JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED:ENSURING EFFICIENT AND SPEEDY CRIMINAL TRIALSIN THE PHILIPPINES
Atty. Severino H. Gana, Jr.

I. INTRODUCTION
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him wasdesigned to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over
him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating
the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a
speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the proceeding is attended
by vexatious,capricious and oppressive delays.The inquiry as to whether or not an accused has
been denied such right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy
disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious andnot mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where justice issupposed to be swift,but deliberate.It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances.
It secures rights to the accused,but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. Also,it must
be borne in mind that the rights given to the accused by the Constitution and the Rules of Court
are shields, not weapons;hence, courts are to give meaning to that intent.1
The proverbial saying “justice delayed is justice denied”is often quoted by lawyers not only in thePhilippines but also in other countries to demand speedy disposition of criminal cases. The negative
repercussion ofthis saying,however,is that some individuals give premium to speed rather than justice.
Some use the saying to justify the pace of the trial that contravenes the notion of fairness. On the other
hand, some individuals equate speed with undue haste that offends the due process rights of accused
persons.One thing is for sure;the word “
speedy”should never be divorced from the word justice. For
speedy justice means that justice must be rendered efficiently.
This paper will surveythe different mechanisms in place to ensure that justice is efficientlyrenderedin this country and in case of failure to do so,the different safeguard mechanisms to address the effectsof the violation of a partyʼ
s right to have speedy justice.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
The 1987 Philippine Constitution mandated that all persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial,quasi-judicial,or administrative bodies.2 In criminal cases,
the Constitution guarantees a speedy, impartial and public trial in favor of the accused.3 These
constitutional mandates have existed even during the 19354 and 19735 Constitutions. This mandate
Senior Deputy State Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Manila, Philippines.
1 Mari v. Gonzales, GR No. 187728, September 12, 2011 citing Tan v. People, GR. No. 173637, April 21, 2009.
2Article III, Section 16.
3Article III, Section 14 (2).
4Article III, Section 17. “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is

proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the witnesses in his behalf.”［Emphasis Supplied］
5Article IV, Section 16. “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
ensures that parties,particularly the accused in criminal prosecutions,are protected from unnecessary
delays. In order to explain the concept of the right of speedy trial,the Supreme Court in People of thePhilippines v. Anonas,6 briefly surveyed different cases involving the right to a speedy trial, thus:
The earliest rulings of the Court on speedy trial were rendered in Conde v. Judge of First
Instance, Conde v. Rivera, et al.,and People v. Castaneda.These cases held that accused persons
are guaranteed a speedy trial by the Bill of Rights and that such right is denied when an accused
person, through the vacillation and procrastination of prosecuting officers, is forced to wait
many months for trial. Specifically in Castaneda,the Court called on courts to be the last to set
an example of delay and oppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal
obligation of the courts to see to it that the criminal proceedings against the accused come to an
end and that they be immediately discharged from the custody of the law.
In Angcangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, the Court found the delay of six years by the Ombudsman in
resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a
speedy disposition of cases. Similarly,in Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman,the Court ruled thatthe delay of almost six years disregarded the Ombudsmanʼs duty to act promptly on complaints
before him. In Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan,it was held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
its discretion in not quashing the Information filed six years after the initiatory complaint,
thereby depriving petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.［Citations omitted］

III. STATUTORY MECHANISMS
In order to give flesh to the constitutional mandate,Congress has enacted laws to ensure that cases
are heard swiftly and efficiently. The premiere law that embodies the said Constitutional mandate is
the Speedy Trial Act. Congress also enacted laws to act as safeguards to ensure that breaches in the
mandate of the Speedy Trial Act will not defeat the rights of the accused. Some of these laws are the
Recognizance Law and the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law.
A. Speedy Trial Act
On February 12, 1998, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8493 or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998. In
turn,the Supreme Court promulgated SC Circular No.38-98 dated September 15,1998 to implement thelaw. One of the most important provisions of the law is that it provides for specific time limits forevery stage of the criminal case. The law expressly provides that thirty (30)days from the date thecourt acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused,both arraignment and pre-trial must alreadybe conducted.7 Further,the law provides that the entire trial period should not exceed 180 days. Lastly,
the law demands that trial courts set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial
calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial.8
While the law specifically mandates reduction or the removal of delay in the conduct of criminalcases, it also acknowledges that not all forms of delay are abhorrent and unacceptable. The law
recognizes that there are reasonable and unexpected delays that should not be included in computationof the 180 day limit. These excusable delays are:(a)Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but
not limited to the following:(1)delay resulting from an examination of the accused, and hearing on his/her mental
competency, or physical incapacity;(2)delay resulting from trials with respect to charges against the accused;(3)delay resulting from interlocutory appeals;
6GR No. 156847, January 31, 2007.
7Section 7, RA 8493.
8Section 6, ibid.

