Judicial Affidavit

CREATING NEW SYSTEMS FOR HEARING AND DECIDING CASES WITH FAIRNESS AND DISPATCH

Would you know how many of our people live in crowded cities?

75% of our people live in crowded cities.

With so many living in these cities, occasions for human conflict are inevitable.

Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.

Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.

Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.

Thus, courts in these cities are drowning in cases. Many have 1,000 plus cases; some have 2,000 plus. Many courts hear 30 to 60 cases a day.

Their courtrooms are full.

Parties have to wait outside to be called.

It takes 3 to 5 years, at times more, for cases to be heard and decided,

…inflicting a sense of hopelessness over the justice system that you and I serve.

Because of case congestion, most hearings are postponed almost under any pretext, prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.

Because of case congestion, most hearings are postponed almost under any pretext, prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.

Because of case congestion, most hearings are postponed almost under any pretext, prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.

Because of case congestion, most hearings are postponed almost under any pretext, prompting complainants in criminal cases to give up coming to court. As a result, 40 out of every 100 persons accused of crimes walk free.

… Victims of crimes find no speedy justice in our courts.

Few foreign businessmen make longterm investments in our country because our courts cannot provide protection to their investments.

Few foreign businessmen make longterm investments in our country because our courts cannot provide protection to their investments.

Result: we do not attain economic growth; our people remain poor.

Result: we do not attain economic growth; our people remain poor.

Because people have lost trust in our ability to render justice, many have given up coming to court with their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system does not work as it should, law practice suffers.

Because people have lost trust in our ability to render justice, many have given up coming to court with their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system does not work as it should, law practice suffers.

Because people have lost trust in our ability to render justice, many have given up coming to court with their disputes. They either simply endure their pains or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. And when the justice system does not work as it should, law practice suffers.

or find “just“ solutions elsewhere. 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,

with only three witnesses getting in on an ordinary hearing day.

those 2,000 witnesses would form a very long line indeed,

with only three witnesses able to get in to testify in one day.

Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome?

Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect, we require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English.

Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect, our rules require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English.

Why is our system for hearing witnesses slow and cumbersome? For one thing, although about 90% of witnesses testifies in the local dialect, our rules require an interpreter to translate their testimonies into English. Since the trial takes place in two languages, the court has to hear the testimony of every witness twice.

the court has to hear the testimony of every witness twice.

How old is our system for hearing and deciding cases?

How old is our system for hearing and deciding cases? The Americans gave it to us over a hundred years ago.

It was unique to their history and culture, yet we adopted it and were taught in law schools that there is no right way to hear the testimonies of witnesses except the American way.

It was unique to their history and culture, yet we adopted it and were taught in law schools that there is no right way to hear the testimonies of witnesses except the American way.

It was unique to their history and culture, yet we adopted it and were taught in law schools that there is no right way to hear the testimonies of witnesses except the American way.

It was unique to their history and culture, yet we adopted it and were taught in law schools that there is no right way to hear the testimonies of witnesses except the American way.

The American system is adversarial.

The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the proceedings since they decide which witness the judge will hear and what questions he will answer.

The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the proceedings since they decide what evidence the judge will hear. and what questions he will answer.

The American system is adversarial. The lawyers in a way control the proceedings since they decide what evidence the judge will hear.

Although he will decide the case, but he is doomed to sit back and listen.

Although he will decide the case, the judge is doomed to sit back and listen,

Although he will decide the case, the judge is doomed to sit back and listen, allowed to ask only clarificatory questions of the witness.

The American system is also designed for both jury and bench trials. Result: using their system, we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.

The American system is also designed for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.

The American system is also designed for both jury and bench trials. In effect, it is as if we have a shadow jury sitting in our courtroom.

Why? Because the rules we adopted require our judge to pre-screens the questions to prevent an unlearned jury from hearing inadmissible answers. But this is pointless since the jury in our court is the judge himself. With his legal training and experience, he has no difficulty disregarding inadmissible answers even after he hears them.

Why? Because our borrowed rules require our judge to pre-screen the questions to prevent an unlearned jury from hearing inadmissible answers. But this is pointless since the jury in our court is the judge himself. With his legal training and experience, he has no difficulty disregarding inadmissible answers even after he hears them.

Why? Because our borrowed rules require our judge to pre-screen the questions to prevent that non-existent jury from hearing inadmissible answers.

But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge does not need to pre-screen the questions for himself. With his legal training and experience, he has no difficulty disregarding inadmissible answers even after he hears them.

But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge does not need to protect himself from hearing inadmissible evidence. With his legal training and experience, he has no difficulty disregarding inadmissible answers even after he hears them.

But this pre-screening is pointless since the judge does not need to protect himself from hearing inadmissible evidence. With his training, he can easily disregard them.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though he already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though he already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. Following that system, our witnesses tell their stories to the judge from beginning to end though he already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

Further, since it is assumed that the members of the American jury know nothing of the case, witnesses must tell their stories to the jurors from beginning to end. From A to Z. But our judge already knows from the record the respective stories of the parties. Consequently, he can skip the admitted matters and have the witness focus on the facts in issue.

But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we borrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endure beginning-to-end stories that are plucked from the witness mouth bit by bit through direct examination. This is a time consuming process.

But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we borrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endure beginning-to-end testimonies that are plucked from the witness mouth bit by bit through direct examination. This is a time consuming process.

But Section 4 of Rule 132, which we borrowed from the Americans, requires the judge to endure beginning-to-end testimonies that are plucked from the witness mouth bit by bit through direct examination.++ This is a time consuming process.

Another cause of delay is the often indiscriminate objections to the questions asked of the witness. ++

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness to enable the judge to predetermine if the expected answers are inadmissible in evidence. The judge must see to it that inadmissible answers do not touch the ears of the jury, lest these irreversibly influence the members of the jury. But we have no jury, only a judge.

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness So the judge could prevent inadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversibly influence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness So the judge could prevent inadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversibly influence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness So the judge could prevent inadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversibly influence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge.

Theoretically, a lawyer objects to questions asked of the witness So the judge could prevent inadmissible answers from touching the ears of the jurors, lest such answers irreversibly influence their thinking. But we have no jury, only a judge who is not irreversibly affected by inadmissible answers.

Another point of delay is the need to identify,

Another point of delay is the need to identify, mark, and authenticate the exhibits. The process is tedious and painfully time consuming. ++

Another point of delay is the need to identify, mark, and authenticate the exhibits. The process is tedious and painfully time consuming.

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court but these personnel are often just as busy as the judge. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court, identify the documents, and authenticate them.

