. Yes, Sir. His brother told me that he had to pay for his son’s tuition fees.] MJC 5/2/10 Q4. When did he ask you if he could borrow money from you? A4. On May 22, 2011, sir.
  • 209. Moreover, if cross examinationreveals an inadmissible testimony in thejudicial affidavit, the adverse party could of coursealso ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tenderof excluded evidence under Section 40 ofRule 132 of the Rules of Court.
  • 210. Moreover, if cross examinationreveals an inadmissible testimony in thejudicial affidavit, the adverse party could of coursealso ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tenderof excluded evidence under Section 40 ofRule 132 of the Rules of Court.
  • 211. Moreover, if cross examinationreveals an inadmissible testimony in thejudicial affidavit, the adverse party could of coursealso ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tenderof excluded evidence under Section 40 ofRule 132 of the Rules of Court.
  • 212. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 213. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 214. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 215. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 216. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 217. Is cross examination of the witnessallowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have theright to cross-examine the witness on hisjudicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to thesame. Since he has been given a copy of thejudicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have noreason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witnessmay also examine him as on re-direct.
  • 218. Can the court also examine thewitness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rulesignals the shift in our system for hearingcases from purely adversarial to acombined adversarial and inquisitorialsystem, patterned after many successfulmodels in the world. In every case, the court shall takeactive part in examining the witness
  • 219. Can the court also examine thewitness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rulesignals the shift in our system for hearingcases from purely adversarial to acombined adversarial and inquisitorialsystem, patterned after many successfulmodels in the world. In every case, the court shall takeactive part in examining the witness
  • 220. Can the court also examine thewitness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rulesignals the shift in our system for hearingcases from purely adversarial to acombined adversarial and inquisitorialsystem, patterned after many successfulmodels in the world. In every case, the court shall takeactive part in examining the witness
  • 221. Can the court also examine thewitness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rulesignals the shift in our system for hearingcases from purely adversarial to acombined adversarial and inquisitorialsystem, patterned after many successfulmodels in the world. In every case, the court shall takeactive part in examining the witness
  • 222. Can the court also examine thewitness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rulesignals the shift in our system for hearingcases from purely adversarial to acombined adversarial and inquisitorialsystem, patterned after many successfulmodels in the world. In every case, the judge shall takeactive part in examining the witness.
  • 223. He is not limited to askingclarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that willdetermine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judgeneeds for resolving the issues.
  • 224. He is not limited to askingclarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that willdetermine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judgeneeds for resolving the issues.
  • 225. He is not limited to askingclarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that willdetermine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judgeneeds for resolving the issues.
  • 226. He is not limited to askingclarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that willdetermine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judgeneeds for resolving the issues.
  • 227. Suppose the examination of thewitness by the judge results in elicitinganswers that are favorable to a party to thecase, will that not be regarded as showingbias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under thejury system avoids asking questions ofthe witness is that the members of the jury, whoare common people,
  • 228. Suppose the examination of thewitness by the judge results in elicitinganswers that are favorable to a party to thecase, will that not be regarded as showingbias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under thejury system avoids asking questions ofthe witness is that the members of the jury, whoare common people,
  • 229. Suppose the examination of thewitness by the judge results in elicitinganswers that are favorable to a party to thecase, will that not be regarded as showingbias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under thejury system avoids asking questions ofthe witness is that the members of the jury, whoare common people,
  • 230. Suppose the examination of thewitness by the judge results in elicitinganswers that are favorable to a party to thecase, will that not be regarded as showingbias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under thejury system avoids asking questions ofthe witness is that the members of the jury, whoare common people,
  • 231. Suppose the examination of thewitness by the judge results in elicitinganswers that are favorable to a party to thecase, will that not be regarded as showingbias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under thejury system avoids asking questions ofthe witness is that the members of the jury, whoare common people,
  • 232. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 233. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 234. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 235. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 236. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 237. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the truth.
  • 238. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the court’s search for truth.
  • 239. might give undue importance to theanswers the judge elicits more than what those answersactually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not preventedfrom objecting to questions from thejudge if they tend to elicit inadmissibleanswers. In any case, the answer comes notfrom the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, suchanswer simply lends itself to the court’s search for truth.
  • 240. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 241. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 242. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 243. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 244. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 245. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 246. Trial is not about preventingunfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth nomatter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge showsclear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is onlyafter the truth, the prejudiced party can seek hisinhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Courthas been suspending lawyers frompractice who file frivolous motions forinhibition against judges.
  • 247. How are the documentary and objectexhibits of the parties offered foradmission as evidence? Upon the termination of thetestimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make anoral offer of evidence of his documentaryor object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronologicalorder, stating the purpose or purposes forwhich he offers the particular exhibit.
  • 248. How are the documentary and objectexhibits of the parties offered foradmission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of hislast witness, a party shall immediately make anoral offer of evidence of his documentaryor object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronologicalorder, stating the purpose or purposes forwhich he offers the particular exhibit.
  • 249. How are the documentary and objectexhibits of the parties offered foradmission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of hislast witness, a party shall immediately make anoral offer of evidence of his documentaryand object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronologicalorder, stating the purpose or purposes forwhich he offers the particular exhibit.
  • 250. How are the documentary and objectexhibits of the parties offered foradmission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of hislast witness, a party shall immediately make anoral offer of evidence of his documentaryand object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronologicalorder, stating the purpose or purposes forwhich he offers the particular exhibit.
  • 251. How are the documentary and objectexhibits of the parties offered foradmission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of hislast witness, a party shall immediately make anoral offer of evidence of his documentaryand object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronologicalorder, stating the purpose or purposes forwhich he offers the particular exhibit.
  • 252. After each piece of exhibit is offered,
  • 253. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state thelegal ground for his objection to it, if any, and the court shall immediately makeits ruling respecting that exhibit.
  • 254. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state thelegal ground for his objection to it, if any, and the court shall immediately makeits ruling respecting that exhibit.
  • 255. Since the documentary or objectexhibits form part of the judicial affidavitsthat describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits aresimply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, andthe rulings, dispensing with the description ofeach exhibit.