44

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS(4)delay resulting from hearings on pre-trial motions: Provided, that the delay does notexceed thirty (30)days;(5)delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of venue ofcases or transfer from other courts;(6)delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a valid prejudicial question;and(7)delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30)days, during which
any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.
(b)Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the accused or an
essential witness.
(c)Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally incompetent or
physically unable to stand trial.
(d)If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed
against the accused for the same offense,or any offense required to be joined with that offense,
any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation wouldcommence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
(e)A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused overwhom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom the time for trial has not run andno motion for severance has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any justice or judge motu propio
or on motion of the accused or his/her counsel or at the request of the public prosecutor,if thejustice or judge granted such continuance on the basis of his/her findings that the ends of justiceserved by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a
speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court inaccordance with this subparagraph shall be excludable under this section unless the court sets
forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends
of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests ofthe public andthe accused in a speedy trial.9
The inclusion of these “reasonable”delays in the law is a recognition that the criminal trial system
must not only be fair to the accused but also to the private complainant and the State. A review of theabove exceptions will reveal that the delays that are excluded are those delays that were caused by theaccused himself. Obviously, the accused cannot benefit from his wrong doings ― Commodum ex
injuriasua non habere debet.10
B. The Recognizance Law
A review of different criminal justice systems in the world would reveal that all systems have theirdifferent misgivings and errors. This is a recognition that no justice system is error-free. In thePhilippines,despite the constitutional mandate and statutory limits,individuals still experience delaysin the hearing and disposition of their cases. The morbid effects of delay are very evident in criminalcases. In criminal cases, every moment a case is postponed whether for a legitimate reason or not,means that an accused will be detained a moment more in crowded holding jails. In order to strengthen
the constitutional mandate,both Congress and the Supreme Court have instituted certain mechanisms
in order to give life to the rights of the accused.

9 Section 10, ibid.

Also see:Sec. 9 of SC Circular No 38-98 and Section 3, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
10 “
No person ought to derive any advantage of his own wrong”. Cited in Communication Materials and Design, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 102223, August 22, 1996.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
The Supreme Court last M arch 18,2014,promulgated the A.M.No.12-11-2-SC or the Guideline forthe Decongestion of Holding Jails by enforcing the rights of the accused to bail and to speedy trial.The
guidelines reiterate the time limits set forth by the Speedy Trial Act of 1998. The guidelines,however,took a step farther from the Speedy Trial Act by expressly declaring that in case of failure to comply
with the time limits would lead to the dismissal ofthe case.11 Bythis express provision ofthe guidelines,
there would be a form of compulsion on the part of all parties concerned to comply with all the time
limits set by law lest the criminal case will be dismissed.
Also, the guidelines also recognize that reasonable delays would eventually lead to the accusedserving the minimum imposable penalty of the offense charged. For this purpose, the guidelines
provide the following repercussions:
The accused who has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty forthe offense charged against him shall be ordered released,motu proprio or on motion and after
notice and hearing, on his own recognizance without prejudice to the continuation of theproceedings against him.12
On the other hand, in case the accused has served the maximum imposable penalty of the offense
charged,the Revised Rules ofCriminal Procedure provide that the accused shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal.13
With these safeguards in place, the accused has a consolation. Despite the delay in the hearing of
their cases, at least the time for preventive imprisonment is counted as part of their eventual serviceof sentence. Though nothing beats a swift procedure, this remedy would do until a more permanent
solution is implemented.
For its part,Congress recognizes the fact that poverty in the Philippines has prevented the accused
to exercise his right to bail. The fact of delay exacerbates the distinction between the haves and thehave-nots. While the rich can enjoy temporary liberty and the fact of delay does not physically hinder
them to perform normal activities,poverty stricken individuals feel the wrath of delay on a daily basis.
Hence, in order to uplift the impoverished accused and to entitle him to secure temporary liberty,
Congress passed Republic Act No. 10389 or the Recognizance Law of 2012. The law institutionalizes
the practice of recognizance. Recognizance is defined as a mode of securing the release of any person
in custody or detention for the commission of an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject
poverty.14 Recognizance then allows the accused to secure temporary liberty, thereby limiting theeffects of delay in his case and to his liberty.
C. Good Conduct Time Allowance Law
With the wave of transformation that enveloped the criminal justice system all over the world,thefocus now is on reformation rather than being punitive. As such,Congress amended several provisionsof the Revised Penal Code covering good conduct time allowances. The law,Republic Act No. 10592,15
increased the number of days that are credited to the accused for good behavior and for serving as
mentors, teachers or students. Thus, any delay experienced by the accused can be transformed into
something productive,either in the form of further reduction of the service of sentence or the personal
development of the accused.

