BUILDING A CRIMINAL CASE IN THE PHILIPPINES:
PROBLEM S, INSIGHTS AND PROPOSALS
Atty. Severino H. Gana, Jr.

I. INTRODUCTION“At the outset,it cannot be overemphasized that the prosecuting officer is the representative notof an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in acriminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case,but that justice shall be done.As such,he isin a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law,the twofold aim of which is that guilt
shall not escape or innocence suffer.He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor ― indeed,heshould do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is
as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction
as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”1
Criminal prosecutions have always been a very difficult balancing act for the state. While the state,through its representatives, are mandated to ensure that those who have transgressed societal norms
are brought to trial and be made to suffer to the fullest extent of the law,it is also important to ensurethat the innocent must not be unduly burdened by criminal prosecution. Bearing this in mind, publicprosecutors have a heavy burden to ensure that only the guilty are prosecuted and sentenced. One way
to ensure a just conviction is to ensure that evidence presented during trial must be credible, reliable
and relevant. Further, such conviction must also be made in an efficient and prompt manner as tolessen any possible discomfort and pain to an accused if only to breathe life to the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
This paper will map out the current procedure on how to build a criminal case in the Philippines
and the problems faced by the prosecutorial arm of the government in case building;the cause of these
problems and the current mechanisms established and proposals to combat them.

II. THE CURRENT PROCEDURE:THE PHILIPPINE WAY
A. General
Unlike other countries where law enforcement agencies are integrated with the prosecutorial armof the government,in the Philippines,the prosecutor relies on other parties to provide evidence to provea criminal case.2 The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are quite clear on this matter. A criminalcase is instituted either by(a)filing a complaint3 before the proper office for preliminary investigation4
Senior Deputy State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice, Manila.
1Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice (now Chief Justice)Maria Lourdes P.A.Sereno in Antonio Lejano v.

People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.
2Although there are some instances where coordination between law enforcement agencies and the prosecutorial services
were mandated, these instances are limited to particular cases, thus constituting an exception rather than the rule. See
Joint Department Order No. 003-2012 of the Department of Justice and Department of Interior and Local Government:
Operational Guidelines for Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Investigators in Evidence gathering;and case build-up;
Inquest and preliminary investigation;and trial of cases of political-activist and media killing,dated November 5,2012.
3A Complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense,subscribed bythe offended party,anypeace
officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.See Rule 110,Section 3,Revised Rulesof Criminal Procedure.
4Preliminary Investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender awell-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,and should be held fortrial. Rule 112, Section 1, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

32

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERSor (b) by filing a complaint or information directly with the M unicipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts or a complaint before the Office of the public prosecutor.5
In cases where preliminary investigation is required,6 a complaint is usually filed before the Officeof the Public Prosecutor either by the private complainant or any peace officer usually the Philippine
National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation. During preliminary investigation, theseparties as well as the respondents to the criminal case are to submit to the public prosecutor theirrespective evidence to establish or negate the existence of probable cause. The Supreme Court in
Ang-Abaya v. Ang,7 defined probable cause as:“such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has beencommitted and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It is such a state of facts in mind of
the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain
an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean ʻactive or positive
cause;ʼnor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief”
It is in the preliminary investigation where the public prosecutor will at first-hand see and scrutinize
the evidence presented by all parties concerned. These pieces of evidence may be Object Evidence,8Documentary Evidence9 or Testimonial Evidence.10 All these are taken into consideration to see
whether there is probable cause to indict the accused and file an Information in court for the conductof a full-blown trial.
In cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant of arrest,11 the public prosecutor shallconduct an inquest rather than a preliminary investigation to determine whether to file the case incourt. For this purpose, the inquest officer shall receive evidence.
Lastly,in cases when no preliminary investigation is required due to the penalty imposable for thecrime charged or the location, the private offended party shall file a complaint before the first level
court attaching the evidence necessary to support the charge.
When probable cause exists,it is the duty of the public prosecutor to file the necessary Informationin Court and prosecute the case. Subsequently, the authority to determine how the case shall be
prosecuted rests solely on the discretion of the public prosecutor who has the sole control of the case.12
The public prosecutor can dictate what evidence to present and when to present them. However,whenan Information is filed in court the dismissal or conviction of the criminal case does not depend on the
5Rule 110, Section 1, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
6A Preliminary Investigation is required to be conducted where the penalty prescribed by law of the offense is at least