  • 256. Since the documentary or objectexhibits form part of the judicial affidavitsthat describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits aresimply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, andthe rulings, dispensing with the description ofeach exhibit.
  • 257. Since the documentary or objectexhibits form part of the judicial affidavitsthat describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits aresimply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, andthe rulings, dispensing with the description ofeach exhibit.
  • 258. Since the documentary or objectexhibits form part of the judicial affidavitsthat describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits aresimply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, andthe rulings, dispensing with the description ofeach exhibit.
  • 259. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of theimposable penalty does not exceed sixyears; (2) where the accused agrees to theuse of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;or (3) with respect to the civil aspect ofthe actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
  • 260. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of theimposable penalty does not exceed sixyears; (2) where the accused agrees to theuse of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;or (3) with respect to the civil aspect ofthe actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
  • 261. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of theimposable penalty does not exceed sixyears; (2) irrespective of the penaltyinvolved, where the accused agrees to theuse of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;or (3) with respect to the civil aspect ofthe actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
  • 262. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of theimposable penalty does not exceed sixyears; (2) irrespective of the penaltyinvolved, where the accused agrees to theuse of judicial affidavits; (3) with respect to the civil aspect ofthe actions, whatever the penaltiesinvolved are.
  • 263. When will the parties in the criminalcase submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit thejudicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before thepre-trial, serving copies of the same upon theaccused. The complainant or public prosecutorshall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidenceas he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, andso on.
  • 264. When will the parties in the criminalcase submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit thejudicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before thepre-trial, serving copies of the same upon theaccused. The complainant or public prosecutorshall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidenceas he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, andso on.
  • 265. When will the parties in the criminalcase submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit thejudicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before thepre-trial, serving copies of the same upon theaccused. The complainant or public prosecutorshall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidenceas he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, andso on.
  • 266. When will the parties in the criminalcase submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit thejudicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before thepre-trial, serving copies of the same upon theaccused.
  • 267. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors,
  • 268. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors,
  • 269. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors,
  • 270. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors,
  • 271. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors or keep his silence.
  • 272. No further judicial affidavit ordocumentary or object evidence may beadmitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard onhis defense after receipt of the judicialaffidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit hisjudicial affidavit as well as those of hiswitnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of suchaffidavits and serve a copy of each on thepublic and private prosecutors or keep his silence.
  • 273. Because the prosecution lays all itsevidence on the table, the accused can freely andreasonably make his choice of whether toremain silent or not.
  • 274. Because the prosecution lays all itsevidence on the table, the accused can freely andreasonably make his choice of whether toremain silent or not.
  • 275. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance to submit them provided the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 276. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance to submit them provided the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 277. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 278. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 279. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 280. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 281. What are the effects of the failure ofa party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waivedtheir submission. But the court may give him one lastchance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fineof not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at thediscretion of the court.
  • 282. What are the effects of the absenceof the witness or of counsel at thescheduled hearing? The court shall not consider theaffidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduledhearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear withoutvalid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived hisclient’s right to confront by cross examination thewitnesses there present.
  • 283. What are the effects of the absenceof the witness or of counsel at thescheduled hearing? The court shall not consider theaffidavit of any absent witness who fails to appear at the scheduledhearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear withoutvalid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived hisclient’s right to confront by cross examination thewitnesses there present.
  • 284. What are the effects of the absenceof the witness or of counsel at thescheduled hearing? The court shall not consider theaffidavit of any absent witness. Counsel who fails to appear withoutvalid cause shall be deemed to have waived hisclient’s right to confront by cross examination thewitnesses there present.
  • 285. What are the effects of the absenceof the witness or of counsel at thescheduled hearing? The court shall not consider theaffidavit of any absent witness. Counsel who fails to appear withoutvalid cause shall be deemed to have waived hisclient’s right to cross examine.
  • 286. What is the effect of submittingjudicial affidavits to the content requirements ofsection 3 and the attestation requirement ofsection 4? The court shall not admit as evidencesuch judicial affidavits. But it may allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliantreplacement affidavits before the hearing or trialprovided
  • 287. What is the effect of submittingjudicial affidavits that do not conform to contentrequirements? and the attestationrequirement of section 4? The court shall not admit as evidencesuch judicial affidavits. But it may allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliantreplacement affidavits before the hearing or trialprovided
  • 288. What is the effect of submittingjudicial affidavits that do not conform to contentrequirements? The court shall not admit them inevidence. But it may allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliantreplacement affidavits before the hearing or trialprovided
  • 289. What is the effect of submittingjudicial affidavits that do not conform to contentrequirements? The court shall not admit them inevidence. But it may allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliantreplacement affidavits before the hearing or trialprovided
  • 290. What is the effect of submittingjudicial affidavits that do not conform to contentrequirements? The court shall not admit them inevidence. But it may allow only once thesubsequent submission of the compliantreplacement affidavits before the hearing or trialprovided
  • 291. the delay is for a valid reason, and would not unduly prejudice theopposing party and provided further, that public orprivate counsel responsible for theirpreparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
  • 292. the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and provided further, that public orprivate counsel responsible for theirpreparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
  • 293. the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the public or private counselresponsible for their preparation andsubmission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
  • 294. the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the public or private counselresponsible for their preparation andsubmission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
  • 295. the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the public or private counselresponsible for their preparation andsubmission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court
  • 296. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes.
  • 297. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes.
  • 298. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 299. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 300. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 301. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 302. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 303. Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule applyto existing cases? Yes. Suppose the existing cases hadalready undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain tobe heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall betreated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.
  • 304. THANK YOU
  • 305. Like this … “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty.Julio C. Magno with address at 45 VicenteG. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. Theexamination is being held at the sameaddress. I am answering his questionsfully conscious that I do so under oath andmay face criminal liability for falsetestimony and perjury.”