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court,

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court, identify the documents one by one, and authenticate them.

Some courts, require pre-markings of exhibits before the clerks of court who are also busy. And even with such pre-markings, still, the witness will have to appear before the court, identify the documents one by one, and authenticate them.

In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases. Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m. since there are incidents like postponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony of just one witness.

In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases. Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m. since there are incidents like postponements that must be acted on. This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony of just one witness.

In many courts in cities, the cases on their calendars often range from 30 to 50 cases. Just calling the attendance takes from 8:30 to 10 a.m. This leaves only 2 hours for hearing the cases that are ready. If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 12 minutes to present part of the testimony of just one witness.

If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 10 minutes to present part of the testimony of just one witness.

If 10 cases are ready, the judge gives the parties in each case 10 minutes to present part of the testimony of just one witness.

With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness. Even after the direct examination has been finished, It is usual for the adverse lawyer to postpone his cross examination on the ground that he needs time to prepare since: --he must first have the transcript of stenographic notes of the direct examination, and --he needs to check the truth of the testimony.

With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness. And, even after the direct examination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.

With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness. And, even after the direct examination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.

With piecemeal trial, it takes more than a year to complete the testimony of just one witness. And, even after the direct examination has been finished, the adverse lawyer would usually want his cross examination deferred on the ground that he needs to wait for the transcript to be finished.

How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is to streamline the existing system for hearing cases and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way when it is no longer working.

How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is to streamline the existing system for hearing cases and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way when it is no longer working.

How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is to streamline the existing system for hearing cases and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way when it is no longer working.

How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is to streamline the existing system for hearing cases and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way when it is no longer working.

How do we solve the problem? The conventional solution is to streamline the existing system for hearing cases and pound hard on the judges to speed up their hearings. But Albert Einstein once said that it is madness to do the same thing the same way when it is no longer working.

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct and one-third cross.

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination

Early this year, we experimented on the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in all cases in Quezon City. Result: hearings of cases have been cut by two-thirds in those courts. Why two-thirds? The testimony of a witness usually consists of two-thirds direct examination and one-third cross examination.

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time. Can you imagine that?

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.

With judicial affidavit as direct testimony, the witness is examined in court only on cross. Instead of one witness testifying at a given time, the court can now accommodate three witnesses in that time.

Consequently, the Supreme Court approved the “Judicial Affidavit Rule” on September 4, 2012.

What functions do judicial affidavits take? 1. They take the place of the witnesses’ direct testimonies; and 2. They shall attach and authenticate documentary or object evidence of the parties.

What functions do judicial affidavits take? 1. They take the place of direct testimonies; and 2. They identify and authenticate documentary or object evidence of the parties.

What functions do judicial affidavits take? 1. They take the place of direct testimonies; and 2. They identify and authenticate documentary or object evidence in the case.

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? The parties shall file them with the court and serve copies on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and serve copies on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents

How and when are judicial affidavits to be submitted? They are to be filed with the court and copies served on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pretrial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or Filipino, it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies to be taken in the dialect provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or Filipino, it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies to be taken in the dialect provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or Filipino, it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies to be taken and kept in the dialect of the place provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.

In what language will the judicial affidavits be prepared? In the language known to the witness but, if this is not in English or Filipino, it is to be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino. What is the significance of this? We are now allowing testimonies to be taken and kept in the dialect of the place provided they are subsequently translated into English or Filipino.

Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version with the English translation in parenthesis provided by the party, subject to counter translation by opposing side.

Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version with the English or Pilipino translation in parenthesis provided by the party, subject to counter translation by opposing side.

Testimonies will be quoted in pleadings in their original version with the English or Pilipino translation in parenthesis provided by the party, subject to counter translation by opposing side.

For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.

“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio arrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)

For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.

“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio arrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)

For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.

“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio arrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya. Kasi po humihingal siya nang dumating.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)

For example: When asked by the judge, Ramon said that the accused arrived in great haste.

“Q. Nganong imo mang giingon nga gadali si Julio pag abot nya? (Why did you say that Julio arrived in haste?) “A. Kay gihangos man sya pag abot nya.” (Because he was breathing hard, Sir, when he arrived.)

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The name, age, residence, or business address, and occupation of the witness; (b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held; and

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The personal circumstance of the witness; (b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held; and

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The personal circumstance of the witness; (b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being held; and

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The personal circumstance of the witness; (b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness (c) the place where the examination is being held; and (d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath,

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The personal circumstance of the witness; (b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness (c) the place where the examination is being held; and (d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath

What will the judicial affidavit contain? (a) The personal circumstance of the witness; (b) The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness (c) the place where the examination is being held; and (d) A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Like this … “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty. Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The examination is being held at the same address. I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.”

Like this … “I, ELNORA S. SABUGO, of legal age, married, and living at 12 Camalig St., Caloocan City, plaintiff in this case, state under oath as follows:

“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty. Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The examination is being held at the same address. I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.”

Then there is the affidavit proper that contains: (a) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies.

Then there is the affidavit proper that contains: (a) Numbered questions and answers; that show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies.

Then there is the affidavit proper that contains: (a) Numbered questions and answers, showing personal knowledge of the facts that the witness is testifying on.

Like this … Q1. Do you know Gerry T. Umali, the defendant in this case? A1. Yes, sir. Q2. How did you know him? A2. He borrowed money from me

Like this … 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. Where did this happen? A.3. At my house in Caloocan City. Q4. When? A4. On May 22, 2011, sir.

(b) Questions and answers that elicit facts relevant to the issues.

Like this … you?

Q3. When did he borrow money from

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 … I faithfully recorded the questions I asked Ms. Sabugo and the corresponding answers she gave me; and neither I nor any other person then present coached Ms. Sabugo regarding her answers. 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. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex

parte.

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required for the adverse party or hostile witness

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required for the adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leading questions as in cross.

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required for the adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leading questions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex

parte.

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required for the adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leading questions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex

parte.

or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. No judicial affidavit is required for the adverse party or hostile witness since he can be queried with leading questions as in cross. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial affidavit shall be understood to be ex

parte.

With the judicial affidavit taking the place of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing party have if inadmissible evidence is introduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness to state at the start of the presentation of the witness to state his purpose for presenting such testimony.

With the judicial affidavit taking the place of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing party have if inadmissible evidence is introduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness to state at the start of the presentation of the witness to state his purpose for presenting such testimony.

