ANNOTATION

THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATION

TO AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE

by

MAURICIO C. ULEP*

___________________

1. Rationale for the rule, p. 578

2. Scope and application of the Rule, p. 579
3. Judicial Afdavits are used in lieu of direct testimony. Time to
submit, p. 579
4. Contents of a Judicial Afdavit, p. 580
5. Task and liability of the lawyer, p. 581
6. An afant will be cross-examined on the basis of his Judicial
Afdavit, p. 581
7. Oral ofer of and objections to exhibits, p. 582
8. The rule is applicable to criminal actions, p. 582
9. Efects of noncompliance with the Judicial Afdavit Rule, p. 582
10. Public Prosecutors were given an extended period of one year to
comply with the Judicial Afdavit Rule, p. 583
11. The Judicial Afdavit Rule is applicable to all courts, p. 583
_______________

* Former Associate Dean, UE College of Law; Professor of Law; Author of Law Books; former
President, IBP Manila Chapter III.

577
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 577
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
12. Beneft and advantage of the Judicial Afdavit Rule, p. 584
13. Afdavit defned, p. 584
14. Nature of an Afdavit, p. 584
 15. The fling of Afdavit of complainant and witnesses is mandatory
under the Rules on Summary Procedure, p. 586
16. An Afdavit is an infrm specie of evidence, p. 586
17. If an afdavit is inconsistent with a testimony, the latter shall
prevail. Reasons, p. 586
18. Inconsistencies between the afdavit and a testimony does not
necessarily discredit a witness if it relates to minor matters, p. 587
19. Afdavits are subordinated in importance to open court
declarations. General rule and exceptions,
p. 588
20. An afdavit may be scanty in details but it may admitted if it will
be testifed on by the afant, p. 590
21. Afdavits in question and answer form prepared by police ofcers
are usually not complete, p. 590
22. Afdavits are not considered the best evidence if the afants are
available, p. 591
23. If the afant is not presented, the afdavit is classifed as hearsay.
Reasons, p. 591
24. The rule that an Afdavit is considered hearsay is not applicable in
labor cases. Reason, p. 592
25. Efect if an accused is convicted based only on an Afdavit of a
witness, p. 592
26. Mere afdavits are not sufcient to grant bail, p. 592
27. Afdavit of disinterested persons in order to prove birth is not an
adequate proof, p. 593
578
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
28. An extrajudicial statement or afdavit is infrm and unreliable, p.
593
29. Afdavits cannot be relied upon to annul a winning candidates
proclamation in election cases, p. 593
30. An Afdavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership of a land, p. 594
 31. Mere Afdavit is not sufcient for the issuance of a search warrant,
p. 594
32. An afdavit of a co-accused who was subsequently acquitted may
be a basis for new trial, p. 594
33. An afdavit is not sufcient to prove fliation, p. 595
34. An afdavit of pardon is not credible if it is not understood by the
complainant, p. 595
35. Omission of certain particulars in an afdavit will not estop an
afant from making an elaboration, p. 595
36. Procedural aspect, p. 595

___________________

1. Rationale for the rule

There are four main reasons for the enactment of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. This
is found in its whereas clauses, to wit:
1. Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities and the slow and
cumbersome adversarial system;
2. Forty percent (40%) of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact
that complainants simply give up coming to court after repeated postponements;
579
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 579
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
3. Few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines
because its courts are unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their
investments, keeping its people poor; and
4. To reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases
under litigation. (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC dated September 4, 2012)

2. Scope and application of the Rule

The rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings and incident requiring the
reception of evidence before:
 1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Sharia Circuit
Courts but shall not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
2. The Regional Trial Courts and the Sharia District Courts;
3. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Sharia Appellate Courts;
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to
receive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP); and
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are
subject to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of
procedure contravene the provisions of the rule. (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