  • 306. Ako, si PO1 Renato Y. Robles, 34taon, may-asawa, isang pulis, atnakatalaga sa Sampaloc Police Station,Sampaloc, Manila, mataposmakapanumpa ng ayon sa batas aynagsasaad ng mga sumusunod: Pangunang Salita Ang nagtatanong sa akin sa judicialaffidavit kong ito ay si PO2 Jaime C.Ramos na isang pulis na nakatalaga dinsa Sampaloc Police Station, Manila,Ginanap ang pagtatanong niya sa akin saStation ding ito.
  • 307. Sinagot ko ang mga tanong sa akinsa ilalim ng aking sinumpaan na magsabing katotohanan lamang at batid ko namaaari akong managot kung sakaling akoay magsinungaling.”
  • 308. T1. Natatandaan mo ba kung nasaanka nuong umaga ng Mayo 21, 2012? S1. Opo, nasa aming opisina po ako,sa Sampaloc Police Station, Anti-DrugsUnit. T2. Ano ang ginagawa mo doonnuong umagang iyon? S2. Pinag-aaralan po namin ng mgakasamahan kong pulis kung paano naminghuhulihin si Alex Samson na ini-report saamin na nagtitinda ng shabu sa Dapitan,malapit sa UST.
  • 309. T3. Ano ang napagpasyahan ninyo? S3. Napagpasyahan naming gumawang isang buy-bust operation. T4. Anong hakbang ang ginawa ninyopara mangyari ang inyong binalak? S4. Naghanda kami ng pera na amingminarkahan para ipambili ng shabu kayAlex Samson at lumakad na kami upangmagkunwaring bibili ng shabu sa kanya. T5. Makikilala mo ba ang peranginihanda ninyo na iyong minarkahan? S5. Opo.
  • 310. T6. Tignan mo itong P100 na maymarkang ”RYR 5/21/2012”, may kinalamanba ito doon sa sinabi mong pera na inyonginihanda pambili ng shabu? S6. Iyan po iyon. T7: Minamarkahan ko ang P100 na itobilang Exhibit A. Kaninong sulat kamayang markang ito na ”RYR 5/21/2012”? S7: Sa akin po. T8: Ikinakabit ko ang Exhibit A na itosa iyong judicial affidavit upang magingbahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka ba saginawa ko? S8: Opo.
  • 311. T9. Ano ang ginawa ninyo mataposkayong maghanda ng perang pambili ngshabu? S9. Inabangan po namin si AlexSamson sa Dapitan Street at nangdumating siya, lumapit ako sa kanyakasama ang isang informer at nagtanongkung puwede akong bumili ng pisongshabu.
  • 312. T10. Ano ang sagot niya? S10. Inabutan niya ako ng isangmaliit na plastic na may lamang tilapulbos at inabot ko naman sa kanya iyongP100 na inihanda namin? T11. Ano ang sumunod napangyayari? S11. Nang makita ng mgakasamahan ko na nagkabilihan na kami,lumapit sila at hinuli namin si AlexSamson.
  • 313. T12. Ano ang nangyari sa nasamsamninyong plastic na may lamang tilapulbos? S12. Minarkahan ko ito ng akinginitial at kung anong araw namin itonakuha. T13. Masdan mo ang plastic na ito atsabihin mo sa akin kung ano angkinalaman nito sa binanggit mong plastic? A13. Iyan po iyong nakuha namingkay Alex Samson. Ang marka po dito naRYR 5/2/2012 ay ako ang naglagay. T14 Ano ang ginawa ninyo dito?
  • 314. A14. Pinadala namin sa crimelaboratory sa ganoon ding kalagayan,silyado. T15: Minamarkahan ko ang plasticsachet na ito bilang Exhibit B at ikinakabitko sa iyong judicial affidavit upangmaging bahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka basa ginawa ko? S15: Opo. T16: Mayroon pa ba kayong ibangebidensya laban kay Alex Samson? S16: Kumuha din po kami ng mgalarawan bago namin siya hulihin, habanghinuhuli namin siya, at matapos naminsiyang hulihin.
  • 315. T17: Ito ba ang mga larawang iyon? S17: Opo. T18: Paano ma nakilala ang mgalarawang ito? S18: Kasama po ako ng kunan angmga larawang iyan. T19: Minamarkahan ko ang mgalarawang ito bilang Exh. C, C-1, at C-2.Saan kinunan ang mga larawang ito? S19: Sa Dapitan Street po kung saannamin nahuli si Alex Samson. T20: Sino-sinong nasa larawang ito? S20: Si Alex Samson, ako, si PO2Jose Pangan, at si PO3 Ramon Asis.
  • 316. IMPLEMENTINGPRESENT POLICIES ON THE RIGHT TO BAIL
  • 317. Many of us live with our familes incomfort and freedom,
  • 318. not once were we locked against ourwill in a room crammed with strangers…
  • 319. and reeking with the foul smell ofdried sweat.
  • 320. One of the great tragedies in life thatcould strike you is for you or a loved one to bedetained in any of these jails while the case against you or theloved one is being heard.
  • 321. One of the great tragedies in life thatcould strike you is for you or a loved one to bedetained in any of these jails while the case against you or theloved one is being heard.
  • 322. One of the great tragedies in life thatcould strike you is for you or a loved one to bedetained in any of these jails while the case against you or thatloved one is being heard.
  • 323. Although those kept in detention jailsare presumed innocent, they suffer worse fate than convictedfelons in the penitentiary who enjoy larger living spaces,hospitals, libraries, basketball courts, gyms, craftworks,trades education, and psychological monitoring.
  • 324. Although those kept in detention jailsare presumed innocent, they suffer worse fate than convictedfelons in the national penitentiary who enjoy larger living spaces,hospitals, libraries, basketball courts, gyms, craftworks,trades education, and psychological monitoring.
  • 325. who enjoy larger living spaces…
  • 326. Hospitals….
  • 327. Sports facilities …
  • 328. Recreation …
  • 329. Craftworks…
  • 330. Our detention jails, especially incities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions: extremely poor ventilation andsanitation; widespread cases of boils, asthma,tuberculosis, depressions, and psychoticbehavior; and inadequate food.
  • 331. Our detention jails, especially incities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions: extremely poor ventilation andsanitation; widespread cases of boils, asthma,tuberculosis, depressions, and psychoticbehavior; and inadequate food.