With the judicial affidavit taking the place of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing party have if inadmissible evidence is introduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness to state at the start of the presentation of the witness to state his purpose for presenting such testimony.

With the judicial affidavit taking the place of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing party have if inadmissible evidence is introduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness to state at the start of the presentation of the witness to state his purpose for presenting such testimony.

With the judicial affidavit taking the place of direct testimony, what remedy does the opposing party have if inadmissible evidence is introduced through such affidavit? The rule requires the party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness to state at the start of the presentation of the witness the party’s purpose for presenting such testimony.

The adverse party may then move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel.

The adverse party may then move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel.

The adverse party may then move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel.

The adverse party may then move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on ground of inadmissibility.

The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel.

The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the exclusion of the offending answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court personnel.

The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the exclusion 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.

Moreover, if cross examination reveals an inadmissible testimony in the judicial affidavit, the adverse party could of course also ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Moreover, if cross examination reveals an inadmissible testimony in the judicial affidavit, the adverse party could of course also ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Moreover, if cross examination reveals an inadmissible testimony in the judicial affidavit, the adverse party could of course also ask for its striking out. This is without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Is cross examination of the witness allowed? Yes. The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. Since he has been given a copy of the judicial affidavit long before the hearing, the adverse party would have no reason to seek postponement. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct.

Can the court also examine the witness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule signals the shift in our system for hearing cases from purely adversarial to a combined adversarial and inquisitorial system, patterned after many successful models in the world. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness

Can the court also examine the witness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule signals the shift in our system for hearing cases from purely adversarial to a combined adversarial and inquisitorial system, patterned after many successful models in the world. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness

Can the court also examine the witness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule signals the shift in our system for hearing cases from purely adversarial to a combined adversarial and inquisitorial system, patterned after many successful models in the world. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness

Can the court also examine the witness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule signals the shift in our system for hearing cases from purely adversarial to a combined adversarial and inquisitorial system, patterned after many successful models in the world. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness

Can the court also examine the witness? Yes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule signals the shift in our system for hearing cases from purely adversarial to a combined adversarial and inquisitorial system, patterned after many successful models in the world. In every case, the judge shall take active part in examining the witness.

He is not limited to asking clarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that will determine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judge needs for resolving the issues.

He is not limited to asking clarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that will determine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judge needs for resolving the issues.

He is not limited to asking clarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that will determine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judge needs for resolving the issues.

He is not limited to asking clarificatory questions; he may also ask questions that will determine the credibility of the witness, ascertain the truth of his testimony, and elicit the answers that the judge needs for resolving the issues.

Suppose the examination of the witness by the judge results in eliciting answers that are favorable to a party to the case, will that not be regarded as showing bias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under the jury system avoids asking questions of the witness is that the members of the jury, who are common people,

Suppose the examination of the witness by the judge results in eliciting answers that are favorable to a party to the case, will that not be regarded as showing bias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under the jury system avoids asking questions of the witness is that the members of the jury, who are common people,

Suppose the examination of the witness by the judge results in eliciting answers that are favorable to a party to the case, will that not be regarded as showing bias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under the jury system avoids asking questions of the witness is that the members of the jury, who are common people,

Suppose the examination of the witness by the judge results in eliciting answers that are favorable to a party to the case, will that not be regarded as showing bias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under the jury system avoids asking questions of the witness is that the members of the jury, who are common people,

Suppose the examination of the witness by the judge results in eliciting answers that are favorable to a party to the case, will that not be regarded as showing bias in favor of that party? No. The reason the judge under the jury system avoids asking questions of the witness is that the members of the jury, who are common people,

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the court’s search for truth.

might give undue importance to the answers the judge elicits more than what those answers actually deserve. But we have no jury. Besides, a party is not prevented from objecting to questions from the judge if they tend to elicit inadmissible answers. In any case, the answer comes not from the judge but from the witness. If the answer is admissible, such answer simply lends itself to the court’s search for truth.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

Trial is not about preventing unfavorable questions from being asked but about bringing out the truth no matter who is favored by it. What is more, if the judge shows clear and outright bias, precluding the idea that he is only after the truth, the prejudiced party can seek his inhibition. But be aware that the Supreme Court has been suspending lawyers from practice who file frivolous motions for inhibition against judges.

How are the documentary and object exhibits of the parties offered for admission as evidence? Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

How are the documentary and object exhibits of the parties offered for admission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

How are the documentary and object exhibits of the parties offered for admission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary and object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

How are the documentary and object exhibits of the parties offered for admission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary and object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

How are the documentary and object exhibits of the parties offered for admission as evidence? After terminating the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his documentary and object exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

After each piece of exhibit is offered,

After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection to it, if any, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.

After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his objection to it, if any, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each exhibit.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or (3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or (3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) irrespective of the penalty involved, where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or (3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to criminal actions? Yes (1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) irrespective of the penalty involved, where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits; (3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

When will the parties in the criminal case submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.

When will the parties in the criminal case submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.

When will the parties in the criminal case submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.

When will the parties in the criminal case submit their judicial affidavits? The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses Not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused.

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors,

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors,

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors,

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors,

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors or keep his silence.

No further judicial affidavit or documentary or object evidence may be admitted at the trial. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days of receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private prosecutors or keep his silence.

Because the prosecution lays all its evidence on the table,

the accused can freely and reasonably make his choice of whether to remain silent or not.

Because the prosecution lays all its evidence on the table,

the accused can freely and reasonably make his choice of whether to remain silent or not.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance to submit them provided the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance to submit them provided the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the failure of a party to submit his judicial affidavits? He shall be deemed to have waived their submission. But the court may give him one last chance if the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

What are the effects of the absence of the witness or of counsel at the scheduled hearing? The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by cross examination the witnesses there present.

What are the effects of the absence of the witness or of counsel at the scheduled hearing? The court shall not consider the affidavit of any absent witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by cross examination the witnesses there present.

What are the effects of the absence of the witness or of counsel at the scheduled hearing? The court shall not consider the affidavit of any absent witness. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to confront by cross examination the witnesses there present.

What are the effects of the absence of the witness or of counsel at the scheduled hearing? The court shall not consider the affidavit of any absent witness. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause shall be deemed to have waived his client’s right to cross examine.