3. Judicial Afdavits are used in lieu of direct testimony. Time to

submit
A judicial affidavit must be submitted five (5) days before the pretrial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing either through personal service or
by licensed courier.
580
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
It is used in lieu of a direct testimony and the parties should submit the
following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to
the judicial affidavits. (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

4. Contents of a Judicial Afdavit

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if
not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
(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;
 (c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully
conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for
false testimony or perjury;
(d) Question asked of the witness and is corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon
which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case
presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;
581
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 581
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath of an
officer who is authorized by law to administer the same. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

5. Task and liability of the lawyer

The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the
lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of witnesses, to the effect 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 or assisting him coached the
witness regarding the latters answers.
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action,
including disbarment. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

6. An afant will be cross-examined on the basis of his Judicial

Afdavit
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents
the witness may also examine him as on redirect. In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility as well as the truth
of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the issues. (Sec.
7, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
 582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
7. Oral ofer of and objections to exhibits
Upon 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 (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC). An Affidavit has no probative value
if it is not presented formally in evidence. (People v. Amores, 58 SCRA 505 [1974])

8. The rule is applicable to criminal actions

The rule shall apply to all criminal actions:
(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. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

9. Efects of noncompliance with the Judicial Afdavit Rule

There are three effects of noncompliance with the Judicial Affidavit rule. They
are as follows:
(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on
time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court, may, however,
allow only once the late submission of the same, 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.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at
the scheduled hear-
583
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 583
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
ing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause
despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his clients right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present.
 (c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to
the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4
above. The court, may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the
complaint 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. (Sec. 10, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

10. Public Prosecutors were given an extended period of one year to

comply with the Judicial Afdavit Rule
On January 8, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution modifying
the public prosecutors compliance with the provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
for a period of one year, from 1 January to 31 December 2013. This has been
complied with (See OCA Circular No. 05-2013 dated January 10, 2013). It was
further extended for another one year (OCA Circular No. 01-2014 dated January 2,
2014). Today, public prosecutors are now bound to follow the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

11. The Judicial Afdavit Rule is applicable to all courts

The Judicial Affidavit Rule is applicable to all courts like the Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals,
584
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Sharia Circuit Courts. (OCA Circular
No. 106-2012 dated October 15, 2012)

12. Beneft and advantage of the Judicial Afdavit Rule

The rule is highly beneficial and advantageous to a litigant. This writer once had
a client in a petition for adoption who is a citizen of the United Kingdom. Before the
hearing, this writer prepared and submitted his Judicial Affidavit in advance. He
arrived from London at 2:00 oclock in the early morning, he was able to get out of
the airport at 3:00 oclock, he waited at a burger restaurant which is open for
twenty-four hours near the Hall of Justice, then he testified at 9:00 oclock and his
cross-examination was concluded after an hour. He happily returned to England the
following day.

13. Afdavit defned

Affidavit is a written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made
voluntarily and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken
before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation. (State v.
Knight, 219 Kan. 863)