four (4)years, two (2)months and one (1)day without regard to fine.See Rule 112,Section 1,Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
7G.R. No. 178511, December 4, 2008.
8Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,it may
be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. Rule 130, Section 1, Revised Rules of Evidence.
9 Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters,words,numbers,figures,symbols or othermodes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. Rule 130, Section 2, Revised Rules of Evidence.
10 Except as provided in the next succeeding section,all persons who can perceive,and perceiving,can make known theirperception to others may be witnesses.Section 20,Rule 130.See also Section 36 of Rule 130 that provides that:A witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
11 A peace officer or a private person may,without warrant,arrest a person:(a)When,in his presence,the person to bearrested has committed,is actually committing,or is attempting to commit an offense;(b)when an offense has just beencommitted,and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it;and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. See Rule 113, Section 5, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
12 Rule 110, Section 5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
13 See Mogul v. Crespo G.R. No. L53373, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 462, 469-470.

33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
public prosecutor, but now, it rests solely on the wise disposition of the court.13
B. Specialized Cases
In certain specialized cases, when public policy dictates, some level of coordination between law
enforcement agencies and the National Prosecution Service are mandated. These levels of coordination vary on the level of depth and participation of the National Prosecution Service in building acriminal case. In prosecution of drugs cases under Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002, the National Prosecution Service is directed to be in the front lines
particularly present during the inventory of the confiscated dangerous drug.14 Further, the law
mandates that all provincial or city prosecutors or their assistants or state prosecutors to prepare theappropriate petition in all proceedings arising from the law.15
In dealing with children in conflict with the law,16 Republic Act No.9344 or the Juvenile Justice andWelfare Act of 2006 requires public prosecutors to have specialized training to deal with minors.
Further, the public prosecutor is tasked to coordinate with the barangay and the local social worker
before proceeding with the prosecution of the case.17
Lastly, in combating the new crimes committed in the cyber world, Republic Act No. 10125 or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 mandates close coordination between the Philippine National
Police and the National Bureau of Investigation, on one hand and the Department of Justice on theother, especially in the areas of pre-operation, post operation and investigation reports.18
In all these specialized instances,the National Prosecution Service has an active role in case build
up and evidence gathering and evaluation.

III. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
It can be observed from the procedure above that the public prosecutor merelyrelies on the evidence
presented by the private offended party and the peace officers to determine the existence of probablecause. The pieces of evidence presented to them are the same evidence that they will use to prosecutethe accused during the trial. This becomes problematic considering the different variables that must
be considered. To begin with, the probable cause standard coupled with the fact that the publicprosecutor merely receives evidence from different parties leads to congested criminal dockets of thecourts and overworked prosecutors.
For a case to be filed in court, there must be probable cause to indict. This quantum of evidence,
while it requires more than bare suspicion,19 is definitely less than what is required for conviction ―proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that quantum of proof sufficient toproduce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act injudgment.20 What this means is that public prosecutors may have enough evidence to establish
14 Republic Act 9165, as amended by Republic Act 10640 signed by President Benigno S. Aquino III provides that:“Theapprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an electedpublic official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:Provided,That the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served;or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of theapprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds,as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custodyover
said items.”［Emphasis Supplied］.
15 Section 65, RA 9165.
16 A child in conflict with the law refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine Laws. Section 4 (e), RA 9344.
17 See Sections 32 and 33 of RA 9344.
18 See Sections 10 and 11 of RA 10125.
19 Del Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012.

