RULE 30

REM 1 BRONDIAL
RULE 30 / TRIAL 119 Effective jan. 1, 2013 they have already present practice is that you have already
implemented the judicial affidavit rule. The to submit your Judicial Affidavit together
Rule 119 (more new rules on hearing and adjudication. So that with your Pre-Trial Brief. (Pabago bago dito,
important rule) practically repeals sec. 5 of Rule 30. What is different ways of implementing the rule among
Principal issues sec. 5 of rule 30? The ORDER of TRIAL. judges kasi hindi pa napeperfect. There are
under Rule 119: certain judges who would not mind, meaning
There, it is very definite as to what is the order theyll ask Judicial Affidavit (JA) during trial
1. Time frame = Trial must be of trial, you start with prosecutions evidence in proper. There are judges who would require
completed within a period of 180 criminal cases followed by that of the accused that the JA be submitted during the Pre Trial.)
days from the beginning or trial; and then that REBUTTAL and then Surrebuttal.
Now what is the rule, the rule says the
2. State witness rule; In civil cases, you follow the order according to Judicial Affidavit must be submitted
3. Rule akin to depositions (Sec. 12, the parties. You start with the plaintiffs before trial but you have to furnish a copy
13, 15); evidence, followed by defendants evidence, of the Judicial Affidavit to the adverse
4. Demurrer; then the co defendants evidence, the 3rd 4th 5th party 5 days before the trial. Ang rule. Pero
5. Reopening (Sec. 24) parties evidence and finally you end up with ang implementation pabago bago kasi
the intervenors evidence titingnan niyo yung sequence: Pre Trial,
Preliminary Conference, Pre Trial Proper. Di
Rule 30 ba? So where are you supposed to submit
Principal issues under Rule 30: But its good that at least you are aware of the the JA? Youre supposed to submit the
(1) Order of trial = not to be Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR). Is there a chance Judicial Affidavit during the Preliminary
confused with the order of of this being given in the bar? Definitely Conference because you have to have it
presentation of evidence; because they have already deleted forms. So marked as your evidence. Tingnan mo ang
in what way Judicial Affidavit, you know effect nito, thats why the DOJ is questioning
(1) plaintiffs evidence; probabilities this will be given in Remedial law this JAR as far as criminal cases are concerned.
(2) defendants; there is no other subject where you can ask for
(3) so on. judicial affidavit, so I admonish you to look Although its true in civil cases lay your cards
(2) Absences into Judicial Affidavit Rule. on the table. Pero in criminal cases, if you
totally lay your cards on the table they will put
(1) When party is Now relative to hearing to trial proper, you up a defense which would be very very hard
absent for no valid know this is now being implemented. Although for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
reason lately it has been suspended. But that is only a accused beyond reasonable doubt. Kasi yung
(1) There is matter of suspension of the Judicial Affidavit quantum if evidence in criminal cases much
usually a Rule in criminal cases because precisely, the much higher than civil cases. Sa civil cases
penalty, but DOJ, for one, went up to the SC manifesting preponderance of evidence di ba? Pero in
not strictly their opinion regarding the disadvantages as criminal cases can you imagine when the
imposed. far as the prosecution is concerned with regard accused or defense for that matter will lay
(2) They are to this JDR is concerned. down all the Judicial Affidavit, andun na lahat,
however see ang consequences niyan. Thats why I told
strict on What is the present practice, at least you can you that the Pre Trial became mandatory in
postponem have an insight to this JAR, the present criminal cases much much later almost 10
ent practice now is upon submission of the Pre years after Pre Trial became mandatory in civil
(3) Valid ground for Trial, remember we discuss yesterday Pre cases, precisely because of that. So this is still
postponement Trial, where there is marking, identification of under study.
= Unavailability evidence, where do this markings,

1
of evidence identification happens? It happens in the So what I would like you only for purposes of