IV. JUDICIAL MECHANISMS
Aside from the much-needed legislation to ensure speedy trial,the Supreme Court has also adopted
11 Section 9, A.M . No. 1211-2-SC.
12 Section 5, A.M . No. 1211-2-SC. See also Rule 114,Section 16,Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 5 (b),Republic Act 10389.
13 Rule 114, Section 16 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
14 Section 3, RA 10389.
15 An Act amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as Amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code.

46

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
certain rules to further expedite trial or dispense of trial. These include the revolutionary Judicial
Affidavit Rule and the Rule on Small Claims, the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by
enforcing the rights of accused persons to bail and speedy trial, the experimental Guidelines for
Litigation in Quezon City trial courts,the mandatory pre-trial proceedings,mediation,conciliation andarbitration proceedings.
A. The Judicial Affidavit RuleOn September 4,2012,the Supreme Court issued Administrative Matter No.12-8-8-SC or the Judicial
Affidavit Rule (JAR). The rule covers all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the receptionof evidence before: (1) The M etropolitan Trial Courts, the M unicipal Trial Courts in Cities, theM unicipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shariʼa Circuit Courts but shallnot apply to small claims cases under A.M . 08-8-7-SC;(2)The Regional Trial Courts and the ShariʼaDistrict Courts;(3)The Sandiganbayan,the Court of Tax Appeals,the Court of Appeals,and the Shariʼa Appellate Courts; (4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court toreceive evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP);and (5)The special courts andquasi-judicial bodies,whose rules of procedure are subject to disapproval ofthe Supreme Court,insofar
as their existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of the JAR.16
The main feature of the JAR is the submission of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies atleast 5 days before pre-trial.17 The result of the JAR is that it decreased the number of trial dates by
two-thirds (2/3). As explained by one of the proponents of the JAR,Supreme Court Associate Justice
Roberto A. Abad (ret), practice dictates that direct examination of a witness usually takes 2/3 of thetotal time for that witness. The remaining one-third (1/3)is devoted for cross-examination.18 What the
JAR does is to remove the time for direct examination thereby forcing the opposing party to conduct
cross-examination. The cross-examining party should also be prepared since the judicial affidavits
have been made available even before pre-trial. The JAR therefore increases the ability of trial courts
to hear more witnesses in a given day.
Also,the JAR abbreviates the proceedings since marking ofthe evidence to be presented are alreadydone before pre-trial. The JAR provides that the judicial affidavits must include the partiesʼdocumentary or object evidence,if any,and marked as Exhibits A,B,C,and so on in the case ofthe complainantor the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.19
Further,the JAR mandates that a partyʼ
s formal offer of evidence must generally be done orally.20
The formal offer of evidence is very important proceeding because any evidence not formally offered
will not be considered.21 As such, it is of usual practice that parties usually opt to submit a written
formal offer of evidence. Parties then usually utilize the postal service to send their pleadings.In thePhilippines, the postal service is not very reliable, thus, documents sent via the postal service usually
arrive after a few weeks. Any comment on the said formal offer will be filed and served also using thepostal service. The Court,after receiving the formal offer of evidence and the other partyʼs comment,
will then rule on it.This procedure is time consuming. The JAR pushes parties to make oral offers ofevidence and for the other party to make prompt oppositions to the offer. From there,the court will
decide whether to admit the evidence or not. Thus, the JAR then abbreviates the proceedings bylimiting the time for the formal offer of evidence from 2 to 3 months to a matter of minutes.
Lastly, the JAR imposes very strict penalties for non-compliance with the rule or for failure topresent the judicial affidavit of the witness on a pre-determined date. Thus:(a)A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be
16 Section 1, AM No. 128-8-SC.
17 Section 2, ibid.
18 Alviola,A.Forum on Judicial Reform with Justice Abad.September 27,2012. Retrieved at