What is the effect of submitting judicial affidavits to the content requirements of section 3 and the attestation requirement of section 4? The court shall not admit as evidence such judicial affidavits. But it may allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided

What is the effect of submitting judicial affidavits that do not conform to content requirements? and the attestation requirement of section 4? The court shall not admit as evidence such judicial affidavits. But it may allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided

What is the effect of submitting judicial affidavits that do not conform to content requirements? The court shall not admit them in evidence. But it may allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided

What is the effect of submitting judicial affidavits that do not conform to content requirements? The court shall not admit them in evidence. But it may allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided

What is the effect of submitting judicial affidavits that do not conform to content requirements? The court shall not admit them in evidence. But it may allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided

the delay is for a valid reason, and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court

the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court

the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court

the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court

the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the public or private counsel responsible for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial

and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply?

Yes. The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply?

Yes. The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply? Yes. The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply? Yes.

The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

Will the Judicial Affidavit Rule apply to existing cases? Yes.

Suppose the existing cases had already undergone pre-trial and just a few testimonies remain to be heard, will the rule still apply? Yes.

The remaining testimonies shall be treated as incidents to be heard by judicial affidavits.

THANK YOU

Like this … “PRELIMINARY STATEMENT “The person examining me is Atty. Julio C. Magno with address at 45 Vicente G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila. The examination is being held at the same address. I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.”

Ako, si PO1 Renato Y. Robles, 34 taon, may-asawa, isang pulis, at nakatalaga sa Sampaloc Police Station, Sampaloc, Manila, matapos makapanumpa ng ayon sa batas ay nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:

Pangunang Salita

Ang nagtatanong sa akin sa judicial affidavit kong ito ay si PO2 Jaime C. Ramos na isang pulis na nakatalaga din sa Sampaloc Police Station, Manila, Ginanap ang pagtatanong niya sa akin sa Station ding ito.

Sinagot ko ang mga tanong sa akin sa ilalim ng aking sinumpaan na magsabi ng katotohanan lamang at batid ko na maaari akong managot kung sakaling ako ay magsinungaling.”

T1. Natatandaan mo ba kung nasaan ka nuong umaga ng Mayo 21, 2012? S1. Opo, nasa aming opisina po ako, sa Sampaloc Police Station, Anti-Drugs Unit. T2. Ano ang ginagawa mo doon nuong umagang iyon? S2. Pinag-aaralan po namin ng mga kasamahan kong pulis kung paano naming huhulihin si Alex Samson na ini-report sa amin na nagtitinda ng shabu sa Dapitan, malapit sa UST.

T3. Ano ang napagpasyahan ninyo? S3. Napagpasyahan naming gumawa ng isang buy-bust operation. T4. Anong hakbang ang ginawa ninyo para mangyari ang inyong binalak? S4. Naghanda kami ng pera na aming minarkahan para ipambili ng shabu kay Alex Samson at lumakad na kami upang magkunwaring bibili ng shabu sa kanya. T5. Makikilala mo ba ang perang inihanda ninyo na iyong minarkahan? S5. Opo.

T6. Tignan mo itong P100 na may markang ”RYR 5/21/2012”, may kinalaman ba ito doon sa sinabi mong pera na inyong inihanda pambili ng shabu? S6. Iyan po iyon. T7: Minamarkahan ko ang P100 na ito bilang Exhibit A. Kaninong sulat kamay ang markang ito na ”RYR 5/21/2012”? S7: Sa akin po. T8: Ikinakabit ko ang Exhibit A na ito sa iyong judicial affidavit upang maging bahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka ba sa ginawa ko? S8: Opo.

T9. Ano ang ginawa ninyo matapos kayong maghanda ng perang pambili ng shabu? S9. Inabangan po namin si Alex Samson sa Dapitan Street at nang dumating siya, lumapit ako sa kanya kasama ang isang informer at nagtanong kung puwede akong bumili ng pisong shabu.

T10. Ano ang sagot niya? S10. Inabutan niya ako ng isang maliit na plastic na may lamang tila pulbos at inabot ko naman sa kanya iyong P100 na inihanda namin? T11. Ano ang sumunod na pangyayari? S11. Nang makita ng mga kasamahan ko na nagkabilihan na kami, lumapit sila at hinuli namin si Alex Samson.

T12. Ano ang nangyari sa nasamsam ninyong plastic na may lamang tila pulbos? S12. Minarkahan ko ito ng aking initial at kung anong araw namin ito nakuha. T13. Masdan mo ang plastic na ito at sabihin mo sa akin kung ano ang kinalaman nito sa binanggit mong plastic? A13. Iyan po iyong nakuha naming kay Alex Samson. Ang marka po dito na RYR 5/2/2012 ay ako ang naglagay. T14 Ano ang ginawa ninyo dito?

A14. Pinadala namin sa crime laboratory sa ganoon ding kalagayan, silyado. T15: Minamarkahan ko ang plastic sachet na ito bilang Exhibit B at ikinakabit ko sa iyong judicial affidavit upang maging bahagi nito. Sumasangayon ka ba sa ginawa ko? S15: Opo. T16: Mayroon pa ba kayong ibang ebidensya laban kay Alex Samson? S16: Kumuha din po kami ng mga larawan bago namin siya hulihin, habang hinuhuli namin siya, at matapos namin siyang hulihin.

T17: Ito ba ang mga larawang iyon? S17: Opo. T18: Paano ma nakilala ang mga larawang ito? S18: Kasama po ako ng kunan ang mga larawang iyan. T19: Minamarkahan ko ang mga larawang ito bilang Exh. C, C-1, at C-2. Saan kinunan ang mga larawang ito? S19: Sa Dapitan Street po kung saan namin nahuli si Alex Samson. T20: Sino-sinong nasa larawang ito? S20: Si Alex Samson, ako, si PO2 Jose Pangan, at si PO3 Ramon Asis.

IMPLEMENTING PRESENT POLICIES ON THE RIGHT TO BAIL

Many of us live with our familes in comfort and freedom,

not once were we locked against our will in a room crammed with strangers…

and reeking with the foul smell of dried sweat.

One of the great tragedies in life that could strike you is for you or a loved one to be detained in any of these jails while the case against you or the loved one is being heard.

One of the great tragedies in life that could strike you is for you or a loved one to be detained in any of these jails while the case against you or the loved one is being heard.

One of the great tragedies in life that could strike you is for you or a loved one to be detained in any of these jails while the case against you or that loved one is being heard.

Although those kept in detention jails are presumed innocent, they suffer worse fate than convicted felons in the penitentiary who enjoy larger living spaces, hospitals, libraries, basketball courts, gyms, craftworks, trades education, and psychological monitoring.

Although those kept in detention jails are presumed innocent, they suffer worse fate than convicted felons in the national penitentiary who enjoy larger living spaces, hospitals, libraries, basketball courts, gyms, craftworks, trades education, and psychological monitoring.

who enjoy larger living spaces…

Hospitals….