34

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
probable cause but the same evidence is insufficient to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.21
Since the prosecutor is duty bound to file an Information in court once probable cause is established,
he has to prosecute the case despite the fact that the same evidence is insufficient to convict.The reason
behind this possibility is the great disparity of the quantum of evidence required;probable cause is oneof the lowest in the hierarchy of evidential values in the Philippine law of evidence while proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the highest.
Coupled with this discrepancy on the quantum of evidence required for conviction and the evidence
available during preliminary investigation,the issue of coordination also bothers several stakeholders.
The public prosecutors are generally not involved in the case build up. For some, this means thatseveral accused will be acquitted because of certain technicalities which include violation of theconstitutional rights of the accused,failure to follow legal procedures and improper evidence gatheringand preservation. The active participation of the public prosecutors could have prevented thesescenarios and strengthen the cases to be brought in court. Further, the active coordination would
ensure that only cases backed up with sufficient evidence to convict are filed in court.
Indiscriminate filing of criminal cases in court;cases that cannot be proved in court and evidence
at hand that cannot produce a conviction is the direct result of these two concerns. This indiscriminate
filing of criminal cases would lead to congestion of courts and a low conviction rate for the National
Prosecution Service.
A review of the conviction rate in criminal cases supports this conclusion. In drugs cases, wherecoordination between law enforcement agencies and the National Prosecution Service is mandated,theconviction rate is a bothersome 7%. This means that for every one hundred (100)drug-related cases
filed in court,only seven (7)cases will be proven and the accused will be convicted. The low conviction
rate was the effect of poor case build up and poor coordination between the law enforcement agencies
and the public prosecutors.22 This surely is a big blow to the anti-illegal drugs efforts of the government. In general,the conviction rates are also not promising. In 2002,the average conviction rate was
17% to 20%.23 In 2011, the conviction rate further decreased to a measly rate of 14%.24 Surely,
something is wrong on how criminal cases are prosecuted.
Also,since evidence presented during the trial were sourced either by the private offended party or
the police, the public prosecutor has to turn to them again to fill in the gaps in the evidence in orderto get a conviction. This would lead the public prosecutors to ask for postponement of hearing dates
in order to scramble for additional evidence. If and when the public prosecutor fails to find and secure
his evidence, the case will be dismissed. But the unnecessary incarceration of the accused has been
done.
Further,as courts become beleaguered by cases that should not have reached the courts,these cases
eat up a lot of the courtʼ
s time thereby prolonging the trial of all cases. This causes the unnecessary
prolonged detention of prisoners.
Lastly,certain institutional problems also contribute to the delay in the prosecution of cases. The
lack of public prosecutors continuously hounds the service and is usually pointed out as one of the
20 Ibid. See also Rule 133, Section 2:In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown

beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree ofproofas,excluding the possibilityof error,produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required,or that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind.
21 The Supreme Court in Villanueva v. Planters Bank (G.R. NO. 138291, March 7, 2000)stated that probable cause does
not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to obtain a conviction.
22 PNP Chief wants a higher conviction rate.Recuenco,J.M anila Bulletin,January 12,2004. Retrieved last July 25,2014
at http://www.mb.com.ph/pnp-chief-wants-higher-conviction-rate/>.
23 The Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice:Diagnostic Report. June 2003. Center for
Public Resource M anagement,Inc.,CPRM Consultants,Inc.Retrieved last July 25,2014 at http://apjr.judiciary.gov.ph/pubreports/DOJ%20Diagnostic%20Report.pdf>.
24 Noy seeks higher conviction rate. Porcalla, D. November 7, 2011, The Philippine Star. Retrieved last July 25, 2014 at
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/744669/noy-seeks-higher-conviction-rates>.

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
reasons why there is delay in resolving criminal cases.25 The absences of witnesses vital for the
successful prosecution of the case and prolonged trial system are loops the public prosecutors have tohandle. With all these problems, where do reform initiatives start?

IV. INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS
While there are certain realities that are out of the control of the justice system, like budgetary
constraints and legislation,there are ingenious solutions implemented to ensure that a just conviction
can be achieved and the problems discussed above can be addressed. The adoption of the Speedy Trial
Act26 and A.M .No.12-11-2-SC27 ensure the speedy disposition of criminal cases and ensure that delay
is minimized if not eradicated. The Judicial Affidavit Rule28 further reduces trial hearing dates.
M ediation,both in the barangay level and Philippine M ediation Center,ensures that the civil aspect ofcriminal cases can be settled and that they would no longer clog the dockets of the courts.
A. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998
With the strengthening of the case build up and coordination efforts of all stakeholders of thecriminal justice system, there is also a need to ensure that criminal litigations are handled swiftly.
Thus, the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 was passed in order to ensure the speedy conduct of trial in all
courts through:(a)making it mandatory for parties to undergo pre-trial proceedings,and (b)providing
time frames for the conduct of trials.
Hailed as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the 19 th century,
pre-trial in criminal cases, just like in civil cases,is a procedural device to clarify and limit the basic
issues between the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases29,thus paving the way for a lesscluttered trial and resolution of the case.30
On the other hand,the Speedy Trial Act imposes a maximum of 180 days for the conduct of trial.31
Specific time frames have been established to ensure that criminal cases have been swiftly tried. The
date of arraignment is to be set within thirty (30)days from the filing of the Information in court orfrom the date the accused has appeared before the justice,judge or court in which the charge is pending,whichever date is later.32 Within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the accused,the court shall then set the case for pre-trial.33 Trial commences within thirty(30)days from the receiptof the pre-trial order.34 The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30)days from thefiling of the information, or from the date the accused has appeared before the justice,judge or courtin which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty isentered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence
within thirty (30)days from arraignment as fixed by the court.