14. Nature of an Afdavit

Affidavits, being taken ex parte, usually are incomplete and often inaccurate,
caused sometimes from partial suggestions, sometimes for want of suggestions and
inquiries, without the aid of which, the witness may be unable to recall the
connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first
suggestion of his memory, and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the
subject. (People v. Pacala, 58 SCRA 370 [1974];People v. Muros, 423 SCRA 69
[2004]; People v. Delmindo, 429 SCRA 546 [2004]; Marturillas
585
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 585
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
v. People, 487 SCRA 273 [2006]; Tating v. Marcella, 519 SCRA 79 [2007]; People
v. Corpuz, 701 SCRA 493 [2013])
Moreover, affidavits are frequently not complete reproductions of what the
declarants had in mind, considering that affidavits are frequently prepared by the
administering officer and cast in the latters language or the latters understanding
of what the affiant had said, while the affiant frequently simply signs the affidavit
after the same has been read to him. (People v. Villanueva, 215 SCRA 22 [1992]. See
also Eugenio v. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 207 [1994]; People v. Sanchez, 313
SCRA 254 [1999];People v. Cueto, 395 SCRA 344 [2003]; People v. Balleno, 408
SCRA 513 [2003]; People v. Rivera, 412 SCRA 224 [2003]; People v. Domingo, 556
SCRA 788 [2008]; People v. Alkodha, 561 SCRA 696 [2008])
Indeed, affidavits are usually not prepared by the affiant himself but by another
who uses his own language in taking down the affiants statement and therefore,
they must be understood with some degree of latitude. (People v. Panela, 346 SCRA
308 [2000]; Lucas v. Court of Appeals, 389 SCRA 749 [2002]; Eagle Ridge Golf &
Country Club v. Court of Appeals, 616 SCRA 116 [2010])
 Omission and misunderstanding by the writer are frequent, particularly when
the dictation is done in haste and impatience. Their infirmity as evidence is a
matter of judicial experience. (People v. Marcelino, 316 SCRA 104 [1999]; People v.
Garalde, 348 SCRA 38 [2000])
Lastly, affidavits are not entirely reliable evidence in court due to the
inaccuracies that may have occurred in the formulation of the same (People v.
Geguira, 328 SCRA 11 [2000]; People v. Delmo, 390 SCRA 395 [2002] and that they
are seldom considered as the repositories of truth. (People v. Nubla, 358 SCRA 735
[2001])
586
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
15. The fling of Afdavit of complainant and witnesses is mandatory
under the Rules on Summary Procedure
The filing of Affidavit of the complainant and witnesses is mandatory under the
Rules on Summary Procedure. The purpose is to enable the court to determine
whether to dismiss the case outright or to require further proceedings. (Placer v.
Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 [1983])

16. An Afdavit is an infrm specie of evidence

Generally, an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant himself, but by another who
uses his own language in writing the affiants statements. Omissions and
misunderstandings by the writer are not infrequent particularly under
circumstances of hurry and impatience. For this reason, the infirmity of affidavits as
a specie of evidence is much a matter of judicial experience. (People v. Resayaga, 54
SCRA 350 [1973]; People v. Mori, 55 SCRA 382 [1974]; People v. Sagun, Jr., 185
SCRA 405 [1990];People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354 [1991])

17. If an afdavit is inconsistent with a testimony, the latter shall

prevail. Reasons
If there is an inconsistency between the affidavit of an affiant and his testimony,
the latter is to be given more weight since:
(1) Affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and inaccurate.
(People v. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47 [1990]; People v. Carriaga, 411 SCRA 40
[2003]; Fukuzume v. People, 474 SCRA 570 [2005]; People v. Serenas, 622 SCRA 485
[2010]; Ong v. People, 661 SCRA 104 [2011])
 (2) The contradiction may be explained by the fact that an affidavit cannot
disclose the whole facts, and of-
587
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 587
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
tentimes and without design, incorrectly describe, without the deponent
detecting it, some of the occurrences narrated. (Jacobo v. Court of Appeals, 270
SCRA 270 [1997]; People v. Berana, 311 SCRA 664 [1999])
(3) Affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind
because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant
simply signs them after the same have been read to her. (People v. Gondora, 265
SCRA 408 [1996])
(4) They are taken as inferior to court testimony. (People v. Baniega, 377 SCRA
170 [2002])
In fact, an affidavit is not considered the best evidence if the affiant is available
as a witness. (People v. Matildo, 230 SCRA 635 [1994])
The rule that an affidavit or sworn statement is inferior to testimony in open
court applies only when there are discrepancies and inconsistencies between the
allegations in the sworn statement and those made in open court. (People v. Rata,
418 SCRA 237 [2003]; People v. Pajaro, 554 SCRA 572 [2008])
The testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the
investigators are not fatal defects that would justify the reversal of a judgment of
conviction. (Tarapan v. People, 563 SCRA 577 [2008])