Sports facilities …

Recreation …

Craftworks…

Our detention jails, especially in cities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions: extremely poor ventilation and sanitation; widespread cases of boils, asthma, tuberculosis, depressions, and psychotic behavior; and inadequate food.

Our detention jails, especially in cities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions: extremely poor ventilation and sanitation; widespread cases of boils, asthma, tuberculosis, depressions, and psychotic behavior; and inadequate food.

Our detention jails, especially in cities, are so deplorably congested that those awaiting trial in our courts exist in sub-human conditions:

extremely poor ventilation and sanitation…

and widespread cases of boils, asthma, tuberculosis, depressions, and psychotic behavior… and inadequate food.

The detention of accused persons are meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of their cases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorable conditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become a party to the violation of the guarantees of due process and internationally set humane conditions of detention.

The detention of accused persons are meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of their cases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorable conditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become a party to the violation of the guarantees of due process and internationally set humane conditions of detention.

The detention of accused persons are meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of their cases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorable conditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become a party to the violation of the guarantees of due process and internationally set humane conditions of detention.

The detention of accused persons are meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of their cases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorable conditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from the International Committee of the Red Cross that our justice system has become a party to the violation of the guarantees of due process and internationally set humane conditions of detention.

The detention of accused persons are meant to ensure attendance at trial, not punish them, yet delays in the hearing of their cases result in their incarceration under extremely deplorable conditions for 3 to 8 years or more, inviting a rightful concern from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

The Constitution provides that, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, all persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties or released on recognizance as the law may provide. Further, excessive bail shall not be required.

But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedure require courts to fix a reasonable amount of bail for accused persons, taking into account their financial ability. In practice, however, the courts simply adopt the amounts of bail that the prosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guide issued by the Department of Justice.

But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedure require courts to fix a reasonable amount of bail for accused persons, taking into account their financial ability. In practice, however, the courts simply adopt the amounts of bail that the prosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guide issued by the Department of Justice.

But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedure require courts to fix a reasonable amount of bail for accused persons, taking into account their financial ability. In practice, however, the courts simply adopt the amounts of bail that the prosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guide issued by the Department of Justice.

But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedure require courts to fix a reasonable amount of bail for accused persons, taking into account their financial ability. In practice, however, the courts simply adopt the amounts of bail that the prosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guide issued by the Department of Justice.

But what do we do? The Rules of Criminal Procedure require courts to fix a reasonable amount of bail for accused persons, taking into account their financial ability. In practice, however, the courts simply adopt the amounts of bail that the prosecutors recommend pursuant to the bail bond guide issued by the Department of Justice.

Such bail amounts are based solely on the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for the very rich and the very poor are the same. Yet many of those in our jails are poor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and look after.

Such bail amounts are based solely on the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for the very rich

Such bail amounts are based solely on the gravity of each offense, with the result that the bail for the very rich and the very poor are the same.

Yet many of those in our jails are poor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and look after.

Yet many of those in our jails are poor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and look after.

Yet many of those in our jails are poor first-time offenders, held for non-violent crimes, and have children to feed and look after.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Our bail system is anti-poor.

Question: who are not entitled to bail? Answer: only those accused of capital crimes when the evidence of guilt is strong. Wrong answer! Include the poor who cannot afford bail. They do no enjoy the right to bail. Quite shamefully, our bail system is anti-poor.

The rules allow those who have served the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order the release of only those who have served the maximum.

The rules allow those who have served the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order the release of only those who have served the maximum.

The rules allow those who have served the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order the release of only those who have served the maximum.

The rules allow those who have served the minimum imposable penalty to be released on recognizance. But in practice, courts order the release of only those who have served the maximum of their imposable penalties.

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only after years in detention, absolved of the charges, most of in drugs cases, for lack of evidence.

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only after years in detention, absolved of the charges, most of in drugs cases, for lack of evidence.

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail pending trial. Result: many are freed only after years in detention, absolved of the charges, most of in drugs cases, for lack of evidence.

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail when the evidence of guilt is not strong. Result: many are freed only after years in detention, absolved of the charges, most of in drugs cases, for lack of evidence.

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail when the evidence of guilt is not strong. Result: many who have been absolved are freed only after years in detention,

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail when the evidence of guilt is not strong. Result: many who have been absolved are freed only after years in detention,

Further, the hearing of applications for bail of persons charged with capital offenses are supposed to be summary. But in actual practice, most courts insist on hearing the prosecution’s entire evidence as in a full-blown trial, in effect denying the accused’s right to bail when the evidence of guilt is not strong. Result: many who have been absolved are freed only after years in detention, mostly involved in drugs cases.

Although absolved, the scars of pain, degradation, and hopelessness remain with them.

Quite often, they return to families that have been broken by a parent’s long absence. They are permanently damaged.

Quite often, they return to families that have been broken by a parent’s long absence. They are permanently damaged.

Quite often, they return to families that have been broken by a parent’s long absence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from their families until they are proven guilty.

Quite often, they return to families that have been broken by a parent’s long absence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from their families until they are proven guilty.

Quite often, they return to families that have been broken by a parent’s long absence. They are permanently damaged. Society has no right to punish them and take them away from their families until they are proven guilty.

They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already become indifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already become indifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

They are children of God like us, made out of His image and entitled to dignity and respect. Yet, we may have already become indifferent to their sufferings. Unless we do something for them, Jesus could very well say to us, “I was in prison and you did not care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

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 care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

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 care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

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 care for me.” (Mathew 25:43)

Why have our judges been reluctant given them by the law and the rules in the matter of granting bail or recognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often make them vulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient with accused persons.

Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail or recognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often make them vulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient with accused persons.

Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail or recognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made them vulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient with accused persons.

Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail or recognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made them vulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient with accused persons.

Why have our judges been reluctant in the matter of granting bail or recognizance to accused persons? Because doing so often made them vulnerable to motions for inhibition, if not to administrative charges, for allegedly being overly lenient with accused persons.

We need to fully implement the policies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bail in the context of decongesting our detention jails and humanizing the conditions under which they are detained pending the hearing of their cases. We also need to protect our judges by providing clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion in granting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrass such judges.

We need to fully implement the policies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bail in the context of decongesting our detention jails. and humanizing the conditions under which they are detained pending the hearing of their cases. We also need to protect our judges by providing clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion in granting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrass such judges.