25 Chief Justice Sereno Laments Lack of Prosecutors A Reason in Delay of Cases. Public Information Office, Supreme

Court of the Philippines.February 18,2014. Retrieved last July 26,2014 at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/2014/02/
02-18-14.php>.
26 Republic Act No. 8493.
27 Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforce the Right of Accused Persons to Bail and to SpeedyTrial. M arch
18, 2014.
28 A.M . No. 128-8-SC, September 4, 2012.
29 The Speedy Trial Act requires the parties to discuss and deliberate on the following matters:(a)plea bargaining;(2)Stipulation of Facts;(c) M arking for Identification of evidence of parties;(d) waiver of objections to admissibility ofevidence, and;(e)such other matters as will promote a far and expeditious trial. See Section 2, RA 8493. The Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure includes another item for deliberation during the pre-trial conference. This item is thediscussion on possible modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.
Rule 118, Section 1 (d).
30 See LCK Industries, Inc., v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 170606, November 23, 2007.
31 Section 6, RA 8493.
32 Section 7, RA 8493.
33 Rule 118, Section 1, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
34 Rule 119, Section 1, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
35 See Section 10, RA 8493.

36

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
The 180 day limit set by the Speedy Trial Act, however, is not a straitjacket that does not allow
some flexibility. There are certain postponements of trial dates that are allowed.35 This is consistent
with the term “Speedy Trial”. The Supreme Court, in Olbes v. Buemio,36 explained the concept of
Speedy trial:
In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge How, the Court stressed that the exceptions consisting of the time exclusions provided in the Speedy Trial Act of 19 9 8 reflect the fundamentally
recognized principle that “speedy trial”is a relative term and necessarily involves a degree of
flexibility. This was reiterated in People v. Hernandez, viz:
The right of the accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Sections 14(2)and 16,Article
III of the 1987 Constitution.In 1998,Congress enacted R.A.No.8493,otherwise known as the“SpeedyTrial Act of1998.”The law provided for time limits in order“to ensure a speedytrialof all criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan,［RTC］,Metropolitan Trial Court,Municipal
Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.” On August 11, 1998, the Supreme Court
issued Circular No. 38-98, the Rules Implementing R.A. No. 8493. The provisions of said
circular were adopted in the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. As to the time limit
within which trial must commence after arraignment, the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure states:
Sec. 6, Rule 119. Extended time limit.― Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(g),Rule116 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month period following its
effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For thesecond twelve-month period,the time limit shall be one hundred twenty(120)days,and for thethird twelve-month period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.
R.A. No. 8493 and its implementing rules and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
enumerate certain reasonable delays as exclusions in the computation of the prescribed time
limits. They also provide that “
no provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing
the same shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided by
Article III, Section 14(2), of the 1987 Constitution.”Thus, in spite of the prescribed time
limits, jurisprudence continues to adopt the view that the concept of “
speedy trial”is arelative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, we
held:
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him
was designed 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 ofjustice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminalcases. Such right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when theproceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious
and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where
justice is supposed to be swift,but deliberate. It is consistent with delays and depends uponcircumstances. It secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the rights of publicjustice. 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.
A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused necessarily
compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.
In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposi36 G.R. No. 173319, December 4, 2009.