18. Inconsistencies between the afdavit and a testimony does not

necessarily discredit a witness if it relates to minor matters
Inconsistencies between the affidavit and a testimony does not necessarily
discredit a witness if it relates to minor or collateral matters. Ex Parte affidavits are
generally incomplete, hence, inconsistencies between declarations of the affi-
588
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
ants in their sworn statements and those in court, do not necessarily discredit
them and the infirmity of affidavits as an evidence is much a matter of judicial
experience. (People v. Daco, 568 SCRA 348 [2008]; People v. Bajada, 571 SCRA 455
[2008]; People v. Sally, 633 SCRA 293 [2010]; People v. Alfredo, 638 SCRA 749
[2010]; People v. Angelio, 667 SCRA 102 [2012]; Kummer v. People, 705 SCRA 490
[2013])
Likewise, the discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do
not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence carries
more weight than an affidavit. (People v. De la Cruz, 546 SCRA 703
[2008]; Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 [2010])
There is no rule that would estop an affiant from making an elaboration of an
affidavit during the trial. (People v. Villanueva, 265 SCRA 216 [1996])
Besides, there is no perfect or omniscient witness because there is no person with
perfect faculties or senses. An adroit cross-examiner may trap a witness into
making statements contradicting his testimony on direct examination. By intensive
cross-examination on points not anticipated by a witness and his lawyer, a witness
may be inveigled into making statements that do not dovetail with the testimonies
of other witnesses on the same points. (People v. Corfin, 380 SCRA 504 [2002])