We need to fully implement the policies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bail in the context of decongesting our detention jails. We also need to protect our judges by providing clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion in granting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrass such judges.

We need to fully implement the policies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bail in the context of decongesting our detention jails. We also need to protect our judges by providing clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion in granting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harrass such judges.

We need to fully implement the policies laid down by our laws and rules respecting the accused’s right to bail in the context of decongesting our detention jails. We also need to protect our judges by providing clearer guidance for the exercise of discretion in granting bail or recognizance and by penalizing those who harass such judges.

1. GUIDELINES FOR FIXING BAIL

Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail Bond Guide under the proposed scheme? Yes. The bail bond guide, fixed and periodically adjusted by the Department of Justice, shall be the beginning point for determining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his or her provisional liberty.

Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail Bond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall be the beginning point for determining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his or her provisional liberty.

Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail Bond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall be the beginning point for determining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his or her provisional liberty.

Shall we do away with the DOJ Bail Bond Guide under the proposed scheme? No. The DOJ bail bond guide shall be the beginning point for determining the amount of bail that the accused may post for his provisional liberty.

How will the court itself fix the amount of bail? The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail that the latter must post for his provisional release, taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation and any relevant data that the latter may have submitted.

How will the court itself fix the amount of bail? The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail that the latter must post for his provisional release, taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation and any relevant data that the latter may have submitted.

How will the court itself fix the amount of bail? The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation and any relevant data that the latter may have submitted.

How will the court itself fix the amount of bail? The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation, any relevant data from the information and its supporting documents, and the various criteria provided under the rules.

How will the court itself fix the amount of bail? The court shall, after finding sufficient cause to hold the accused for trial, fix the amount of bail taking into account the public prosecutor’s recommendation, any relevant data from the information and its supporting documents, and the various criteria provided under the rules.

In no case shall the court require excessive bail in the context of the accused’s financial ability. Bail, whether originally fixed, reduced, or increased, may be in the form of cash, property, or surety bond.

In no case shall the court require excessive bail in the context of the accused’s financial ability.

Pending the raffle of the case to a regular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixing of the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judge shall cause the immediate raffle of the case for the hearing of the motion.

Pending the raffle of the case to a regular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixing of the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judge shall cause the immediate raffle of the case for the hearing of the motion.

Pending the raffle of the case to a regular branch of the court, the accused may move for the fixing of the amount of bail, in which event, the Executive Judge shall cause the immediate raffle of the case for the hearing of the motion.

When may the accused seek reduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have the financial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents or affidavits.

When may the accused seek reduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have the financial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents or affidavits.

When may the accused seek reduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have the financial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents or affidavits.

When may the accused seek reduction of the amount of bail? If the accused does not have the financial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed, he may move for its reduction, submitting supporting documents or affidavits.

When may the court increase the amount of bail? If the accused lies about his income and properties and those of his immediate relatives or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case has increased, the court may on motion or motu

proprio

increase the amount of bail for his provisional release.

When may the court increase the amount of bail? If the accused lies about his income and properties and those of his immediate relatives or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case has increased, the court may on motion or motu

proprio

increase the amount of bail for his provisional release.

When may the court increase the amount of bail? If the accused lies about his income and properties or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case has increased.

When may the court increase the amount of bail? If the accused lies about his income and properties or jumps bail and is rearrested or the risk of flight in his case has increased.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? Recognizance is an undertaking of record entered by the accused to appear before the court when required. The undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. The undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, by a governmental or nongovernmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental and non-profit organization with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

What is recognizance and who may undertake it? In recognizance, the accused undertakes under oath to appear before the court when required. To relieve the judge of some worries, the undertaking may likewise be entered on behalf of the accused by a governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization, with proven capability of monitoring his whereabouts and counselling him on his need to make such court appearance.

They shall include the barangay unit in the place where the accused lives, local church groups, and similar organizations that have been pre-qualified by the Executive Judge for the purpose of giving recognizance on behalf of the accused.

They shall include the barangay unit in the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, and similar groups that have been pre-qualified by the Executive Judge for the purpose of giving recognizance on behalf of the accused.

They shall include the barangay unit in the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, and similar groups that have been pre-qualified by the Executive Judge for the purpose of giving recognizance on behalf of the accused.

They shall include the barangay unit in the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, and similar groups that have been pre-qualified by the Executive Judge for the purpose of giving recognizance on behalf of the accused.

They shall include the barangay unit in the place where the accused lives, responsible local church groups, and similar groups that have been pre-qualified by the Executive Judge for the purpose of giving recognizance on behalf of the accused. He shall regularly review their performance and weed out those who fail to meet the requirements.

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, recognizance shall, upon motion, be allowed the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previously convicted of any crime;

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, recognizance shall, upon motion, be allowed the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previously convicted of any crime;

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grant recognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previously convicted of any crime;

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grant recognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He is able to prove his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previously convicted of any crime;

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grant recognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He proves his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has not been previously convicted of any crime;

When may the court release the accused on recognizance? Apart from the other instances provided by law and the rules, the court may, on motion, grant recognizance to the accused who has absolutely no ability to post any amount of bail, provided: (1) He proves his lack of financial ability to post bail; (2) He has no prior conviction;

(3) He has not been previously charged twice or more for the same offense; (4) He has already been arraigned, permitting trial to continue even in his absence; (5) There exists no report that he has threatened harm on the complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity and place of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight in his case.

(3) He has not been previously charged twice or more for the same offense; (4) He has already been arraigned, permitting trial to continue even in his absence; (5) There exists no report that he has threatened harm on the complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity and place of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight in his case.

(3) He has not been previously charged twice or more for the same offense; (4) He has already been arraigned, permitting trial to continue even in his absence; (5) He has not threatened harm on the complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity and place of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight in his case.

(3) He has not been previously charged twice or more for the same offense; (4) He has already been arraigned, permitting trial to continue even in his absence; (5) He has not threatened harm on the complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity and place of abode; and (7) There is no clear risk of flight in his case.

(3) He has not been previously charged twice or more for the same offense; (4) He has already been arraigned, permitting trial to continue even in his absence; (5) He has not threatened harm on the complainant or his family; (6) He has a confirmed identity and place of abode; and (7) No clear risk of flight exists in his case.

What is the consequence if the accused, who is on recognizance, fails to appear at his hearing? The accused who fails to appear at his hearing or refuses to cooperate with the entity that provided him with recognizance shall be ordered rearrested and detained until he posts the required amount of bail.