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
tion of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be considered:(a)length of delay;(b)the reason for the delay;(c)the defendantʼ
s assertion of his right;and (d)prejudice tothe defendant. (citations omitted)(underscoring supplied)Thus, despite the noble intentions of the law to speed up trial for criminal cases by fixing timeframes, postponements are still prevalent, for as long as they are justified.
B. A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC
A.M . No. 12-11-2-SC or the Guidelines to Decongest Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of
Accused Persons to Bail and to Speedy Trial (“Guidelines”) is the Supreme Courtʼs solution to theperennial problem of jail congestion. Jail congestion is obviously an effect of case congestion. The
longer the trial of the criminal case drags on, the longer will an accused person be detained.
Through the enforcement of the twin rights of bail and speedy trial, the Supreme Court hopes toalleviate the conditions of all accused persons inside holding jails.37 The guidelines highlights threeimportant changes:(1)the summary nature of bail hearings;38 (2)the right to speedy trial and (3)thecreation of localized Task Force:Kalayaan at Katarungan.
The guidelines seek to change the system existing in trial courts across the country where insteadof a summary hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining whether or not bail should be
granted, trial courts tend to ask the public prosecutor to provide all of its evidence at hand, thereby
defeating the summary hearing required for petitions for bail.39 Consistent with the summary natureof bail hearings, the Guidelines set certain time frames on when to resolve and what evidence isrequired for the grant of bail.40
The guidelines also strengthens the time frame stated in the speedy trial act with an express
declaration that the case against the detained accused may be dismissed on the ground of denial of theright to speedy trial in the event of failure to observe the time limits.41
Also,to complement the strengthening of the right of accused persons to speedy trial,the Supreme
Court allowed the use of phone calls, text messages, facsimile and electronic mails to disseminate
notices emanating from the court.42 This is in recognition that the postal system adds to the delay inthe trial and that there are existing technologies to speed up the process. There is also an express
mandate that in case the accused has been detained for a period at least equal to the minimum of thepenalty for the offense charged against him, he shall be ordered release on his own recognizancewithout prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him.43
Lastly, the Guidelines also allowed the creation of localized task force:Kalayaan at Katarungan.
This task force shall record the progress of criminal cases in its jurisdiction and ensure that the rightsof accused persons under the Constitution, the law and the guidelines are observed.44

37 Whereas,there is a need to effectively implement existing policies laid down by the Constitution,the laws,and the rules

respecting the accusedʼs rights to bail and to speedytrial in the context ofdecongesting our detention jails and humanizing
the conditions of detained persons pending the hearing of their case. A.M . No. 12-11-2-SC.
38 Section 6 of A.M . No. 1211-2-SC.
39 In Basco v. Rapatalo, A.M. No.RTJ96-1335, March 5, 1997, the Supreme Court held that:“
A summary hearing means
such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent withthe purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for the purposes of bail.On such hearing,the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to theevidence for or against the accused,nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be
therein offered and admitted.”［Emphasis Supplied］.
40 Section 6 (d), A.M. No. 1211-2-SC.
41 Section 9, A.M . No. 1211-2-SC.
42 Sections 11 and 12 of A.M . No. 1211-2-SC.
43 Section 5, A.M . No. 1211-2-SC.
44 Section 17 (b)A.M. No. 1211-2-SC.

38

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
C. Judicial Affidavit Rule
The Judicial Affidavit Rule(JAR)was promulgated by the Supreme Court on September 4,2012 andbecame effective on January 1, 2013. Not all criminal cases, however, are under the operation of the
JAR. The JAR only applies to the following cases:(a)where the maximum of the imposable penalty
does not exceed six years;(b)Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespectiveof the penalty involved;or (c) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties
involved are.45
Theoretically, the JAR shifts the orientation of the Philippine Justice System from a purely
adversarial system to a mixed adversarial and inquisitorial system. As such,the best practices of both
systems are introduced. The JAR also mandates fairness and full disclosure of all partiesʼcauses ofaction and evidence. Lastly,the JAR mandates the use of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct examination.
Judicial affidavits should contain46 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 thewitness 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 hedoes so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;(d)Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,consecutively numbered,that:(1)Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which hetestifies;(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;(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 or an officer who
is authorized by law to administer the same.
The judicial affidavits of the private offended party and his witnesses must be given to the accused
not later than 5 days before pre-trial. This is to ensure that the accused can evaluate whether the caseof the government is sufficient to warrant a conviction. In such case then, the accused will have tosubmit his counter affidavits,otherwise,exercise his right to remain silent. This procedure flows fromthe trust of the JAR to force parties to make full disclosure of their cases in order to avoid surprises.
The JAR also empowers the judge to be pro-active and asks relevant questions and not merely wait
for lawyers to stray outside what is relevant. This mandate is consistent with the inquisitorial systemthat the Supreme Court has adopted. Gone were the days when the judge is merely an observer who
merely adjudicates at the end of the case.
The implementation of the JAR helps improve the case building efforts of both the public andprivate prosecutors as it will ensure that before any case will be filed in court,all necessarytestimonial
and documentary evidence is already prepared and are in order.