  • 332. Our detention jails, especially incities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions:
  • 333. extremely poor ventilation andsanitation…
  • 334. and widespread cases of boils,asthma, tuberculosis, depressions, andpsychotic behavior… and inadequatefood.
  • 335. The detention of accused personsare meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of theircases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorableconditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from theInternational Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become aparty to the violation of the guarantees ofdue process and internationally set humaneconditions of detention.
  • 336. The detention of accused personsare meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of theircases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorableconditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from theInternational Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become aparty to the violation of the guarantees ofdue process and internationally set humaneconditions of detention.
  • 337. The detention of accused personsare meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of theircases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorableconditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from theInternational Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become aparty to the violation of the guarantees ofdue process and internationally set humaneconditions of detention.
  • 338. The detention of accused personsare meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of theircases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorableconditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from theInternational Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become aparty to the violation of the guarantees ofdue process and internationally set humaneconditions of detention.
  • 339. The detention of accused personsare meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of theircases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorableconditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from theInternational Committee of the Red Cross.
  • 340. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 341. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 342. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 343. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 344. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 345. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 346. The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offensespunishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as thelaw may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not berequired.
  • 347. But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedurerequire courts to fix a reasonable amountof bail for accused persons, taking into account their financialability. In practice, however, the courtssimply adopt the amounts of bail that theprosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guideissued by the Department of Justice.
  • 348. But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedurerequire courts to fix a reasonable amountof bail for accused persons, taking into account their financialability. In practice, however, the courtssimply adopt the amounts of bail that theprosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guideissued by the Department of Justice.
  • 349. But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedurerequire courts to fix a reasonable amountof bail for accused persons, taking into account their financialability. In practice, however, the courtssimply adopt the amounts of bail that theprosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guideissued by the Department of Justice.
  • 350. But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedurerequire courts to fix a reasonable amountof bail for accused persons, taking into account their financialability. In practice, however, the courtssimply adopt the amounts of bail that theprosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guideissued by the Department of Justice.
  • 351. But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedurerequire courts to fix a reasonable amountof bail for accused persons, taking into account their financialability. In practice, however, the courtssimply adopt the amounts of bail that theprosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guideissued by the Department of Justice.
  • 352. Such bail amounts are based solelyon the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for thevery rich and the very poor are the same. Yet many of those in our jails arepoor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and lookafter.
  • 353. Such bail amounts are based solelyon the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for thevery rich
  • 354. Such bail amounts are based solelyon the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for thevery rich and the very poor are the same.
  • 355. Yet many of those in our jails arepoor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and lookafter.
  • 356. Yet many of those in our jails arepoor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and lookafter.
  • 357. Yet many of those in our jails arepoor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and lookafter.
  • 358. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.
  • 359. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.
  • 360. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.
  • 361. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.
  • 362. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.
  • 363. Question: who are not entitled tobail? Answer: only those accused ofcapital crimes when the evidence of guiltis strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot affordbail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Quite shamefully, our bail system isanti-poor.
  • 364. The rules allow those who haveserved the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order therelease of only those who have served the maximum.
  • 365. The rules allow those who haveserved the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order therelease of only those who have served the maximum.
  • 366. The rules allow those who haveserved the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order therelease of only those who have served the maximum.
  • 367. The rules allow those who haveserved the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order therelease of only those who have served the maximum oftheir imposable penalties.
  • 368. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only afteryears in detention, absolved of the charges, most of indrugs cases, for lack of evidence.
  • 369. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only afteryears in detention, absolved of the charges, most of indrugs cases, for lack of evidence.
  • 370. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only afteryears in detention, absolved of the charges, most of indrugs cases, for lack of evidence.
  • 371. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail when the evidence of guilt is notstrong. Result: many are freed only afteryears in detention, absolved of the charges, most of indrugs cases, for lack of evidence.
  • 372. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail when the evidence of guilt is notstrong. Result: many who have beenabsolved are freed only after years indetention,
  • 373. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail when the evidence of guilt is notstrong. Result: many who have beenabsolved are freed only after years indetention,
  • 374. Further, the hearing of applicationsfor bail of persons charged with capitaloffenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courtsinsist on hearing the prosecution’s entireevidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s rightto bail when the evidence of guilt is notstrong. Result: many who have beenabsolved are freed only after years indetention, mostly involved in drugs cases.
  • 375. Although absolved, the scars of pain,degradation, and hopelessness remainwith them.
  • 376. Quite often, they return to familiesthat have been broken by a parent’s longabsence. They are permanently damaged.
  • 377. Quite often, they return to familiesthat have been broken by a parent’s longabsence. They are permanently damaged.
  • 378. Quite often, they return to familiesthat have been broken by a parent’s longabsence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from theirfamilies until they are proven guilty.
  • 379. Quite often, they return to familiesthat have been broken by a parent’s longabsence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from theirfamilies until they are proven guilty.
  • 380. Quite often, they return to familiesthat have been broken by a parent’s longabsence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from theirfamilies until they are proven guilty.
  • 381. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already becomeindifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 382. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already becomeindifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 383. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already becomeindifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 384. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 385. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 386. They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not carefor me.” (Mathew 25:43)
  • 387. Why have our judges been reluctant given them by the law and the rules in the matter of granting bail orrecognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often make themvulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient withaccused persons.
  • 388. Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail orrecognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often make themvulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient withaccused persons.
  • 389. Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail orrecognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made themvulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient withaccused persons.
  • 390. Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail orrecognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made themvulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient withaccused persons.
  • 391. Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail orrecognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made themvulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient withaccused persons.
  • 392. We need to fully implement thepolicies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bailin the context of decongesting ourdetention jails and humanizing the conditions underwhich they are detained pending thehearing of their cases. We also need to protect our judges byproviding clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion ingranting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrasssuch judges.
  • 393. We need to fully implement thepolicies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bailin the context of decongesting ourdetention jails. and humanizing the conditions underwhich they are detained pending thehearing of their cases. We also need to protect our judges byproviding clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion ingranting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrasssuch judges.
