TOPICS A & B SCRIPT

ROLES
Justin as News Reporter
Maybelle as Defense Lawyer
Ara as Presiding Judge
Sin as Witness
Fred as Prosecutor

FOR A: QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS

SCENE 1: NEWS REPORT (BEFORE THE TRIAL)

(Setting: Newsroom or in front of the courthouse. Justin holds a mic.)
JUSTIN:
(With urgency)
Good morning, Pilipinas! This is Justin reporting live outside the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
where a highly anticipated case is about to unfold — People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Mendoza.
Mendoza is charged with serious physical injuries, and today, the court will hear from a crucial
witness, Mr. Sin Romero.
But what makes this hearing especially interesting is the debate surrounding whether Mr. Romero
is qualified to testify. Will the court consider his background, ability to perceive, or even his past
drug use? Let’s find out as the trial begins! Stay tuned — I’ll be back with a full update and a post-
trial interview with one of the lawyers.

Page 1 of 69
(Cuts to courtroom scene)

SCENE 2: COURTROOM TRIAL

(Setting: A courtroom. Judge Ara presides. Sin is called to the witness stand.)
ARA (JUDGE):
Court is now in session. Call your first witness.
MAYBELLE (LAWYER):
Your Honor, the defense calls Mr. Sin Romero to the stand.
(Sin walks to the witness stand.)
CLERK OF COURT (ROXY):
Mr. Romero, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
SIN (WITNESS):
I would prefer to affirm, Your Honor.
ARA:
Very well. Let the record reflect that the witness has made an affirmation in lieu of oath pursuant
to the Rules of Court. Counsel may proceed.
MAYBELLE:
Mr. Romero, do you recall the events of January 13th outside the convenience store?

Page 2 of 69
SIN:
Yes, I do, Atty.
MAYBELLE:
Tell the court what you saw.
PROSECUTOR (Fred):
Objection Your Honor! The defense’s witness is a known drug user. We question his competence to
testify!
MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, under Rule 130, Sec. 21, religious belief, political affiliations, or even drug use do not
disqualify a witness. Unless the prosecution can prove he was under the influence at the time of
the event or now, this is baseless.
ARA:
Objection overruled. The Court reminds all that competency is presumed, and the burden lies on
the objector to prove otherwise. The witness may proceed.
MAYBELLE:
Mr. Romero, how were you able to perceive the incident?
SIN:
I was at the bus stop just across the street. I saw the entire confrontation clearly and I heard Mr.
Mendoza threaten the victim before hitting him.
MAYBELLE:
And you can remember these details now?

Page 3 of 69
SIN:
Yes, all of it, clearly.
MAYBELLE:
Are you able to communicate what you saw to this court?
SIN:
Yes, Atty.
ARA:
Let it be noted that the witness meets the requisites of a competent witness under the Rules:
✓ Ability to perceive
✓ Ability to recall
✓ Ability to communicate
✓ And has taken an affirmation
Let us proceed with the testimony.
(Testimony proceeds briefly. Scene ends.)
clapboard***

🎬 SCENE 3: POST-TRIAL INTERVIEW

(Setting: Outside the courtroom. Justin is with Maybelle.)

Page 4 of 69
JUSTIN:
We’re back with Attorney Maybelle, who just finished arguing a landmark issue on witness
qualification. Attorney, can you walk us through what happened?
MAYBELLE:
Of course, Justin. Today’s hearing highlighted the importance of understanding the qualifications of
a witness. As the rules say, anyone who can perceive, and can make known what they perceived,
is presumed competent to testify.
Even if a witness has flaws — say a past criminal conviction or drug use — that doesn’t
automatically disqualify them. The court doesn’t judge credibility at the outset, only competence.
JUSTIN:
Interesting! What about the oath? I noticed Mr. Romero didn’t swear on a Bible.
MAYBELLE:
Great observation! The Rules allow for affirmation instead of an oath, especially for those who
don't swear oaths for religious or personal reasons. What matters is the understanding of the duty
to tell the truth.
JUSTIN:
So in this case, despite the objections, the witness’s ability to perceive and communicate saved
the day?
MAYBELLE:
Exactly. And remember, child witnesses and even deaf-mutes may still be competent — as long as
they meet the criteria. It’s about capacity, not just age, belief, or background.