http://salongacenter.org/

2012/09/forum-on-judicial-reform-with-justice-abad/>, August 1, 2014.
19 Section 2 (a)(2), AM No. 128-8-SC.
20 Section 8, ibid.
21 Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the latesubmission of the same provided,the delay is for a valid reason,would not unduly prejudice theopposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than Pl,OOO.OO nor more than
P5,OOO.OO, at the discretion of the court.
(b)The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the scheduledhearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause despite notice
shall be deemed to have waived his clientʼs 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 compliant replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and Judicial Affidavit Rulewould 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 Pl,OOO.OO
nor more than P5,OOO.OO, at the discretion of the court.
In its entirety, the JAR by mandating the submission of the judicial affidavits of all the witnesses
and their respective pieces of evidence, forces all parties to lay their cards on the table. This
presupposes that parties should be prepared for the rigors of litigation. One of the main reasons forthe delay in the proceedings is the fact that some lawyers come to court unprepared. The JAR remedies
this problem.
B. Rules on Small Claims
One of the most effective procedural innovations promulgated by the Supreme Court is A.M . No.
08-8-7-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.22 The Rule shall govern the procedure inactions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts,M unicipal Trial Courts in Cities,M unicipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)exclusive of interest and costs.23 Generally,the Rule shallbe applied by first level courts in all actions which are;(a)purely civil in nature where the claim or
relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money,and (b)thecivil aspect of criminal action,or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court,pursuant toRule of 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Particularly,the claims or demands may be;(a) For money owned under any of the following: (1) Contract of Lease; (2) Contract of Loan; (3)Contract of Services;(4)Contract of Sale;or (5)Contract of Mortgage;(b)For damages arising fromany of the following:(1)Fault or negligence;(2)Quasi-contract;or (3)Contract;and (c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim covered bythis Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of the Local Government Code of 1991.24
The principal provision of the Rule is that it boasts of a same day rendition of judgment. Thismeans that judgment will be rendered the same day as the hearing day.25 The decision is also final andunappealable. The procedure is conducted informally and the rule prohibits the participation oflawyers.
The purpose of the rule is to enhance the power and duty of the judiciary as agent of change by
unclogging the heavy court dockets in order to efficiently address the clamor for more accessible,muchswifter and less expensive delivery of justice to the less privileged members of the society.26 Consistent
with the purpose of the rules, the pilot testing for the rule commenced and the initial figures arepromising.After pilot testing,more than 1/3 or 37% or 1,460 of the cases were settled amicably and a
22 Dated September 9, 2008.
23 Section 1, AM No. 088-7-SC.
24 Section 4, ibid.
25 Section 23, ibid.
26 Chief Justice Reynato S.Puno,Handbook on the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. Retrieved at

handbook rule of law procedure for small claims cases 2009>, August 2 2014.