  • 394. We need to fully implement thepolicies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bailin the context of decongesting ourdetention jails. We also need to protect our judges byproviding clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion ingranting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrasssuch judges.
  • 395. We need to fully implement thepolicies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bailin the context of decongesting ourdetention jails. We also need to protect our judges byproviding clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion ingranting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrasssuch judges.
  • 396. We need to fully implement thepolicies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bailin the context of decongesting ourdetention jails. We also need to protect our judges byproviding clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion ingranting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harasssuch judges.
  • 397. 1. GUIDELINESFOR FIXING BAIL
  • 398. Shall we do away with the DOJ BailBond Guide under the proposed scheme? Yes. The bail bond guide, fixed andperiodically adjusted by the Departmentof Justice, shall be the beginning point fordetermining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his orher provisional liberty.
  • 399. Shall we do away with the DOJ BailBond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shallbe the beginning point for determining theamount of bail that the accused may post for his orher provisional liberty.
  • 400. Shall we do away with the DOJ BailBond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall be the beginning point fordetermining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his orher provisional liberty.
  • 401. Shall we do away with the DOJ BailBond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall be the beginning point fordetermining the amount of bail that the accused may post for hisprovisional liberty.
  • 402. How will the court itself fix theamount of bail? The court shall, after findingsufficient cause to hold the accused fortrial, fix the amount of bail that the lattermust post for his provisional release, taking into account the publicprosecutor’s recommendation and any relevant data that the lattermay have submitted.
  • 403. How will the court itself fix theamount of bail? The court shall, after findingsufficient cause to hold the accused fortrial, fix the amount of bail that the lattermust post for his provisional release, taking into account the publicprosecutor’s recommendation and any relevant data that the lattermay have submitted.
  • 404. How will the court itself fix theamount of bail? The court shall, after findingsufficient cause to hold the accused fortrial, fix the amount of bail taking intoaccount the public prosecutor’srecommendation and any relevant data that the lattermay have submitted.
  • 405. How will the court itself fix theamount of bail? The court shall, after findingsufficient cause to hold the accused fortrial, fix the amount of bail taking intoaccount the public prosecutor’srecommendation, any relevant data from theinformation and its supporting documents, and the various criteria providedunder the rules.
  • 406. How will the court itself fix theamount of bail? The court shall, after findingsufficient cause to hold the accused fortrial, fix the amount of bail taking intoaccount the public prosecutor’srecommendation, any relevant data from theinformation and its supporting documents, and the various criteria providedunder the rules.
  • 407. In no case shall the court requireexcessive bail in the context of the accused’sfinancial ability. Bail, whether originally fixed,reduced, or increased, may be in the form of cash, property,or surety bond.
  • 408. In no case shall the court requireexcessive bail in the context of the accused’sfinancial ability.
  • 409. Pending the raffle of the case to aregular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixingof the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judgeshall cause the immediate raffle of thecase for the hearing of the motion.
  • 410. Pending the raffle of the case to aregular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixingof the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judgeshall cause the immediate raffle of thecase for the hearing of the motion.
  • 411. Pending the raffle of the case to aregular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixingof the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judgeshall cause the immediate raffle of thecase for the hearing of the motion.
  • 412. When may the accused seekreduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have thefinancial ability to post the amount of bailthat the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents oraffidavits.
  • 413. When may the accused seekreduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have thefinancial ability to post the amount of bailthat the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents oraffidavits.
  • 414. When may the accused seekreduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have thefinancial ability to post the amount of bailthat the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents oraffidavits.
  • 415. When may the accused seekreduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have thefinancial ability to post the amount of bailthat the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents oraffidavits.
  • 416. When may the court increase theamount of bail? If the accused lies about his incomeand properties and those of his immediate relatives or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case hasincreased, the court may on motion or motuproprio increase the amount of bail for hisprovisional release.
  • 417. When may the court increase theamount of bail? If the accused lies about his incomeand properties and those of his immediate relatives or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case hasincreased, the court may on motion or motuproprio increase the amount of bail for hisprovisional release.
  • 418. When may the court increase theamount of bail? If the accused lies about his incomeand properties or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case hasincreased.
  • 419. When may the court increase theamount of bail? If the accused lies about his incomeand properties or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case hasincreased.
  • 420. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? Recognizance is an undertaking ofrecord entered by the accused to appearbefore the court when required. The undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 421. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. The undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 422. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, by a governmental or non-governmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 423. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 424. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 425. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 426. What is recognizance and who mayundertake it? In recognizance, the accusedundertakes under oath to appear beforethe court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise beentered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or non-governmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoringhis whereabouts and counselling him on his need tomake such court appearance.
  • 427. They shall include the barangay unitin the place where the accused lives, local church groups, and similarorganizations that have been pre-qualified by theExecutive Judge for the purpose of givingrecognizance on behalf of the accused.
  • 428. They shall include the barangay unitin the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, andsimilar groups that have been pre-qualified by theExecutive Judge for the purpose of givingrecognizance on behalf of the accused.
  • 429. They shall include the barangay unitin the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, andsimilar groups that have been pre-qualified by theExecutive Judge for the purpose of givingrecognizance on behalf of the accused.
  • 430. They shall include the barangay unitin the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, andsimilar groups that have been pre-qualified by theExecutive Judge for the purpose of givingrecognizance on behalf of the accused.
  • 431. They shall include the barangay unitin the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, andsimilar groups that have been pre-qualified by theExecutive Judge for the purpose of givingrecognizance on behalf of the accused. He shall regularly review theirperformance and weed out those who failto meet the requirements.