Page 5 of 69
JUSTIN:
Fascinating! Thanks for the breakdown, Attorney. That’s it for today’s legal spotlight. This is Justin,
reporting from Manila — see you in the next case!
END 🎬

FOR B: DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESS

FOR A: QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS
ROLES
Justin as News Reporter
Francis as Defense Lawyer
Ara as Presiding Judge
Wenzl as Witness
Jane as Julia cruz
Fred as Prosecutor

Title: The People vs. Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz

Case involving alleged theft in a local convenience store, with multiple defendants involved.

Scene 1: The Courtroom Before the Trial

Justin (News Reporter): Steps up to the center, facing the camera
"Good day, this is Justin reporting live from the Regional Trial Court. Today, the much-anticipated
case of The People vs. Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz begins. The defendants stand accused of a

Page 6 of 69
robbery at a local convenience store. However, before we go into the trial itself, let’s look at an
important legal issue: the disqualification of witnesses. Stay tuned as we go over the complexities
surrounding this topic. We'll be speaking with legal expert Francis, who will expand on the
intricacies of the rules. For now, let’s hand it over to the courtroom."
He steps back, nodding to the Judge, and takes a seat.
clapboard***
Judge Ara: Looks at the courtroom and bangs the gavel
"Good morning. The case of The People vs. Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz will now proceed. Is the
prosecution ready?"
Fred (Prosecutor):
"Yes, Your Honor."
Judge Ara:
"Very well. Call your first witness."
Fred (Prosecutor):
"The prosecution calls Wenzl to the stand."
Wenzl walks to the witness stand and swears the oath to tell the truth.
Judge Ara:
"Please state your name for the record."
Wenzl (Witness):
"Wenz Batestill."

Page 7 of 69
Judge Ara:
"Thank you. Proceed, Prosecutor."
Fred (Prosecutor):
"Witness, can you tell the court what you witnessed on the night of the alleged robbery?"
Wenzl begins his testimony about the events leading up to the alleged theft, his statements
implicating both Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz in the crime.
Fred (Prosecutor):
"Did you see who committed the theft?"
Wenzl (Witness):
"Yes, Your Honor. I saw Mr. Reyes take the cash from the register, and Ms. Cruz was by the door,
acting as a lookout."
Fred (Prosecutor):
"Thank you. No further questions."
Judge Ara:
"Defense Counsel, your witness."
Francis (Defense Counsel):
"Thank you, Your Honor."
Francis stands and approaches the witness stand.

Page 8 of 69
Francis (Defense Counsel):
"Witness, you mentioned that Mr. Reyes was involved in the robbery. Can you clarify whether you
saw him acting alone or was someone else with him?"
Wenzl (Witness):
"I saw both of them. Mr. Reyes took the cash, and Ms. Cruz was helping him."
Francis (Defense Counsel):
"So, you did not see Mr. Reyes acting alone, is that correct?"
Wenzl (Witness):
"Yes, that’s correct."
Francis (Defense Counsel):
"Thank you, no further questions."
Judge Ara:
"Very well. Witness, you may step down."
Wenzl steps down from the stand.
Judge Ara:
"Prosecution, are you ready to proceed with your next witness?"
Fred (Prosecutor):
"Yes, Your Honor. The prosecution rests."
clapboard***

Page 9 of 69
Scene 2: The Courtroom After the Trial
Justin (News Reporter): Steps forward, microphone in hand
"We’ve just concluded the first day of the trial for The People vs. Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz. The
testimony of Wenzl, a witness for the prosecution, was pivotal in identifying the defendants as
being involved in the robbery. Now, to shed more light on some of the legal complexities we
discussed earlier, including witness disqualification under marital immunity, I’m joined by legal
expert, Francis. Francis, can you explain how disqualification rules, such as the marital
disqualification, might come into play in cases like this?"
Justin looks to Francis for a response.
Francis (Lawyer): Francis smiles and adjusts his glasses
"Thank you, Justin. Yes, disqualification rules are essential to understanding how we handle
witnesses in certain cases. In this case, for example, marital disqualification under Section 23 of
Rule 130 could have played a crucial role. As you may know, this rule prevents one spouse from
testifying against the other unless there are certain exceptions."
Justin (News Reporter):
"Can you give us a brief rundown of when this rule does not apply?"
Francis (Lawyer):
"Certainly. The marital disqualification rule, which is often referred to as 'spousal immunity,' says
that during the marriage, neither spouse can testify against the other without the consent of the