48

philippines

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
good number of litigants gave the rule a high satisfaction rating particularly due to the informal
conduct of the proceedings and the non-participation of lawyers.27 Until now,the rules on small claims
cases remain to be one of the most effective rules that provide speedy justice.
C. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts
On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court promulgated the guidelines for litigation in Quezon City
Trial Courts.The precursor of the Judicial Affidavit Rule,28 the practice guidelines,is an experimental
system designed to determine whether the proposed rule would work and if it does, whether the
proposed rule can be applied uniformly nationwide.
The practice guidelines call for the strict application of the Rules of Court and further shorten thetime limits imposed by the Speedy Trial Act. The strictness of the rule is equally imposed on bothparties and the judge. For the parties involved,the following strict measures can be observed:(a)theguidelines declare that defective motions are mere scraps of paper and do not produce any legal
effect.29 These defective motions cannot be cured by subsequent amendment or by claiming that thedefective motion substantially complied with the rules;(b)Postponements are prohibited.30 Judges will
not entertain any motion for postponement except by reason of force majeure or Acts of God;31 and(c)the number of pages of pleadings subsequent to the complaint, answer and reply is limited. This
would ensure that the time spent by the judge in reading the records would be equally divided among
the cases pending before his sala. Without this limitation, parties would tax the judge in reading
pleadings that are at times circuitous and repetitive to the prejudice of other equally important cases.
The guidelines also remind the judge that incomplete transcripts of stenographic notes cannot be avalid excuse to interrupt the mandatory period to decide a case.32 It also guarantees that no second
call on the cases shall be made except to those cases that expressed their willingness to proceed totrial.33
Lastly,considering the short comings of the postal system,the practice guidelines allow the use ofprivate courier services to file pleadings to the court and serve copies thereof to the other party. The
guidelines also introduced the “presumptive notice rule”which provides that motions setting court
hearings are deemed received by the recipient if the notice has been mailed at least 20 days from thescheduled hearing, if the recipient is a resident of Metro Manila or at least 30 days if the recipient is
outside Metro M anila.34 Surely,these steps greatly improved the kind of service the judiciary is giving
to the people.
D. The Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to
Bail and Speedy Trial
One of the unsavory effects of case delay, especially in criminal cases is that the holding jails
become congested. People will continuously enter the facility but due to the slow and snail-like paceof the trial of their cases,only a few individuals are set free or transferred to the National Penitentiary
for the service of their sentences. To prevent jail congestion then,the Supreme Court has issued A.M.
No. 12-11-2-SC or the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of Accused
Persons to Bail and Speedy Trial.
27 Court Administrator Jose Midas P.Marquez,Hand Book on the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. Retrievedat philippines handbook rule of law procedure for small claims cases 2009>, August 2, 2014.
28 The Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 128-8-SC)cites the success of the Practice Guidelines in compelling the use of
judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies, as one of the reasons for the promulgation of the said rule.
29 Common Provisions, No. 2. Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts.
30 Common Provisions, No. 4, ibid.
31 “
To constitute a fortuitous event,it must be shown that:a)the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence orof the failure of the obligor to comply with its obligations was independent of human will;b)it was impossible to foresee
the event or, if it could have been foreseen,to avoid it;c)the occurrence rendered it impossible for the obligor to fulfill
its obligations in a normal manner;and d)said obligor was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury
or loss”. See College Assurance Plan v Belfranlt Development, Inc. G.R. No. 155604, November 22, 2007.
32 Common Provisions, No. 7, Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts.
33 Common Provisions, No. 5, ibid.
34 Common Provisions, No. 3, ibid.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the manners in which parties are notified are,most of
the time,the cause of delay. Several attempts were made to combat this problem like the presumptive
notice rule and the use of the private courier service. Another attempt is to use modern technology incombating the problem. The guidelines allow the use of Short Messaging Services (SMS), telephone
calls, and electronic mail (e-mail)to notify the parties of scheduled hearings.35
The rules provide that during preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings,the public prosecutor is duty bound to get from the complainant and the respondent their respective postal and e-mailaddresses as well as their mobile numbers.36 Also, if a party requests the court for the issuance of a
subpoena to secure the attendance of a witness, the requesting party shall inform the court of thewitnessʼpostal and email addresses as well as his mobile number.37
The guidelines also provided the manner in which notice through the means can be proven in court,thus:
The service of notice of hearing or subpoena at the postal address, e-mail address, or throughmobile phone number shall be proved by any of the following:(1)an officerʼ
s return or affidavit of service if done by personal service,or by registry returncard;(2)printouts of sent e-mail and the acknowledgment by the recipient;(3)printouts of electronic messages transmitted through the courtʼs equipment or device andthe acknowledgment by the recipient;or(4)reports of phone calls made by the court.38
The use of technology in notifying parties to a case is a cost-effective way to provide speedy justicein criminal cases. By using these means, the Supreme Court is exploring the use of unconventional
tools to solve conventional problems.
Also, the guidelines provide for a solution to the failure of government expert witnesses to attend
scheduled hearings. Since their testimonies consist merely on the correctness of the report that theypresent, the rule provides that 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 truthof its contents. The personal appearance in court of a witness who prepared the report shall be
unnecessary unless demanded by the accused for the purpose of cross-examination.39 This rule,
therefore,generally dispenses their attendance as a witness for the prosecution,thereby,abbreviating
the presentation of the prosecution evidence.
E. Pre-Trial Procedures
The Rules of Court make it mandatory for all cases to undergo pre-trial proceedings. Pre-trial isan essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes40 and was hailed as the most important
procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century.41 The pre-trial, in criminalcases,42 requires the parties to discuss the following:(a) plea bargaining;(b) stipulation of facts;(c)marking for identification of evidence of the parties; (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of