  • 432. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, recognizance shall, upon motion, beallowed the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack offinancial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previouslyconvicted of any crime;
  • 433. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, recognizance shall, upon motion, beallowed the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack offinancial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previouslyconvicted of any crime;
  • 434. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grantrecognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack offinancial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previouslyconvicted of any crime;
  • 435. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grantrecognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack offinancial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previouslyconvicted of any crime;
  • 436. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grantrecognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He proves his lack of financialability to post bail; (2) He has not been previouslyconvicted of any crime;
  • 437. When may the court release theaccused on recognizance? Apart from the other instancesprovided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grantrecognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to postany amount of bail, provided: (1) He proves his lack of financialability to post bail; (2) He has no prior conviction;
  • 438. (3) He has not been previouslycharged twice or more for the sameoffense; (4) He has already been arraigned,permitting trial to continue even in hisabsence; (5) There exists no report that he hasthreatened harm on the complainant orhis family; (6) He has a confirmed identity andplace of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight inhis case.
  • 439. (3) He has not been previouslycharged twice or more for the sameoffense; (4) He has already been arraigned,permitting trial to continue even in hisabsence; (5) There exists no report that he hasthreatened harm on the complainant orhis family; (6) He has a confirmed identity andplace of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight inhis case.
  • 440. (3) He has not been previouslycharged twice or more for the sameoffense; (4) He has already been arraigned,permitting trial to continue even in hisabsence; (5) He has not threatened harm onthe complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity andplace of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight inhis case.
  • 441. (3) He has not been previouslycharged twice or more for the sameoffense; (4) He has already been arraigned,permitting trial to continue even in hisabsence; (5) He has not threatened harm onthe complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity andplace of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight inhis case.
  • 442. (3) He has not been previouslycharged twice or more for the sameoffense; (4) He has already been arraigned,permitting trial to continue even in hisabsence; (5) He has not threatened harm onthe complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity andplace of abode; and (7) No clear risk of flight exists in hiscase.
  • 443. What is the consequence if theaccused, who is on recognizance, fails toappear at his hearing? The accused who fails to appear athis hearing or refuses to cooperate with theentity that provided him withrecognizance shall be ordered rearrested anddetained until he posts the required amount ofbail.
  • 444. What is the consequence if theaccused, who is on recognizance, fails toappear at his hearing? The court shall order him rearrestedand detained until he posts the required amount ofbail.
  • 445. What is the consequence if theaccused, who is on recognizance, fails toappear at his hearing? The court shall order him rearrestedand detained until he posts the required amount ofbail.
  • 446. The court’s order fixing the amountof bail or allowing recognizance need not state the basis for it andshall not be subject to appeal.
  • 447. The court’s order fixing the amountof bail or allowing recognizance need not state the basis for it andshall not be subject to appeal.
  • 448. What is the effect of service by theaccused of the minimum imposablesentence in his case? The accused who has been detainedfor a period at least equal to the minimumof the penalty for the offense chargedagainst him shall be ordered released on motionand after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that ofany of the organizations or entitiesauthorized by this memorandum circularto provide the same, without prejudice to the continuationof the proceedings against him.
  • 449. What is the effect of service by theaccused of the minimum imposablesentence in his case? The accused who has been detainedfor a period at least equal to the minimumof the penalty for the offense chargedagainst him shall be ordered released on motionand after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that ofany of the organizations or entitiesauthorized by this memorandum circularto provide the same, without prejudice to the continuationof the proceedings against him.
  • 450. What is the effect of service by theaccused of the minimum imposablesentence in his case? The accused who has been detainedfor a period at least equal to the minimumof the penalty for the offense chargedagainst him shall be ordered released on motionand after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that ofany of the organizations or entitiesauthorized by this memorandum circularto provide the same, without prejudice to the continuationof the proceedings against him.
  • 451. What is the effect of service by theaccused of the minimum imposablesentence in his case? The accused who has been detainedfor a period at least equal to the minimumof the penalty for the offense chargedagainst him shall be ordered released on motionand after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that ofany of the organizations or entitiesauthorized by this memorandum circularto provide the same, without prejudice to the continuationof the proceedings against him.
  • 452. What is the effect of service by theaccused of the minimum imposablesentence in his case? The accused who has been detainedfor a period at least equal to the minimumof the penalty for the offense chargedagainst him shall be ordered released on motionand after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that ofany of the organizations or entitiesauthorized by this memorandum circularto provide the same, without prejudice to the continuationof the proceedings against him.
  • 453. What is the nature of the hearing ofan application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bailin capital offenses shall be summary and continuous, with the prosecution bearing theburden of showing that the evidence of guilt in itspossession is strong.
  • 454. What is the nature of the hearing ofan application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bailin capital offenses shall be summary and continuous, with the prosecution bearing theburden of showing that the evidence of guilt in itspossession is strong.
  • 455. What is the nature of the hearing ofan application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bailin capital offenses shall be summary and continuous. with the prosecution bearing theburden of showing that the evidence of guilt in itspossession is strong.
  • 456. Whose testimonies shall theprosecution present at that hearing? The prosecution shall present only itsimportant witnesses or those whose testimonies cover thesubstance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw thecommission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateralmatters that do not constitute elementsof the crime need not be presented.
  • 457. Whose testimonies shall theprosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its importantwitnesses or those whose testimonies cover thesubstance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw thecommission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateralmatters that do not constitute elementsof the crime need not be presented.
  • 458. Whose testimonies shall theprosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its importantwitnesses or those whose testimonies cover thesubstance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw thecommission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateralmatters that do not constitute elementsof the crime need not be presented.
  • 459. Whose testimonies shall theprosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its importantwitnesses or those whose testimonies cover thesubstance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw thecommission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateralmatters that do not constitute elementsof the crime need not be presented.
  • 460. Witnesses on collateral matters thatdo not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present thejudicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.
  • 461. Witnesses on collateral matters thatdo not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present thejudicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.
  • 462. Witnesses on collateral matters thatdo not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present thejudicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.
  • 463. Witnesses on collateral matters thatdo not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present thejudicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.
  • 464. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 465. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 466. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 467. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 468. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 469. What actions will the court takeduring such hearing? The court will ask questions of thewitnesses to ascertain the credibility and thestrength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their beingrecalled at the trial for examination by theparties. The court shall afterwards hear theoral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence ofguilt is strong.
  • 470. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 471. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 472. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 473. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 474. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 475. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 476. The court shall within twenty-fourhours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of theaccused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment ofthe evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reasonor reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.