45 Section 9 (a), A.M. No. 128-8-SC.
46 Section 3, A.M . No. 128-8-SC.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
The main criticism, however, of the public prosecutors to the JAR is the fact that the National
Prosecution Service is severely undermanned. The JAR forces public prosecutors to provide judicial
affidavits of all witnesses in a very short period. This leads to taxing the already overworked publicprosecutor. What is more, some stakeholders are wary on a “
rehearsed judicial affidavits”. Thismeans that criminal cases are won or lost not in the trial court but in the offices of law firms.It is as
if the lawyer is the one testifying and not the witness. Lastly,the concept of demeanor evidence is lostwith the use of judicial affidavits. Demeanor evidence is very important in assessing the credibility of
witnesses. The Supreme Court in People v. Tagana47 characterized the importance of demeanor
evidence:
In a long line of cases,the Court has pronounced that the credibility of witnesses as assessed by
the trial court will generally not be disturbed. This is because the trial court enjoys the uniqueposition of having observed the elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnessesʼdeportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied appellate courts. As the Court
fully explained in People vs. Lachica
Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation,
flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath ― all ofwhich are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witnessʼhonesty and sincerity.
.....
［T］he trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt and innocence of the accused. That line may not be
discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record
will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance,likethe angry flush of an insistent assertion; or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie; or thetremulous mutter of a reluctant answer;or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record
will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion, or looked down in confession, or gazedsteadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show iftears were shed in anger,or in shame,or in remembered pain,or in feigned innocence. Only
the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an
informed and reasoned verdict.［Citations omitted］
Proponents, however, counter that demeanor is determined not by virtue of an already rehearsed
direct examination. Proponents argue that, generally, direct examinations questions are usually
discussed with the witness who will take the stand. The JAR introduces nothing new insofar as thismatter is concerned. However, they continue to argue that real demeanor is determined in crossexamination where the witness has no clue as to the questions to be asked by the public defender. The
sweats, the tears, the trembles can be argued as more authentic. Further, proponents argue that the
JAR does not impose any additional work since the work that the JAR entails, the preparation of
judicial affidavits of all witnesses of the prosecution,are just the same work that the prosecutor doesin the regular procedure. What the JAR mandates is that the work be done in advance. Lastly,
proponents argue that if the problem with the JAR is not the system imposed by it but rather the
institution that will carry out the system, then the solution lies not with the JAR but rather, theinstitution,in this case the National Prosecution Service of the Department of Justice. If there is a lackof public prosecutors,the solution is not to remove the JAR but rather to hire and appoint more publicprosecutors.
The merits of the JAR can be debated for years to come,but one thing is for sure,the Justice Sector
will think of more innovative ways to shorten the trial process without sacrificing the demands of due
process.