Page 10 of 69
other spouse. There are a few exceptions though, such as if the case involves a crime committed
by one spouse against the other, or their direct descendants or ascendants."
Justin (News Reporter):
"So, in this case, if the wife had been the victim of the robbery, she could have testified against
her husband?"
Francis (Lawyer):
"Exactly. If the crime had been committed against her, she could have testified even without her
husband’s consent. But in this particular case, since it's a theft involving both parties as co-
accused, the disqualification rule applies to prevent either spouse from testifying against the other
unless one consents."
Justin (News Reporter):
"That makes sense. But what if they were estranged or going through a divorce? Does that change
anything?"
Francis (Lawyer):
"Even if the spouses are separated or going through legal proceedings like an annulment, the
disqualification still applies unless the marriage has been legally dissolved. The rule doesn’t look
at the emotional state of the relationship but rather the legal existence of the marriage."
Justin (News Reporter):
"Thank you, Francis, for that clarification. This really helps put things in perspective. As always, the
intricacies of law can be difficult to navigate, but it’s fascinating how these rules help preserve
personal privacy and prevent forced confessions in domestic matters."

Page 11 of 69
Francis (Lawyer):
"You're welcome, Justin."
Justin (News Reporter):
"That concludes our segment for today. We’ll be back tomorrow for further updates on the case of
The People vs. Carlos Reyes and Julia Cruz. For now, this is Justin, reporting live from the
courtroom."
Judge Ara (Off-Camera):
Bangs gavel
"Adjourned."
END 🎬
clapboard***

Title: "Whispers Behind the Bench: A Journey Through Privilege in Evidence"

Scene 1: Marital Disqualification vs. Marital Privileged Communication Rule

Location: Regional Trial Court
Characters:
 Judge: Ara
 Prosecutor: Fred
 Defense Counsel: Sin
 Witness: Wenzl (as husband)

Page 12 of 69
  Accused: Julia Cruz (wife)
 News Reporter: Justin
 Legal Commentator: Francis

[Courtroom scene opens.]

Judge Ara: The court is now in session. This case involves Mrs. Julia Cruz, accused of fraud. The
prosecution calls Mr. Wenzl Cruz to the stand.
Fred (Prosecutor): Mr. Cruz, did your wife ever tell you about hiding company funds in her
personal account?
Wenzl: I refuse to answer, Your Honor. That was said in confidence, as husband and wife.
Judge Ara: Alright. Under the marital privileged communication rule, private communication
made during the marriage cannot be disclosed—even if the marriage has ended.
Fred (Prosecutor): Then allow me to ask—are you willing to testify against your wife?
Wenzl: No, I invoke marital disqualification. I cannot be compelled.
Judge Ara: Noted. Since this is a criminal case not involving a crime by one spouse against the
other or a child, the disqualification applies.
[Cut to news scene.]
clapboard***
Justin: Another tense moment in court. Francis, what’s the takeaway?

Page 13 of 69
Francis: Marital disqualification prevents a spouse from testifying against the other, while marital
communication privilege protects what was privately said during marriage. Even if one is waived,
the other might still apply.
clapboard***

Scene 2: Physician-Patient Privilege

Location: courtroom
Characters:
 Judge: Ara
 Prosecutor: Fred
 Defense Counsel: Sin
 Witness: Dr. Santos (played by Wenzl)
 Accused: Fredy
 News Reporter: Justin
 Legal Commentator: Francis

clapboard***
[Courtroom opens with Dr. Santos on the stand.]
Fred (Prosecutor): Dr. Santos, what did Mr. Fred tell you during his consultation last year?
Dr. Santos (Wenzl): I cannot disclose that, Your Honor. It was a private medical consultation.
Judge Ara: Correct. The physician-patient privilege protects confidential medical information
unless waived by the patient.

Page 14 of 69
Fred (Defense Counsel): And I do not waive the privilege, Your Honor.
Judge Ara: Then the doctor’s testimony is inadmissible.
clapboard***
[Cut to Justin and Francis.]
Justin: Tight-lipped doctor in court today. Francis?
Francis: That’s the physician-patient privilege in action. It builds trust in medical relationships and
prevents forced disclosure without the patient’s consent.
clapboard***

Scene 3: Clergy-Penitent Privilege

Characters:
 Judge: Ara
 Prosecutor: Fred
 Defense Counsel: Sin
 Witness: Father Miguel (Wenzl)
 Accused: Fredy
 News Reporter: Justin
 Legal Commentator: Francis