  • 477. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with all the requisites of a validdrugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused before he commits the crime (ifthis has been doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 478. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with all the requisites of a validdrugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused before he commits the crime (ifthis has been doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 479. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugsrelated arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused before he commits the crime (ifthis has been doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 480. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugsrelated arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused before he commits the crime (ifthis has been doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 481. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugsrelated arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused before he commits the crime (ifthis has been doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 482. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugsrelated arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused shortly before he commits thecrime (if this was doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 483. What is the consequence of failure ofthe prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugsrelated arrest? In dangerous drugs cases thatconstitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during thebail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of theaccused shortly before he commits thecrime (if this was doable), during its commission, andafterwards,
  • 484. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 485. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 486. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 487. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 488. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 489. with sufficient background in thephotos or video for identifying the place where the crime wascommitted and the police officers involved in hisapprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrityof the seized items and the chain of custody over thesame; and (3) compliance with the otherrequirements of Section 21 of RepublicAct 9165 and established judicialprecedents.
  • 490. Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemednot strong, warranting the release of theaccused on bail or recognizance pendingthe trial of his case.
  • 491. Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemednot strong, warranting the release of theaccused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.
  • 492. Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemednot strong, warranting the release of theaccused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.
  • 493. Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemednot strong, warranting the release of theaccused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.
  • 494. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 495. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 496. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 497. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 498. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 499. What is the consequence of filing afrivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge forreleasing the accused on bail orrecognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of themwho file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against thejudge for allowing the accused to bereleased on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contemptof court and accordingly punished.
  • 500. 2. GUIDELINESFOR SPEEDY TRIAL
  • 501. What are the set time limits forprosecuting criminal actions? The trial court, the public or privateprosecutor, and the defense counsel must ensure, subject to the excludeddelays specified by law, compliance with the following timelimits in the prosecution of criminalcases: (a) The case of the accused shall beraffled and assigned within 3 days fromthe filing of the information;
  • 502. What are the set time limits forprosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall beraffled and assigned within 3 days fromthe filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign theaccused within 10 days from raffle;
  • 503. What are the set time limits forprosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall beraffled and assigned within 3 days fromthe filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign theaccused within 10 days from raffle;
  • 504. What are the set time limits forprosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall beraffled and assigned within 3 days fromthe filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign theaccused within 10 days from raffle; (c) The court shall hold the pre-trialconference within 10 days of arraignment;
  • 505. (d) But where the direct testimoniesof the witnesses are to be presentedthrough judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecutionnot more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for thepre-trial conference;
  • 506. (d) But where the direct testimoniesof the witnesses are to be presentedthrough judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecutionnot more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for thepre-trial conference;
  • 507. (d) But where the direct testimoniesof the witnesses are to be presentedthrough judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecutionnot more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for thepre-trial conference;
  • 508. (d) But where the direct testimoniesof the witnesses are to be presentedthrough judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecutionnot more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for thepre-trial conference;
  • 509. (d) But where the direct testimoniesof the witnesses are to be presentedthrough judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecutionnot more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for thepre-trial conference;
  • 510. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (e) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the datetrial begins, minus the excluded delays orpostponements specified by law and therules
  • 511. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (e) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the datetrial begins, minus the excluded delays orpostponements specified by law and therules
  • 512. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the datetrial begins, minus the excluded delays orpostponements specified by law and therules
  • 513. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits,
  • 514. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the datetrial begins,
  • 515. (e) After the pre-trial conference, thecourt shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the casewithin 30 days from such pre-trialconference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trialwithin 180 days, in the case of regulartrial, or within 60 days, in the case of trialby judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the datetrial begins, minus the excluded delays orpostponements specified by law and therules.
  • 516. But, even when some of the delaysor postponements are subject toexclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespectiveof such exclusions within one year fromthe time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays thatare directly attributable to any action taken orpostponements sought by the detainedaccused in the case.
  • 517. But, even when some of the delaysor postponements are subject toexclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespectiveof such exclusions within one year fromthe time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays thatare directly attributable to any action taken orpostponements sought by the detainedaccused in the case.
  • 518. But, even when some of the delaysor postponements are subject toexclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespectiveof such exclusions within one year fromthe time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays thatare directly attributable to any action taken orpostponements sought by the detainedaccused in the case.
  • 519. But, even when some of the delaysor postponements are subject toexclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespectiveof such exclusions within one year fromthe time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays thatare directly attributable to any action taken orpostponements sought by the detainedaccused in the case.
  • 520. What is the consequence of failure toobserve these time limits in theprosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detainedaccused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right tospeedy trial.
  • 521. What is the consequence of failure toobserve these time limits in theprosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detainedaccused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right tospeedy trial.
  • 522. What is the consequence of failure toobserve these time limits in theprosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detainedaccused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right tospeedy trial.
  • 523. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 524. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 525. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 526. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 527. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 528. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 529. When may the court order theprovisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown orcannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regardedas justified delays, but which delays have already lastedmore than 180 days from the time trialwas set to begin, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.
  • 530. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 531. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 532. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 533. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 534. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 535. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 536. (b) When the delays are due to theabsence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtainedby due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the expressconsent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the actionprovided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness
  • 537. and both he and the offended party, ifthey are two different persons, have been given notice of the settingof the case for third hearing, which notice contains a warning thatthe case would be provisionallydismissed if the essential witnesscontinues to be absent; and (2) there is proof of service of thepertinent notices of hearings orsubpoenas upon the essential witness and theoffended party at their last knownpostal or email addresses or mobilephone numbers.
  • 538. and both he and the offended party, ifthey are two different persons, have been given notice of the settingof the case for third hearing; and which notice contains a warning thatthe case would be provisionallydismissed if the essential witnesscontinues to be absent; and (2) there is proof of service of thepertinent notices of hearings orsubpoenas upon the essential witness and theoffended party at their last knownpostal or email addresses or mobilephone numbers.