What is the consequence if the accused, who is on recognizance, fails to appear at his hearing? The court shall order him rearrested and detained until he posts the required amount of bail.

What is the consequence if the accused, who is on recognizance, fails to appear at his hearing? The court shall order him rearrested and detained until he posts the required amount of bail.

The court’s order fixing the amount of bail or allowing recognizance need not state the basis for it and shall not be subject to appeal.

The court’s order fixing the amount of bail or allowing recognizance need not state the basis for it and shall not be subject to appeal.

What is the effect of service by the accused of the minimum imposable sentence in his case?

The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be ordered released on motion and after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that of any of the organizations or entities authorized by this memorandum circular to provide the same, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.

What is the effect of service by the accused of the minimum imposable sentence in his case?

The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be ordered released on motion and after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that of any of the organizations or entities authorized by this memorandum circular to provide the same, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.

What is the effect of service by the accused of the minimum imposable sentence in his case?

The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be ordered released on motion and after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that of any of the organizations or entities authorized by this memorandum circular to provide the same, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.

What is the effect of service by the accused of the minimum imposable sentence in his case?

The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be ordered released on motion and after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that of any of the organizations or entities authorized by this memorandum circular to provide the same, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.

What is the effect of service by the accused of the minimum imposable sentence in his case?

The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged against him shall be ordered released on motion and after notice and hearing, on his own recognizance or of that of any of the organizations or entities authorized by this memorandum circular to provide the same, without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.

What is the nature of the hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses shall be summary and continuous, with the prosecution bearing the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt in its possession is strong.

What is the nature of the hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses shall be summary and continuous, with the prosecution bearing the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt in its possession is strong.

What is the nature of the hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses? The hearing of an application for bail in capital offenses shall be summary and continuous. with the prosecution bearing the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt in its possession is strong.

Whose testimonies shall the prosecution present at that hearing? The prosecution shall present only its important witnesses or those whose testimonies cover the substance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw the commission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented.

Whose testimonies shall the prosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its important witnesses or those whose testimonies cover the substance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw the commission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented.

Whose testimonies shall the prosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its important witnesses or those whose testimonies cover the substance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw the commission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented.

Whose testimonies shall the prosecution present at that hearing? Only the testimonies of its important witnesses or those whose testimonies cover the substance of the crime charged, such as witnesses who saw the commission of the crime. Witnesses attesting to collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented.

Witnesses on collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present the judicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.

Witnesses on collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present the judicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.

Witnesses on collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present the judicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.

Witnesses on collateral matters that do not constitute elements of the crime need not be presented. The prosecution shall present the judicial affidavits of these witnesses in place of their direct testimonies.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

What actions will the court take during such hearing? The court will ask questions of the witnesses to ascertain the credibility and the strength of their testimonies, without prejudice to their being recalled at the trial for examination by the parties. The court shall afterwards hear the oral arguments of the parties on whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

The court shall within twenty-four hours after hearing issue an order, denying or granting bail. Apart from stating its finding that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or is not strong based on a provisional assessment of the evidence so far presented, the court need not explain its reason or reasons for such finding. Its order shall not be appealable.

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with all the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused before he commits the crime (if this has been doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with all the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused before he commits the crime (if this has been doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused before he commits the crime (if this has been doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused before he commits the crime (if this has been doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused before he commits the crime (if this has been doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused shortly before he commits the crime (if this was doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

What is the consequence of failure of the prosecution to establish police compliance with the requisites of a valid drugs related arrest? In dangerous drugs cases that constitute capital offenses, the public prosecutor shall during the bail hearing present evidence of (1) photos or video recordings of the accused shortly before he commits the crime (if this was doable), during its commission, and afterwards,

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

with sufficient background in the photos or video for identifying the place where the crime was committed and the police officers involved in his apprehension; (2) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items and the chain of custody over the same; and (3) compliance with the other requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165 and established judicial precedents.

Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemed not strong, warranting the release of the accused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.

Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemed not strong, warranting the release of the accused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.

Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemed not strong, warranting the release of the accused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.

Lacking any of these requirements, the evidence of guilt shall be deemed not strong, warranting the release of the accused on bail or recognizance pending the trial of his case.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

What is the consequence of filing a frivolous motion for inhibition or complaint against a judge for releasing the accused on bail or recognizance? A party or his lawyer or both of them who file a frivolous motion to inhibit or administrative action against the judge for allowing the accused to be released on bail or recognizance shall be liable for indirect contempt of court and accordingly punished.

2. GUIDELINES FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

What are the set time limits for prosecuting criminal actions? The trial court, the public or private prosecutor, and the defense counsel must ensure, subject to the excluded delays specified by law, compliance with the following time limits in the prosecution of criminal cases: (a) The case of the accused shall be raffled and assigned within 3 days from the filing of the information;

What are the set time limits for prosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall be raffled and assigned within 3 days from the filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign the accused within 10 days from raffle;

What are the set time limits for prosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall be raffled and assigned within 3 days from the filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign the accused within 10 days from raffle;

What are the set time limits for prosecuting criminal actions? (a) The case of the accused shall be raffled and assigned within 3 days from the filing of the information; (b) The court shall arraign the accused within 10 days from raffle; (c) The court shall hold the pre-trial conference within 10 days of arraignment;

(d) But where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for the pre-trial conference;

(d) But where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for the pre-trial conference;

(d) But where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for the pre-trial conference;

(d) But where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for the pre-trial conference;

(d) But where the direct testimonies of the witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the court shall give the prosecution not more than 120 days from arraignment within which to call its witnesses, prepare their judicial affidavits, and submit the same in time for the pre-trial conference;

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (e) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified by law and the rules

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (e) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified by law and the rules

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified by law and the rules

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits,

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the date trial begins,

(e) After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall set the trial of the case within 30 days from such pre-trial conference; and (f) The court shall terminate the trial within 180 days, in the case of regular trial, or within 60 days, in the case of trial by judicial affidavits, both periods reckoned from the date trial begins, minus the excluded delays or postponements specified by law and the rules.

But, even when some of the delays or postponements are subject to exclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespective of such exclusions within one year from the time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays that are directly attributable to any action taken or postponements sought by the detained accused in the case.

But, even when some of the delays or postponements are subject to exclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespective of such exclusions within one year from the time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays that are directly attributable to any action taken or postponements sought by the detained accused in the case.

But, even when some of the delays or postponements are subject to exclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespective of such exclusions within one year from the time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays that are directly attributable to any action taken or postponements sought by the detained accused in the case.