[Courtroom scene.]
clapboard***

Page 15 of 69
Fred (Prosecutor): Father Miguel, did the accused confess to you that he committed the crime?
Father Miguel (Wenzl): Your Honor, I invoke the clergy-penitent privilege. That information was
received in a spiritual context.
Judge Ara: Sustained. The law respects spiritual confidentiality.
[Cut to Justin and Francis.]
clapboard***
Justin: Even the priest wouldn’t say a word.
Francis: That’s sacred trust. As long as the communication was in confidence and for spiritual
guidance, it remains protected.
clapboard***

Scene 4: Privilege in the Hands of a Third Person

Characters:
 Witness: Wenzl as third-party IT manager
 Judge: Ara
 Defense Counsel: Fred
 News Reporter: Justin
 Francis: Legal Commentator

[In the courtroom.]

Page 16 of 69
Fred (Defense Counsel): Mr. Wenzl, you found these emails on the company server. What did
they say?
Wenzl: They contained communications between Mr. Fred and his lawyer.
Judge Ara: Those are privileged, even if in a third party's hands, provided there was no waiver or
illegal disclosure.
[Cut to Justin and Francis.]
clapboard***
Francis: Privilege doesn’t vanish if info changes hands. As long as it's not intentionally waived, it
stands.
clapboard***

Scene 5: Executive Privilege – Presidential Communication

Characters:
 Wenzl: As Presidential Aide
 Judge: Ara
 Prosecutor: Fred
 News Reporter: Justin
 Francis: Legal Commentator

[In the courtroom.]

Fred: Mr. Wenzl, did the President discuss the controversial contract with you?
Page 17 of 69
Wenzl: I’m invoking executive privilege. It involves presidential communications.
Judge Ara: The court recognizes the privilege unless compelling need outweighs the
confidentiality.
[Cut to Justin and Francis.]
clapboard***
Francis: Presidential communication is protected, but not if it obstructs justice or hides public
concern.
clapboard***

Scene 6: Public Concern vs. Confidentiality

Characters:
 Wenzl: As Presidential Aide
 Judge: Ara
 Prosecutor: Fred
 News Reporter: Justin
 Francis: Legal Commentator

Fred: But isn’t this a matter of public concern?

Judge Ara: That may override privilege—but only with clear evidence of wrongdoing.
clapboard***

Page 18 of 69
[Francis explains:]
Francis: If it's about corruption or abuse, public interest may trump executive privilege.
clapboard***

Scene 7: Electronic Evidence Privilege

Characters:
 Wenzl: IT expert
 Judge: Ara
 Defense Counsel: Fred
 News Reporter: Justin
 Francis: Legal Commentator

Fred: Can you show the email exchange?

Wenzl: No, Your Honor. It’s encrypted communication between lawyer and client.
Judge Ara: Privileged communication still applies, even in digital format.
Francis: Tech changes, rules don’t. Encrypted legal emails are still protected.
clapboard***

Scene 8: Parent-Filial Privilege

Characters:

Page 19 of 69
  Fred: Accused
 Wenzl: Father
 Judge: Ara

Wenzl: I will not testify against my son. That’s my right as his father.
Judge Ara: Sustained. Parent-filial privilege holds unless the case involves the child’s welfare.
clapboard***

Scene 9: Trade Secret Privilege

Characters:
 Wenzl: R&D Head
 Judge: Ara
 Fred: Defense Counsel

Wenzl: I cannot disclose the formula—it’s a company trade secret.

Judge Ara: Trade secrets are protected to maintain industry integrity, unless justice demands
otherwise.
clapboard***
Scene 10: Other Privileged Communication (e.g., journalist source)
Justin (on stand): I won’t name my source. It was confidential.
Judge Ara: Journalistic privilege applies unless national security is involved.