19. Afdavits are subordinated in importance to open court

declarations. General rule and exceptions
Affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open court declarations
because they are oftentimes not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of
narrating in full the incident which has transpired. (People v. Leangsiri, 252 SCRA
213 [1996]; People v. Gutierrez, Jr., 302 SCRA 643 [1999]; People v. Mercado, 304
SCRA 504 [1999]; People v. Nullan, 305 SCRA 679 [1999]; People v. Atrejenio, 310
SCRA
589
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 589
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
229 [1999]; Cariaga v. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA 583 [2001]; People v. Pajaro,
554 SCRA 572 [2008])
Besides, affidavits are often executed when an affiants mental faculties are not
in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident
which has transpired. (People v. Sanchez, 302 SCRA 21 [1999]; People v. Aquino, 329
SCRA 247 [2000]; People v. Gabiana, 338 SCRA 562 [2000]; People v. Morata, 354
SCRA 259 [2001];Sarabia v. People, 361 SCRA 652 [2001])
The exceptions to this rule are:
 (1) where the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail such that
the affiant would not have failed to mention it, and which omission could affect the
affiants credibility. (People v. Ponferada, 220 SCRA 46 [1993];People v. Doinog, 332
SCRA 366 [2000]; People v. Mandao, 393 SCRA 292 [2002])
(2) When the witness narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts
her testimony in court. (People v. Ortiz, 266 SCRA 641 [1997]; People v.
Avergonzado, 397 SCRA 295 [2003])
(3) Where the purported inconsistency concerns points of such importance. The
same cannot simply be ascribed to failure to remember, for which reason, the
witness credibility becomes suspect. (People v. Reboltiado, 279 SCRA 79
[1997]; People v. Servano, 406 SCRA 508 [2003])
(4) Where a serious discrepancy or variance has a bearing on a material or
substantial fact or issue. (People v. Sese, 111 SCRA 552 [1982]; People v. Wilson, 321
SCRA 409 [1999]; Angcaco v. People, 378 SCRA 297 [2002]; People v. Ocomen, 382
SCRA 310 [2002])
590
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
20. An afdavit may be scanty in details but it may admitted if it will
be testifed on by the afant
A sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to be a complete compendium
of the details of an event narrated by the affiant. While her sworn statement may
have been scanty on details if he testifies sufficiently on relevant matters on the
stand, it will be admitted as evidence. (People v. De Castro, 403 SCRA 543 [2003])
21. Afdavits in question and answer form prepared by police ofcers
are usually not complete
Affidavits, ordinarily in a question and answer form, are usually and routinely
prepared in police precincts by police investigators. Not infrequently, the
investigator/interrogator propound questions merely to elicit a general picture of the
subject matter under investigation (People v. Sabio, 102 SCRA 218 [1981]; People v.
Gabas, 233 SCRA 77 [1994]; People v. Garcia, 373 SCRA 134 [2002]; Angcaco v.
People, 378 SCRA 297 [2002] and it is not prepared by the affiant himself. (People v.
Perez, 417 SCRA 449 [2003])
True, sworn statements executed before police authorities are usually incomplete
and contain data which are inconsistent with the facts narrated by witnesses to said
officers. For that reason, courts have generally brushed aside, as inconsequential,
contradictions thereon so long as these are on minor and reconcilable matters. The
rule is otherwise, where the discrepancies touch on substantial and irreconcilable
facts such as those omissions in the affidavit concerning important details which the
affiant would not have failed to mention, and which omission could well affect the
credibility of that affiant. (People v. Perez, 263 SCRA 206 [1996])
591
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 591
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
22. Afdavits are not considered the best evidence if the afants are
available
Well-settled is the rule that affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the
affiants are available as witnesses. The presentation of a witness will afford the trial
court the opportunity to observe his overall demeanor and for the defense to cross-
examine him and impeach his credibility. (Vallarta v. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA
587 [1988]; Ayco v. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328 [1991]; People v. Mores, 311 SCRA 342
[1999])
Corollarily, any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if the
probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses but on the
knowledge of some other person who was never presented on the witness stand,
because it is the opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim that the
matters testified to by a witness are hearsay. (People v. Dela Cruz, 580 SCRA 212
[2009])
23. If the afant is not presented, the afdavit is classifed as hearsay.
Reasons
If a person executes and affidavit in a case, but he is not presented to the witness
stand, it renders his affidavit inadmissible for being hearsay and it must be
excluded as an evidence. Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are
not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in
writing the affiants statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood
by the one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity
to cross-examine the affiants. (People v. Peruelo, 105 SCRA 226 [1981]; People v.
Ramos, 122 SCRA 312 [1983]; Imbat v. Soliven, 519 SCRA 121 [2007]; Estrella v.
Robles, Jr., 538 SCRA 60 [2007]; Petron Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 626 SCRA 100 [2010])
592
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
A testimony preliminary investigation which is based on the affidavits of others is
hearsay and can hardly qualify as a prima facie evidence. (Salonga v. Cruz-Pao,
134 SCRA 438 [1985])

24. The rule that an Afdavit is considered hearsay is not applicable in

labor cases. Reason
However, the rule that an Affidavit is considered hearsay is liberally applied in
labor cases. (See Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great pacific Life Assurance
Corporation, 303 SCRA 113 [1999])
The reason is, it is not necessary for the affiants to appear and testify and be
cross-examined by counsel for the adverse party. To require otherwise would be to
negate the rationale and purpose of the summary nature of the proceedings
mandated by the Rules and to make mandatory the application of the technical
rules of evidence. (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Dumapis, 562 SCRA
103 [2008])

25. Efect if an accused is convicted based only on an Afdavit of a

witness
The accused will be acquitted. The admission of a hearsay evidence like an
affidavit and the conviction of the accused on the basis thereof violates his
constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face and to subject them to the rigid
test of cross-examination. The constitutional right to confrontation precludes
reliance on such affidavits. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied
unless the opportunity is given the accused to test the credibility of any person,
who, by affidavit or deposition would impute the commission of the offense to him.
(People v. Montenegro, 436 SCRA 33 [2004])