But, even when some of the delays or postponements are subject to exclusion, trial shall be terminated irrespective of such exclusions within one year from the time it is set to begin, minus only the times of delays that are directly attributable to any action taken or postponements sought by the detained accused in the case.

What is the consequence of failure to observe these time limits in the prosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detained accused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right to speedy trial.

What is the consequence of failure to observe these time limits in the prosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detained accused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right to speedy trial.

What is the consequence of failure to observe these time limits in the prosecution of criminal cases? The case against the detained accused may be dismissed on ground of denial of the right to speedy trial.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

When may the court order the provisional dismissal of criminal cases? (a) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined and, therefore, are normally regarded as justified delays, but which delays have already lasted more than 180 days from the time trial was set to begin, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action.

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

(b) When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness, whose presence cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall, with the express consent of the detained accused, also provisionally dismiss the action provided: (1) the hearing in the case has been previously twice postponed due to the non-appearance of the essential witness

and both he and the offended party, if they are two different persons, have been given notice of the setting of the case for third hearing, which notice contains a warning that the case would be provisionally dismissed if the essential witness continues to be absent; and (2) there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness and the offended party at their last known postal or email addresses or mobile phone numbers.

and both he and the offended party, if they are two different persons, have been given notice of the setting of the case for third hearing; and which notice contains a warning that the case would be provisionally dismissed if the essential witness continues to be absent; and (2) there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness and the offended party at their last known postal or email addresses or mobile phone numbers.

and both he and the offended party, if they are two different persons, have been given notice of the setting of the case for third hearing; and (2) there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness and the offended party at their last known postal or email addresses or mobile phone numbers.

and both he and the offended party, if they are two different persons, have been given notice of the setting of the case for third hearing; and (2) there is proof of service of the pertinent notices of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential witness and the offended party.

(c) For the above purpose, the public or private prosecutor shall first present during the trial the essential witness or witnesses to the case before anyone else. An essential witness is one whose testimony dwells on the presence of some or all of the elements of the crime and whose testimony is indispensable to a conviction of the accused.

(c) For the above purpose, the public or private prosecutor shall first present during the trial the essential witness or witnesses to the case before anyone else. An essential witness is one whose testimony dwells on the presence of some or all of the elements of the crime and whose testimony is indispensable to a conviction of the accused.

What is required for the issuance of a notice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for their witnesses, the parties shall provide the court with the postal and email addresses and mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.

What is required for the issuance of a notice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for their witnesses, the parties shall provide the court with the postal and email addresses and mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.

What is required for the issuance of a notice of hearing or subpoena? When requesting the court to issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum for their witnesses, the parties shall provide the court with the postal and email addresses and mobile phone numbers of such witnesses.

Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done by personal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sent email or short message service if done by using the court’s transmission equipment or device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, if done using the court’s transmission service. Proof of one form of service is sufficient.

Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done by personal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sent email or short message service if done by using the court’s transmission equipment or device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, if done using the court’s transmission service. Proof of one form of service is sufficient.

Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done by personal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sent email or short message service if done by using the court’s transmission equipment or device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, if done using the court’s transmission service. Proof of one form of service is sufficient.

Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done by personal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sent email or short message service if done by using the court’s transmission equipment or device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, if done using the court’s transmission service. Proof of one form of service is sufficient.

Proof of service shall be (1) by a written return, if done by personal service or registered mail, (2) by printouts of outgoing or sent email or short message service if done by using the court’s transmission equipment or device, or (3) by reports of the calls made, if done using the court’s transmission service. Proof of one form of service is sufficient.

In cases of police officers whose testimonies are essential to the prosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing or subpoena on them shall be made through the police unit responsible for the arrest and prosecution of the accused, copy furnished the Personnel Department of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In cases of police officers whose testimonies are essential to the prosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing or subpoena on them shall be made through the police unit responsible for the arrest and prosecution of the accused, copy furnished the Personnel Department of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In cases of police officers whose testimonies are essential to the prosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing or subpoena on them shall be made through the police unit responsible for the arrest and prosecution of the accused, copy furnished the Personnel Department of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In cases of police officers whose testimonies are essential to the prosecution of the case, service of the notice of hearing or subpoena on them shall be made through the police unit responsible for the arrest and prosecution of the accused, copy furnished the Personnel Department of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

It shall be the responsibility of the head of that police unit to ensure the transmission of the notice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall be deemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the service of a copy of the order of provisional dismissal upon the offended party in the manner provided above.

It shall be the responsibility of the head of that police unit to ensure the transmission of the notice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall be deemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the service of a copy of the order of provisional dismissal upon the offended party in the manner provided above.

It shall be the responsibility of the head of that police unit to ensure the transmission of the notice or subpoena to the addressee. Service upon the police unit shall be deemed service upon such police officers. (e) The court shall cause the service of a copy of the order of provisional dismissal upon the offended party in the manner provided above.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

How are reports of government experts to be treated? (a) A certified copy of the report of a government medical, chemical, or laboratory expert relating to a criminal case shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the truth of what such report states, rendering unnecessary the personal appearance in court of such expert unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross examination.

(b) If the report includes a specimen of the substance, which the government expert examined, and its container, both substance and container shall be sealed in transparent plastic envelope and attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor who presents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the same from the government expert shall be deemed to warrant its genuineness and authenticity.

(b) If the report includes a specimen of the substance, which the government expert examined, and its container, both substance and container shall be sealed in transparent plastic envelope and attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor who presents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the same from the government expert shall be deemed to warrant its genuineness and authenticity.

(b) If the report includes a specimen of the substance, which the government expert examined, and its container, both substance and container shall be sealed in transparent plastic envelope and attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor who presents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the same from the government expert shall be deemed to warrant its genuineness and authenticity.

(b) If the report includes a specimen of the substance, which the government expert examined, and its container, both substance and container shall be sealed in transparent plastic envelope and attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor who presents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the same from the government expert shall be deemed to warrant its genuineness and authenticity.

(b) If the report includes a specimen of the substance, which the government expert examined, and its container, both substance and container shall be sealed in transparent plastic envelope and attached securely to the report. (c) The public prosecutor who presents such certified copy of the report after officially receiving the same from the government expert shall be deemed to warrant its genuineness and authenticity as he received it.

These guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accused persons, including those currently under detention pending the hearing of their cases.

These guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accused persons, including those currently under detention pending the hearing of their cases.

These guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accused persons, including those currently under detention pending the hearing of their cases.

These guidelines shall take effect on January 1, 2013 after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall apply to all accused persons, including those currently under detention pending the hearing of their cases.

THANK YOU!