35 Section 11, Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of accused persons to bail and speedy

trial.
36 Section 12 (a), ibid.
37 Section 12 (b), ibid.
38 Section 12 (c), ibid.
39 Section 13, ibid.
40 Tiu v. M iddleton, G. R. No. 134998, July 19, 1999.
41 Ibid.
42 Section 1, Rule 118, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

50

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
evidence;(e)modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense;and such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil
aspects of the case.43
In essence, the pre-trial proceedings force the parties to pinpoint to factual issues that need to beresolved during trial; facts that are irrelevant or not in issue can be subject to stipulations andconcessions by both parties. The pre-trial,thus,streamlines the factual issues,thereby cancelling out
any irrelevant or uncontested issues that parties may discuss or introduce.
F. M ediation, Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings
Aside from promulgating rules that seek to simplify procedure, the Government has been taking
active steps to prevent cases from being filed in court. One such move is the institutionalization of the
Karatungang Pambarangay in Republic Act 7610 or the Local Government Code of 1991.44 Eachbarangay shall have a lupong tagapamayapa,composed of the punong barangay as the chairman and ten(10)to twenty (20)members.45 From this lupon,a pangkat ng tagapagsundo will be constituted to settle
controversies within their respective barangays.
The pangkat ng tagapagsundo uses a wide array of methods such as arbitration46 and conciliation47
proceedings to end the conflict between the parties. Once a compromise has been concluded, suchagreement can be enforced either (a)by execution by the punong barangay which is quasi-judicial andsummary in nature on mere motion of the party entitled thereto;and (b) an action in regular form,
which remedy is judicial.48 This ensures that there is a first line of conflict resolution mechanism
existing in the barangay level to avoid court action. And generally, non-resort to these modes ofsettlement before the resort to judicial processes will result to the dismissal of the court action.49
Consistent with the thrust of avoiding court litigation, the Supreme Court institutionalized acourt-annexed mediation proceeding during pre-trial. The mediation proceedings are usually conducted by the mediators of the Philippine Mediation Center. M ediation is a process ofsettling disputes withthe assistance of an acceptable,impartial and neutral third partycalled a mediator.The mediator helps
parties identify issues and develop proposals to resolve their disputes.Once the parties have arrived at
a mutually acceptable arrangement, the agreement becomes the basis for the courtʼs decision on thecase.50 The Supreme Court also introduced the concept of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). JDR is
another innovation in the Philippine court system. When court-annexed mediation fails, the case isbrought to the judge who then acts as a conciliator,a neutral evaluator and a mediator. The judge will
try to mediate the case. If the judgeʼ
s intervention as a mediator succeeds, the case is concluded with
43 On the other hand, in civil cases, Rule 18, Section 2 provides that parties consider the following:(a)the possibility ofan amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;(b)the simplification of the issues;(c) the necessity of desirability of amendments to the pleadings;(d)the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissionsof facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;(e)the limitation of the number of witnesses;(f)the advisabilityor necessity of suspending the proceedings;and (i)such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
44 Section 408 of RA 7610 provides that the lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:(a)Where one party is
the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;(b)Where one party is a public officer or employee, andthe dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;(c)Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one(1)year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);(d)Offenses where there is no private offended party;(e)Where
the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit
their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside inbarangays of different cities or municipalities,except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;and (g)Such other classes of disputes
which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
45 Section 399, RA 7610
46 Section 413, ibid.
47 Section 412, ibid.
48 M iguel v. Montanes, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012.
49 The Local government code requires that a certification must first be issued by the punong barangay to the effect thatmediation and other proceedings have failed to reach a compromise before any result to judicial action.
50 The Philippine Mediation Center. Retrieved at http://www.pmc.org.ph/about-alternative-dispute-resolution.htm>,
August 3, 2014.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
a judgment based on a compromise.If the dispute is still unresolved,then the case is referred to anotherjudge for trial.Both parties must now be prepared for litigation.51 In both instances,the court is taking
all the necessary steps to avoid litigation.
Congress,also acknowledging the need to settle disputes outside the judicial sphere passed Republic
Act No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The law encourages and actively
promotes the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy
and impartial justice and declog court dockets.52
Generally, conflicts that are resolved by arbitration are prevented from going to the court forjudicial redress.53 The only time where the court intervenes is during the confirmation and executionof the awards. All of these modes are a welcome addition to decongest court dockets by providing
simpler and more expedient resolution of cases.