Page
Preliminary Conference, hindi naman Pre-Trial the bar is the JAR, wag niyo kaligtaan basahin.
proper, but Preliminary Conference. But the Isama niyo narin yung efficient use of paper
RULE 30
REM 1 BRONDIAL
rule. And there is a possibility that the Judicial
Affidavit will be asked also in the bar,
halimbawa magtanong sa Trial under Rule 30
Sec 5 which has been repealed practically
because of the JAR, pag magtanong dun
pwede kyo pagawin ng Judicial Affidavit, so
tingnan niyo na yung format ng Judicial
Affidavit. Kahapon we were discussing kung
ano mangyayari sa bar, there was one good
observation among the faculty members, ok
lang yun, handa naman ang mga examinees,
pero handa ba ang UST (laughs) pag umulan
(blah blah kwento kwento laughs topic on baha
sa UST) So this is a possible question in Trial.
If you try to look at Rule 30, maiksi lang yan.
But the longest rule in Criminal procedure is on
Trial. So when you try to look at Rule 30
compare it with Rule 119. In Rule 30, yung
mga salient points lang, the number 1 possible
question is precisely because of this JAR in
Trial, yung pangalawang possible question
under Rule 30, would be about postponements
which is often abused. Under Rule 30, there
are 2 grounds for postponements:
Unavailability of evidence and sickness or
absence of counsel or party. Those are the
only grounds under Rule 30 for
postponements. And if the court postpone the
trial it cannot go beyond 30 days and the
totality of the postponement must not exceed
3 months. Nasusunod ba yan? Definitely hindi,
pero for purposes of the bar you have to
answer that way.
Illness of party or counsel, or absence. Sabi ko
nga when I was para-phrasing the speedy trial
act last night I was telling you there was 101
ways to postpone, to delay the proceeding,
example Maguindanao Massacre, it will take us
300 years (Kwento kwento) But we have to
bear itong judicial system natin dito. Ang
summary procedure natin the rule provides 30
days submission and 30 days adjudication, it
take years. (Kwento)
So unavailability of witness, what kind of
witness? Object, Documentary, Testimonial.
And then illness or absence of party or
counsel. This is the second possible question.
Now kung magtanong doon sa Trial, Rule 119
in Criminal Procedure, duon marami pwede
itanong. No. 1 Time Frame, hindi naman
nasusunod. Pero Sec 1 of Rule 119 Trial must
not exceed 180 days. So that is roughly 6mos.
Cmon. Then you tie that up with Rule 116
Arraignment, from Arraignment to Trial you
are given 80 days so kahit isama mo yun, hindi
parin nasusunod. Pero the Rule provides, it is
only from Arraignment to Trial.
Dapat tandaan ito cos this could be asked in
Political Law, the rights of the Accused. Bill of
Rights under the Constitution and Rights of the
accused under Rule 115. How do you invoke
the right against self-incrimination? Or the
right to speedy trial. There are 2 rights to
speedy trial: The right to speedy trial under
the Constitution and under the Statutes, under
Rule 119. Kapag ininvoke mo yung Right to
Speedy Trial under Rule 119, meaning to say
ng wala pang trial, so if the prosecution beats
you to the draw, in other words nag file ka
motion to dismiss invoking my right to speedy
trial meron na pala na motion to set the case
for trial by the prosecution talo na agad ang
motion mo, pero this is without prejudice to
invoking your right under the Constitution. I
think you are familiar with that. Kasi andun din
sa Rule 119, you can invoke you Right to
Speedy Trial separate and distinct from
invoking your right under Constitution. So sa
Remedial Law pwedeng ibigay yun. The right to
Speedy Trial. So that is another issue in Trial
under Rule 119, wala yun dito sa Rule 30. So
una una yung Time Frame, do you have that in
Rule 30? No, but you have it in rule 119.
Another point there yung Right to Speedy Trial,
tapos yung diniscuss natin kahapon, Section
12, 13 and 15 in relation to Rule 23, you find
that also in Rule 119, ano ba yun? That
depositions pending actions do not apply in
criminal cases. I was checking my notes, 2
cases for your readings, People vs Webb and
yung isa Vda. De Manguerra vs Risos. Where
the SC held there is no depositions in Criminal
cases under Rule 23, the similar provision
which are not depositions pending actions are
found in sec 13, 14 and 15 of rule 119. So
thats clear enough. 5, 6, 3.
Another point that can be asked in trial in
criminal cases is Section 17 of rule 119. Dito
kasi sa rule 30, 2 lang pwede itanong sa trial,
pero sa 119 ang daming pwedeng itanong.
Yung sec 17 pwede naman itanong, yung state
witness rule tanda niyo lang yung 5
requirements although there is a case that
aside from these 5 requirements, preparatory
to this requirements, there are precedent
conditions like for example that the state
witness rule applies only when there is more
than 1 accused. Syempre.
But remember the requirements. Mnemonics
ko dyan ANSAM. (Abolute that there is no
other testimony; that the testimony must be
substantially corroborated; that the state
witness appears not to be the most guilty;
moral turpitude. That he should not be
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
(Kwento) But it doesnt mean that he should
be the least guilty. Kung ifa-file ang kaso ni
Napoles on her own, unang una na question of
Jurisdiction will arise. Will the doctrine in
Hanna Serrana apply? See. Will the doctrine
held in Ampil Jr. Vs Sandiganbayan apply if
Napoles will be charged on her own? Syempre
hindi. It will not have jurisdiction over the case
even if it is a forfeiture case. Kaya tingnan
nyo, the way I look at it ang mangyayari dyan,
kukuha ng isang senador,isang congressman
to be filed together with Napoles so that will
fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
invoking the doctrine held in Ampil Jr. Vs.
Sandiganbayan. See? That again is a possibility
and the other possible question on trial under
rule 119 would already be Section 23 which we
will discuss together with Rule 33 which is
demurrer to evidence. Finally,di pa rin
2
tinatanong yung last Section sa Rule 119 which
Page
is reopening. Take note that reopening under
Section 24 of Rule 119 is not New Trial, that's
RULE 30
REM 1 BRONDIAL
different. In new trial, the grounds are specific
and exclusive. But in reopening, that was
included there because of Ninoy Aquino case,
so sinama yun. Here the ground is very broad:
miscarriage of justice. So with this I think we
close Rule 30 on Trial. Take note ha, my
opinion is that if ever it will be asked in
remedial law, di na lalampas dun sa binanggit
ko. Pag Rule 30, judicial affidavit, the hearing
and adjudication sa judicial affidavit, and of
course what are the grounds. Pero the greater
probability is it will be in Rule 119 which is
also,unang una,the right to speedy trial,then
deposition, state witness rule, demurrer and
reopening. Hindi na lalampas dun sa subject
matter na yon.

3
Page