Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Judicial-Affidavit Rule PDF
Judicial-Affidavit Rule PDF
Judicial-Affidavit Rule PDF
Email Article
:
What causes these terrible delays in
our justice system?
There are many causes.
What causes these terrible delays in
our justice system?
There are many causes.
Our Courts are few.
Prosecutors and
public attorneys are
few.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of
witnesses.
The witness stand represents the
bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing the testimony of
witnesses.
The witness stand represents the
bottleneck in the judicial machinery.
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
more specifically, our antiquated
system for taking the testimonies of
witnesses
and receiving documentary and
object evidence.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in
the system?
Recently, the Supreme Court has
introduced a very significant systems
change.
One of the major causes of delays
is our slow and cumbersome system
for hearing and deciding cases.
Where precisely is the bottleneck in
this system?
The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story…
the witness stand.
The bottleneck is where this lady
tells her story…
AT THE WITNESS STAND.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two
witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to
be called in courts that have 1,000 cases
in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the
courtroom,
they would form a very long line
indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
Assuming there are just two
witnesses per case,
2,000 witnesses would be waiting to
be called in courts that have 1,000 cases
in their dockets.
If required to form a line outside the
courtroom,
they would form a very long line
indeed.
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
Why?
Because courts can hear no more
than one witness at a time.
If you have 1,000 cases in your
dockets
and just two witnesses for each
case,
you would have 2,000 witnesses
waiting to be called.
If required to wait outside the
courtroom,
those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed.
those 2,000 witnesses would form a
very long line indeed,
Like this …
Q3. When did he borrow money from
you?
A3. Sometime in April of 2008, he
asked me if he could borrow P200,000.00
for his family.
Q4. What was your reply?
A4. I agreed to lend him the money..
Q5. Was your transaction in writing?
A5. Yes, sir. We executed a
“Kasunduan” on April 16, 2008.
(b) Questions and answers that elicit
facts relevant to the issues.
Like this …
Q5. What was your response to his
request for loan from you?
A5. I Agreed to lend him the money
he needed.
Q.6. How much?
A.6. He asked for P300,000.00.
Q7. Was your transaction in writing?
A7. Yes, sir. We executed a
“Kasunduan” on April 16, 2008.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q6: Where is this “Kasunduan” that
you mentioned?
A6: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q7: I am marking this “Kasunduan”
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
(c) Questions and answers that
identify the attached documentary and
object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
Like this …
Q8: Where is this “Kasunduan” that
you mentioned?
A8: This is the one, sir (handing over
a document).
Q9: I am marking this “Kasunduan”
as Exhibit A and the bracketed signature
above the name Gerry Umali as Exh. A-1.
Do you know whose signature this is?
A9: Yes, sir, that of Gerry Umali.
Q10: How do you know?
A10: I saw him sign it.
Q11: I am marking the signature
above the name Elnora Sabugo on this
document as Exh. A-2. Do you know
whose signature this is?
A11: Yes, sir, that is my signature.
Q11: I am attaching Exhibit A to your
judicial affidavit to form part of it. Do you
confirm my action?
A11: Yes, sir.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
What is required of the lawyer who
examined the witness or supervised such
examination?
He must execute a sworn attestation
at the end of the judicial affidavit that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he asked
and the corresponding answers that
the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present
coached the witness regarding his
answers.
Like this …
JULIO C. MAGNO
Affiant
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
What is the consequence of a false
attestation?
It will subject the lawyer-examiner
or the supervising lawyer to
disciplinary action,
including disbarment.
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyer’s duty to record the
questions and answers faithfully
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without this requirement,
it is the lawyer’s duty to record the
questions and answers faithfully
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
It is fair since the attestation is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavits since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
What is wrong with requiring lawyers
to assume responsibility for their work?
Is this requirement unreasonable?
No.
1. Even without it, the lawyer is
responsible for faithfully recording the
questions and answers
and prevent coaching of the witness.
2. The attestation is fair since it is
required of the opposing lawyer as well.
3. We need to trust the fidelity of
judicial affidavit since it takes the place
of direct testimony in court.
4. What is wrong with requiring
lawyers to assume responsibility for their
actions?
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness,
who is neither the witness of the
adverse party nor a hostile witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness
who is neither the witness of the
adverse party nor a hostile witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
How will the judicial affidavits of
uncooperative witnesses be taken?
If the government employee or
official, or the requested witness,
unjustifiably declines to execute a
judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make
the relevant books, documents,
or other things under his control
available for copying, authentication,
and eventual production in court,
the requesting party may avail
himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum
or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court.