  • 539. and both he and the offended party, ifthey are two different persons, have been given notice of the settingof the case for third hearing; and (2) there is proof of service of thepertinent notices of hearings orsubpoenas upon the essential witness and theoffended party at their last knownpostal or email addresses or mobilephone numbers.
  • 540. and both he and the offended party, ifthey are two different persons, have been given notice of the settingof the case for third hearing; and (2) there is proof of service of thepertinent notices of hearings orsubpoenas upon the essential witness and theoffended party.
  • 541. (c) For the above purpose, the publicor private prosecutor shall first presentduring the trial the essential witness or witnesses tothe case before anyone else. An essential witness is one whosetestimony dwells on the presence of someor all of the elements of the crime and whose testimony isindispensable to a conviction of theaccused.
  • 542. (c) For the above purpose, the publicor private prosecutor shall first presentduring the trial the essential witness or witnesses tothe case before anyone else. An essential witness is one whosetestimony dwells on the presence of someor all of the elements of the crime and whose testimony isindispensable to a conviction of theaccused.
  • 543. What is required for the issuance of anotice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue asubpoena or subpoena duces tecum fortheir witnesses, the parties shall provide the courtwith the postal and email addresses andmobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
  • 544. What is required for the issuance of anotice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue asubpoena or subpoena duces tecum fortheir witnesses, the parties shall provide the courtwith the postal and email addresses andmobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
  • 545. What is required for the issuance of anotice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue asubpoena or subpoena duces tecum fortheir witnesses, the parties shall provide the courtwith the postal and email addresses andmobile phone numbers of such witnesses.
  • 546. Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done bypersonal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sentemail or short message service if done byusing the court’s transmission equipmentor device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, ifdone using the court’s transmissionservice. Proof of one form of service issufficient.
  • 547. Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done bypersonal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sentemail or short message service if done byusing the court’s transmission equipmentor device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, ifdone using the court’s transmissionservice. Proof of one form of service issufficient.
  • 548. Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done bypersonal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sentemail or short message service if done byusing the court’s transmission equipmentor device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, ifdone using the court’s transmissionservice. Proof of one form of service issufficient.
  • 549. Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done bypersonal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sentemail or short message service if done byusing the court’s transmission equipmentor device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, ifdone using the court’s transmissionservice. Proof of one form of service issufficient.
  • 550. Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done bypersonal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sentemail or short message service if done byusing the court’s transmission equipmentor device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, ifdone using the court’s transmissionservice. Proof of one form of service issufficient.
  • 551. In cases of police officers whosetestimonies are essential to theprosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing orsubpoena on them shall be made through the police unitresponsible for the arrest and prosecutionof the accused, copy furnished the PersonnelDepartment of the Philippine NationalPolice (PNP).
  • 552. In cases of police officers whosetestimonies are essential to theprosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing orsubpoena on them shall be made through the police unitresponsible for the arrest and prosecutionof the accused, copy furnished the PersonnelDepartment of the Philippine NationalPolice (PNP).
  • 553. In cases of police officers whosetestimonies are essential to theprosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing orsubpoena on them shall be made through the police unitresponsible for the arrest and prosecutionof the accused, copy furnished the PersonnelDepartment of the Philippine NationalPolice (PNP).
  • 554. In cases of police officers whosetestimonies are essential to theprosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing orsubpoena on them shall be made through the police unitresponsible for the arrest and prosecutionof the accused, copy furnished the PersonnelDepartment of the Philippine NationalPolice (PNP).
  • 555. It shall be the responsibility of thehead of that police unit to ensure the transmission of thenotice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall bedeemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the serviceof a copy of the order of provisionaldismissal upon the offended party in themanner provided above.
  • 556. It shall be the responsibility of thehead of that police unit to ensure the transmission of thenotice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall bedeemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the serviceof a copy of the order of provisionaldismissal upon the offended party in themanner provided above.
  • 557. It shall be the responsibility of thehead of that police unit to ensure the transmission of thenotice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall bedeemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the serviceof a copy of the order of provisionaldismissal upon the offended party in themanner provided above.
  • 558. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 559. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 560. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 561. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 562. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 563. How are reports of governmentexperts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of agovernment medical, chemical, orlaboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facieevidence of the truth of what such reportstates, rendering unnecessary the personalappearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused forthe purpose of cross examination.
  • 564. (b) If the report includes a specimenof the substance, which the governmentexpert examined, and its container, both substance and container shallbe sealed in transparent plastic envelopeand attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor whopresents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the samefrom the government expert shall be deemed to warrant itsgenuineness and authenticity.
  • 565. (b) If the report includes a specimenof the substance, which the governmentexpert examined, and its container, both substance and container shallbe sealed in transparent plastic envelopeand attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor whopresents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the samefrom the government expert shall be deemed to warrant itsgenuineness and authenticity.
  • 566. (b) If the report includes a specimenof the substance, which the governmentexpert examined, and its container, both substance and container shallbe sealed in transparent plastic envelopeand attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor whopresents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the samefrom the government expert shall be deemed to warrant itsgenuineness and authenticity.
  • 567. (b) If the report includes a specimenof the substance, which the governmentexpert examined, and its container, both substance and container shallbe sealed in transparent plastic envelopeand attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor whopresents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the samefrom the government expert shall be deemed to warrant itsgenuineness and authenticity.
  • 568. (b) If the report includes a specimenof the substance, which the governmentexpert examined, and its container, both substance and container shallbe sealed in transparent plastic envelopeand attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor whopresents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the samefrom the government expert shall be deemed to warrant itsgenuineness and authenticity as hereceived it.
  • 569. These guidelines shall take effect onJanuary 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaperof general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accusedpersons, including those currently underdetention pending the hearing of theircases.
  • 570. These guidelines shall take effect onJanuary 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaperof general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accusedpersons, including those currently underdetention pending the hearing of theircases.
  • 571. These guidelines shall take effect onJanuary 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaperof general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accusedpersons, including those currently underdetention pending the hearing of theircases.
  • 572. These guidelines shall take effect onJanuary 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaperof general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accusedpersons, including those currently underdetention pending the hearing of theircases.
  • 573. THANK YOU!