Page 20 of 69
Francis: Not in the Rules of Court—but recognized in jurisprudence and special laws.
clapboard***
-END-

TOPICS C & D SCRIPT

Prosecution Lawyer – Francis Rosales
Witness 1 : Roxy Tomada
Witness 2 (Child) : Roxy Tomada
Defendant’s Lawyer: Jane Cabreros
Judge: Ara Allego
Narrator: Justin Medel

Page 21 of 69
 ACT I : EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Scene 1: Open- court examinations
(Courtroom. Everyone is in place.)
BAILIFF (JANE): All rise. The Honorable Judge Allego presiding.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Be seated. Call your first witness, Atty. Rosales.
ATTY. ROSALES: The prosecution calls Ms. Roxy Tomada.
(Roxy steps up and is sworn in.)
BAILIFF (JANE) : Please raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth?
WITNESS 1 ROXY: I do.
NARRATOR: (to audience) Before a witness can testify, they must take an oath or affirmation—but
not all testimony requires a live court appearance. Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, witness
affidavits serve as direct testimony in criminal cases, while civil cases rely on affidavits and
position papers, with no oral testimony needed. These may be notarized or sworn before an
authorized official.
In criminal trials, prior testimony may still be used if the witness is unavailable—due to death,
absence abroad, or other valid reasons—as long as due diligence was shown and the opposing
party had a chance to cross-examine in a related case.

Page 22 of 69
Scene 2: Direct Examination
ATTY. ROSALES: Ms. Tomada, where were you on the evening of March 4?
(Proceed with standard direct.)
WITNESS 1 ROXY: Yes. Atty
STENOGRAPHER (JANE): (typing) Everything is being recorded — that’s the official record of the
proceedings.
NARRATOR: This is a Direct Examination, conducted by the party who called the witness. The
examination of witnesses presented at trial shall be done in open court and under oath. The
witness shall answer orally, except when they are incapacitated to speak or when the question
requires a different mode of response.
All questions and answers during the examination shall be recorded. In fact, the entire trial
proceedings must be documented by a court stenographer.

Scene 3: Objections and Rights

ATTY. JANE: Now, Ms. Tomada, isn’t it true that you were—
ATTY. ROSALES (interrupting): Objection, Your Honor! That’s a misleading question.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Sustained. Counsel, please rephrase.

Page 23 of 69
ATTY. JANE (nodding respectfully):
Understood, Your Honor.
Ms. Tomada, on the night of March 12th, were you present at the Reyes residence between 8:00
and 9:00 p.m.?
ATTY. ROSALES: And, Your Honor, I object to badgering the witness. She has a right to be treated
with dignity.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Correct. Witnesses have rights too — like the right against harassment and
irrelevant questions.
NARRATOR: Misleading questions are not allowed—they suggest falsehoods or confuse the
witness. Aside from the right against self-incrimination, a witness also has the right to refuse to
answer a question that may degrade their reputation. However, this does not apply if the answer
that may degrade their reputation is the very fact in issue, or if it refers to a fact from which the
fact in issue may be presumed.
A witness must also answer questions regarding any final conviction for an offense. If the witness
is the accused, they may refuse to take the stand altogether.
Take note: A mere witness cannot refuse to testify. They must wait for a question that may
incriminate them before refusing to answer.
Finally, it is important that counsel always protect their witness from intimidation, harassment, or
embarrassment during examination.

Page 24 of 69
Scene 4: Cross-Examination and Leading Questions
ATTY. CABREROS: (cross-examining) Isn’t it true that you had a grudge against the accused?
WITNESS 1 ROXY: I… I suppose so.
NARRATOR: On cross-exam, leading questions are allowed. However, direct and indirect exam,
leading questions are allowed unless it is for preliminary matters, or when the witness is
ignorant/child/deaf-mute, hostile witness, or the witness is an adverse
party/officer/director/managing agent of a corporation/partnership/association.

ACT II – CHILD WITNESS

Scene 1: The Special Setup
ATTY. ROSALES: Your Honor, we call Jane to the stand. She’s nine. We request testimony via live-
link.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Motion granted, pursuant to rules on child witnesses.
(Jane appears on screen from another room.)
BAILIFF (JANE) : Jane, do you promise to tell the truth?
WITNESS 2 ROXY (CHILD): Yes.
NARRATOR: For child witnesses, competency is presumed unless challenged. Live-link avoids
trauma.

Page 25 of 69
Scene 2: Direct with Leading Questions
ATTY. ROSALES: Jane, did someone hurt you?
WITNESS 2 ROXY (CHILD): (nods) Yes.
ATTY. ROSALES: Was it the man sitting over there?
WITNESS 2 ROXY (CHILD): Yes.
NARRATOR: Leading questions are allowed for child witnesses when necessary for clarity or
comfort.