47 G.R. No. 133027, M arch 4, 2004.

40

158TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS

V. PROPOSALS
Despite these solutions promulgated by the Supreme Court and Congress, there are fundamental
problems that still exist.The solutions enumerated above solve the problem as they come but never dothey address the indiscriminate filing of criminal cases,which directly cause delay,congestion and the
low conviction rate. Below are some of the proposals to address the problem of indiscriminate filingof cases in court.
A. The ʻ
Probable CauseʼProblem
Due to the fact of the huge disparity between probable cause and proof beyond reasonable doubt,
there are certain sectors who propose to raise the threshold quantum of evidence to file a criminal casefrom probable cause to clear and convincing evidence.48 This change in the threshold at least
guarantees that the disparity from proof beyond reasonable doubt will not be that huge, thereby the
public prosecutor can only file cases that will stand the strict scrutiny of the trial court.
Historically, the quantum of evidence required in the 1964 Rules of Criminal Procedure to filenecessary criminal case in court is only prima facie evidence.The term “prima facie evidence”denotes
evidence which,if unexplained or uncontradicted,is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports orto establish the facts, or to counter-balance the presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction.49
The prima facie standard is a higher standard compared to probable cause since it requires more thana reasonable belief. However,the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure changed the requirementfrom prima facie to probable cause, presumably to conform to the Constitutional requirement.50
An analysis of the alleged reason for change, however, has no basis. The Constitutional requirement for probable cause clearly refers to whether or not a search warrant or a warrant of arrest is tobe issued by the judge. The probable cause standard is not applicable as a standard to determine
whether a criminal case should be filed in court. Thus,if ever the proposal to change the quantum ofevidence required in filing a criminal case in court from probable cause to clear and convincing
evidence, this proposal will not meet any constitutional wall.
B. Strengthen the Coordination between the National Prosecution Service and Other Law Enforcement Agencies to the Effect That the Public Prosecutors Should Be Included in the Case Build
Up Stage
So much has been said of the importance of the participation of public prosecutors in case build up.
This participation will ensure that proper procedure as to handling, gathering, and preservation ofevidence will be followed. While coordination between the National Prosecution Service and Law
Enforcement Agencies leaves a lot to be desired, initial efforts to coordinate already exist.
The Justice Sector Coordinating Council, which is composed of the Chief Justice for the Supreme
Court,the Secretary of Justice for the Prosecutorial Arm of the Government and the Secretary of theInterior and Local Government for law enforcement units like the Philippine National Police,has comeup with a system to combat delay in the trial of criminal cases.
In cases where policemen are called to testify regarding a case, trial courts have a hard time tolocate them because at times they are detailed elsewhere. This problem of notification of police
witnesses is addressed by the e-Subpoena system. The e-Subpoena System is a web-based information
system that facilitates the issuance and expedites the transmittal of Subpoena from the court to the
Police Officers and monitors its compliance.51
48 “In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear andconvincing evidence,then by preponderance of evidence,and lastly by substantial evidence,in that order”.See Aba v. De
Guzman, Jr.,A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011.
49 Salonga v. Cruz Pano, G.R. No. L59524, February 18, 1985.
50 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches andseizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,and no search warrant or warrant ofarrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons orthings to be seized. See Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 95
The PNP gave a glimpse on how the system will work, thus:
According to the guidelines of the “e-Subpoena System”, the PNP will use its Database
particularly its website identified as subpoena.pnp.org.ph in serving subpoenas to police
officers appearing or named as witnesses in criminal cases. The Courts, through its court
administrator,will send the various subpoenas to particular PNP units in the PNP identified
website or via e-mail. The assigned court personnel shall enter the details regarding a
subpoena to be issued to police offices in the Data Base of the PNP using the computergenerated form known as e-Subpoena Form, which was prepared for the purpose. The
e-Subpoena Form is sent by the assigned court personnel at least five (5) days before thescheduled hearing ofthe case,or within one(1)dayfrom the order ofthe court for the serviceof subpoena duces tecum or subpoena ad testificandum.
However, it is the primary responsibility of the Chief of Police in every police station toacknowledge the issued subpoena, inform the concerned PNP personnel and ensure his
attendance in court.As well,the Court Process Officer (CPO),as the key responsible officer,
shall acknowledge the subpoena sent by the court and undertake immediate action to locate
the PNP personnel concerned,inform him and cause the personal receipt of the subpoena as
final proof of service.
The police stations, through the CPO and/or PNP National Headquarters through the
DIDM , will give feedback on the availability or non-availability of the police officer
concerned within three (3) working days from receipt thereof. Otherwise, any feedback
regarding the concerned police officer will be disclosed during the scheduled hearing of thecase as indicated in the Subpoena Form.52
While it is commendable that there are initial steps to ensure coordination between all the stakeholders of the criminal justice system,it must be remembered that any subsequent programs that will be
proposed must be sustainable and at the same time directed towards stronger coordination between allof relevant sectors of the system and not merely piecemeal solution to a problem that requires a wholescale systemic approach. Just like treating a gun-shot wound with a band aid.

VI. CONCLUSION
The procedure of criminal trials in the Philippines is not perfect but the dream is to aspire to havea system that is working and prevent the innocent from receiving an unjust conviction. Thus, allsectors are working hard to solve the problems that plague the system. The solutions provided to solve
the problems of public prosecutors in building a criminal case in the Philippines has its merits. Also,
the proposals given here might be drastic,detractors are inevitable. It is important however,to keep
an open mind to the changes being proposed. For at the end of the day,everyone is committed to one
particular goal―that goal being, for the public prosecutors to secure a just conviction.
“In pronouncing the presumption of innocence of the accused and their right to due process,the Constitution declares that the risk of letting the guilty walk free would be error on theside of justice. This outcome is infinitely better than imprisoning an innocent person.”53

51 ESubpoena launched in Crame.PNP Public Information Office.April 30,2014. Retrieved at

http://pnp.gov.ph/portal/
index.php/press-news-releases/latest-news/1631-e-subpoena-system-launched-in-crame>last July 30, 2014.
52 Ibid.
53 Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice (now Chief Justice)M aria Lourdes P.A.Sereno in Antonio Lejano
v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.

42