26. Mere afdavits are not sufcient to grant bail

Mere affidavits or recitals of their contents are not sufficient since they are ere
hearsay evidence, hence they cannot
593
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 593
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
 legally form the basis of an order granting bail. Thus, an RTC judge who granted
bail based on a mere affidavit was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and was
ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. (Baylon v. Sison, 243 SCRA 284 [1995])

27. Afdavit of disinterested persons in order to prove birth is not an

adequate proof
The submission of an affidavit of disinterested person attesting to the actual
birth of a person does not constitute adequate proof as to the actual date/year of his
birth since the affidavit is hearsay and self-serving. (Re: Samanodin L. Ampaso, 256
SCRA 679 [1996])

28. An extrajudicial statement or afdavit is infrm and unreliable

A extrajudicial statement or affidavit is generally not prepared by the affiant
himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants
statement. Hence, omissions and misunderstanding by the affiant are not
infrequent. The infirmity of an extrajudicial statement is a matter of judicial
experience.
Besides, an affidavit executed after conviction of the accused and while the affiant
is in detention, is unreliable. The allegations therein, not being testified to in court,
are mere hearsay and have no substantial evidentiary value. (People v. Patalinjug,
318 SCRA 116 [1999])

29. Afdavits cannot be relied upon to annul a winning candidates

proclamation in election cases
Affidavits cannot be relied upon to annul a winning candidates proclamation.
This is because it is self-serving and it cannot overturn the presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed. (Velayo v. Commission on Elections, 327
594
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
SCRA 715 [2000]. See also Lucman v. Dimaporo, 33 SCRA 387 [1970])
Likewise, the fact that the affidavits offered by a party in an election protest case
are of one style or wording, is nothing unusual. (Sinsuat v. Pendatun, 33 SCRA 630
[1970])

30. An Afdavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership of a land

 Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus,
an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it
contains a notarial jurat. Moreover, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring
ownership of a land. (Cequea v. Bolante, 330 SCRA 216 [2000]; Feliciano v.
Zaldivar, 503 SCRA 182 [2006])

31. Mere Afdavit is not sufcient for the issuance of a search warrant
Mere affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses is not sufficient for the
issuance of a search warrant. The examining judge has to take depositions in
writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach them to
the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able
to properly determine the existence or nonexistence of probable cause and to hold
liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations
are false. (People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 [2004])

32. An afdavit of a co-accused who was subsequently acquitted may

be a basis for new trial
While a affidavit of a co-accused who was subsequently acquitted, executed after
trial has no probative value as to the conviction on circumstantial evidence, of
petitioner, the Supreme Court may brush aside technicalities and consider the
595
VOL. 747, JANUARY 21, 2015 595
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE IN RELATIONTO
AFFIDAVITS TAKEN EX PARTE
existence of said affidavit as a basis for new trial. (Helmuth, Jr. v. People, 112
SCRA 573 [1982])
Note however that a forgotten affidavit is not a basis for a new trial. (People v.
Regato, 127 SCRA 287 [1984])

33. An afdavit is not sufcient to prove fliation

Affidavits and pictures are insufficient to show filiation since they are self-
serving, insignificant and insufficient. (Berciles v. Government Service Insurance
System, 128 SCRA 53 [1984])

34. An afdavit of pardon is not credible if it is not understood by the

complainant
 An alleged affidavit of pardon by the offended husband to his wifes paramour
which was written in English in a language not understood by complainant who is
illiterate and appears to be hastily prepared is not credible. (Ligtas v. Court of
Appeals, 149 SCRA 514 [1987])

35. Omission of certain particulars in an afdavit will not estop an

afant from making an elaboration
There is no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a
sworn statement would estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from
correcting inaccuracies during the trial. (People v. Torrecampo, 423 SCRA 433
[2004])

36. Procedural aspect

A judge may cross-examine the parties in a hearing of a motion if they submit
contradictory affidavits. (People v. Monteiro, 192 SCRA 548 [1990])