ACT III – “When Witnesses Can’t Return”

Scene 1: The Absent Witness
ATTY. ROSALES: Your Honor, our witness is deceased. We offer their prior testimony from the
preliminary hearing.
JUDGE ALLEGO: If the other party had the chance to cross-examine, the rule allows it.
NARRATOR: Testimony of a dead or absent witness may be admitted — under the following
conditions:
1. Witness is dead or unable to testify
2. Testimony was given in a former judicial/admin case

Page 26 of 69
 3. Former proceeding was between the same parties
4. Former case involved the same subject matter as the present case
5. Issue testified by the witness in former trial involved same issues in the present case

Scene 2: Recalling a Witness

ATTY. CABREROS: We ask to recall Ms. Tomada for clarification.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Motion granted. Recall is allowed before the case is submitted for decision.
NARRATOR: If a witness has been examined by both sides cannot be recalled without leave of
court. However, recalling a witness is a matter of judicial discretion of the court by interest of
justice.

ACT IV – “Truth on Trial” (Impeachment)

Scene 1: Contradictory Evidence
ATTY. CABREROS (holding up a document):
Ms. Tomada, earlier you testified that you were home on the evening of April 3rd.
But according to Exhibit B — the CCTV footage from 7th and Maple — you were seen entering the
Calypso Bar at exactly 9:18 p.m.
(Leaning forward)
So, which is it?

Page 27 of 69
WITNESS 1 ROXY (visibly nervous):
I… I was mistaken. I didn’t remember clearly when I first answered. But yes, that was me.
[A hushed murmur ripples through the courtroom.]
NARRATOR (voiceover):
When a witness’s testimony contradicts reliable evidence, their credibility is weakened. This is
called impeachment by contradiction — one of several ways a lawyer can challenge a
witness’s truthfulness.
A contradiction doesn’t mean the witness is automatically lying — sometimes, it’s just a mistake.
But if the contradiction concerns a material fact — something important to the case — it can
seriously damage the witness's reliability in the eyes of the court.
[JUDGE ALLEGO raises an eyebrow and looks at the witness.]
JUDGE ALLEGO:
Ms. Tomada, please be reminded that you are under oath. Accuracy is essential when you are
giving testimony.

Scene 2: Conviction of Crime

ATTY. CABREROS: Isn’t it true that you were convicted of theft last year?
WITNESS 1 ROXY: Yes.
NARRATOR: A witness may be impeached by showing conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
Page 28 of 69
Scene 3: Prior Inconsistent Statements
ATTY. CABREROS: Your Honor, we offer her sworn affidavit — where she said the accused wasn’t
at the scene.
WITNESS 1 ROXY: I don’t remember saying that.
NARRATOR: A prior inconsistent statement, if material, damages a witness’s credibility.

Scene 4: Reputation vs. Character

ATTY. CABREROS (JANE):
Your Honor, we present witnesses who can attest that Ms. Roxy Tomada has a bad reputation for
honesty.
ATTY. ROSALES:
Objection! They can’t testify about specific bad acts!
JUDGE ALLEGO:
Sustained. Counsel, stick to reputation — not specific conduct. Impeachment is by bad reputation,
not bad character.
NARRATOR (voiceover):
In court, you can challenge a witness’s credibility by showing they have a bad reputation — but
not by pointing to specific bad things they’ve done.

Page 29 of 69
Scene 5: Evidence of good character of the witness
ATTY. ROSALES: Ms. Tomada, before we go further—can you tell the court about your
background?
WITNESS 1 ROXY: I’m a teacher. I've served my community for over fifteen years. I've also
received several awards for integrity in public service.
ATTY. ROSALES: Your Honor, we are offering this testimony as evidence of the good moral
character of our witness, to establish her credibility.
ATTY. CABREROS (JANE): No objection, Your Honor.
NARRATOR: Admitted. A witness’s good character may be shown when his credibility has been
put into question.

Scene 5: Exclusions and separation of witness

STENOGRAPHER: Next witness, Jane Cabreros.
ATTY. ROSALES: Your Honor, before Ms. Cabreros is called, we request the separation of
witnesses pursuant to the Rules.
JUDGE ALLEGO: Granted. All witnesses except the one testifying must step outside the courtroom
until called.
(Roxy stands and exits quietly.)