V. OUT OF COURT MECHANISMS
Of course, aside from the simplification of procedures, the court also uses other out-of court
solutions to combat delay in the trial of cases. These include the Case Flow Management (CFM )Program together with the subsequent Case Administrator Information System (CAM IS), theHustisyeah! Project and the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW).
A. Court M anagement
While reforms in the procedure are on their way,a correlative reform agenda was instituted in thearea of Case Management. Improper case management, improper calendaring of cases and poor
tracking of cases contributes to the delayin hearing them. Thus,the Supreme Court instituted the CFM
using a Differentiated Case Management Scheme.54 The scheme warrants the development of a casemanagement plan then following the plan, Tracking Systems were formulated by collapsing timeframes for case events into reasonably short periods to shorten case life and prevent or minimize delay.
There are 3 tracks:the Fast track,Standard track and Complex track. Simple cases would be assigned
to Fast Track to be disposed of in six months or less. Cases that demanded utmost judicial attention
were shunted to the Complex Track with a disposal time of two years;and a Standard track was
configured to capture cases that were neither simple nor complex,the case life of which would be one
year.55
An equivalent project is the CAM IS. The CAM IS was a response to two different problems:First,
significant time was spent by judges and staff in gathering and entering data to record caseload andcase-flow information. Manual counts were required for each report and additional time was spent
checking and rechecking the numbers to ensure their accuracy and completeness;and second;staff
spent too much time collecting statistical data, processing and tracking hundreds of monthly reports
and not enough time analyzing the results and preparing reports for decision-making purposes.
M anagers and researchers were frustrated with the lack of timely reports and wanted direct access tomore detailed, more consistent, and more integrated information from the trial courts.56 The system
was designed to provide Electronic Log of Monthly Reports and Web-Based Capture Data,all designed
for better monitoring. However, despite the ambitiousness of these projects, certain facts led to theunreliability of the data produced.
B. The Hustisyeah!Project
The unreliability of the data produced by the CFM and the CAMIS led the Court to approve the51 Ibid.
52 Section 2, RA 9285.
53 The exception here is found under Section 28 of the law where the court is empowered to provide interim measures ofprotection.
54 Elepano, Z. A Presentation on Case M anagement Reform:The Philippine Experience. (2009)Retrieved July 24, 2014.
55 Ibid.
56 Velasco, P. Court Administration Management Information System. Retrieved at http://jrn21.judiciary.gov.ph/forum icsjr/ICSJR Philippines%20%28P%20Velasco%29.pdf>, August 3, 2014.

52

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Hustiyeah!Project on April 15, 2013. The project covers all courts with 500 or more case load. The
project is a one-time case inventory project to ensure that the data recovered is reliable. Further, inthe course ofthe inventorycertain cases maybe recommended for disposal or archival.At the end,eachparticipating plan will craft a case management plan to ensure that all of their cases will be attended.
The project also helps these courts by providing extra-legal researchers and lawyers or private
couriers to serve notices.
C. Enhanced Justice on Wheels Project (EJOW)
Lastly, the EJOW was a solution to the worsening congestion of cases and jails nationwide.
However, aside from swiftly resolving cases, the EJOW extended its mandate to include dental andmedical missions to places where the court-room buses visit.57

VI. CONCLUSION
The approach to solve the problem of delay is multi-faceted. It needs the participation of all
stakeholders in the system. The judiciary cannot do it alone,certainly. Everyone in the justice system
has to do their part. For what is the use of all these rules if at the end,no one is willing to follow them.
At the end of the day,everyone benefits from a more efficient system. The hope still remains that thesaying “justice delayed is justice denied”will be but an anachronistic nightmare.

57 Del Castillo,M .Enhanced Justice on Wheels Program. Retrieved at

http://www.justpal.org/documents/10179/26157/
Mr.%20M ariano%20C.%20Del%20Castillo%20%28Associate%20Justice,%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Philippines%
29,%20Case%20Management%20and%20Information%20Management.pdf>, August 4, 2014.

53