Page 30 of 69
NARRATOR: This is called the exclusion or separation of witnesses — to ensure one’s testimony
doesn’t influence another’s

Scene 6: When witness may refer to a memorandum

JUDGE ALLEGO:
Ms. Tomada, please return to the stand.
ATTY. ROSALES:
Ms. Tomada, during the incident, you took notes, correct?
WITNESS 1 ROXY:
Yes, late at night—I didn’t want to forget anything.
ATTY. ROSALES:
Do you have that document?
WITNESS 1 ROXY:
Yes. May I refer to it?
JUDGE ALLEGO:
Has it been shown to opposing counsel?
ATTY. CABREROS:
We’ve reviewed it, Your Honor. No objection.
JUDGE ALLEGO:
Proceed.
Page 31 of 69
[Roxy glances at the notes.]
WITNESS 1 ROXY:
According to my notes, it happened around 10:15 PM, not 11:30 as the other witness claimed.
NARRATOR (voiceover):
A witness may use notes made near the time of the event to refresh memory — as long as the
court and opposing counsel see them.

ENDING
JUDGE ALLEGO: The court has heard the evidence. The rules of examination and impeachment
have guided us in discerning the truth. We are now ready for judgment.
NARRATOR: And thus ends our journey through the rules of witness examination and
impeachment — where truth stands trial, but justice is blind only to bias, never to the facts.

TOPICS E & F SCRIPT

COURTROOM ROLE PLAY
Title: People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Castillo
Charge: Qualified Theft (Art. 310, Revised Penal Code)

Page 32 of 69
Presiding Judge: Hon. Margarita Alonzo - MAYBELLE
Prosecutor: Atty. Castillo- JANE
Defense Counsel: Atty. Dizon- FRED
Witnesses: Mr. Jomar Ignacio (co-worker)- WENZEL
PO3 Jaime Velasco (arresting officer)- SIN
CLERK- ROXY
WITNESS SANTOS- ARA
Narrator: Guides transitions- JUSTIN AND FRANCIS

OPENING SCENE
Narrator:
In this criminal prosecution, the State seeks to establish that Ramon Castillo, a warehouse
employee of TechCore Inc., unlawfully took ₱150,000 worth of gadgets. As the trial proceeds, the
court will encounter evidentiary questions involving admissions, confessions, and the Res Inter
Alios Acta Rule. Let's begin with the presentation of the first witness.
(Gavel sounds)
JUDGE ALONZO- MAYBELLE:
Court is now in session. Call the case.
CLERK- ROXY:
Criminal Case No. 22-045, People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Castillo, for qualified theft.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Appearances?

Page 33 of 69
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Atty. Castillo for the People, Your Honor.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Atty. Dizon for the accused, who is present in court.
JUDGE-MAYBELLE:
Proceed, prosecution.

A. EFFECTS OF ADMISSION
PROSECUTOR-MAYBELLE:
We call Mr. Jomar Ignacio to the witness stand.
CLERK- ROXY:
Mr. Ignacio, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
JOMAR-WENZEL:
Yes, Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR-JANE:
Mr. Ignacio, did you hear the accused say anything related to the missing gadgets?
JOMAR-WENZEL:
Yes, sir. He told Mark, “Kinuha ko na ‘yun kagabi. Hindi naman nila mapapatunayan.”

Page 34 of 69
DEFENSE-FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The statement is not relevant to any material fact. Furthermore, the
witness lacks competence to interpret the accused’s intent behind that remark.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Overruled. The witness is competent to testify on what he personally heard. The statement made
by the accused is relevant to the offense charged and constitutes an admission under Rule 130,
Section 21.
EXPLAINER-JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
When a party voluntarily makes a statement that is against their own interest and relates to a fact
in issue, the law allows it to be used as evidence against that party. This is enshrined in Section 21
of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The rationale stems from the principle that no
person would make a harmful declaration unless it were true—a doctrine supported in Republic v.
Bautista (532 SCRA 598).
In our scenario, Ramon’s statement—"I already took it last night"—made informally to a co-worker,
directly admits the act of unauthorized taking. The fact that it was not made in court does not
render it inadmissible. The Rules do not require that an admission be judicial in nature to be
competent; even extrajudicial admissions, if voluntarily made and relevant, are admissible. Thus,
this is properly received in evidence and has serious weight in establishing guilt.

B. EFFECT OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF GUILT

Page 35 of 69
PROSECUTOR-JANE:
We now call PO3 Jaime Velasco to the witness stand.
CLERK-ROxY:
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
PO3 VELASCO-SIN:
Yes, I do.
PROSECUTOR-JANE:
Officer, did the accused make any statement during your custodial investigation?
PO3 VELASCO- SIN:
Yes. Ramon said, “Ako po ang kumuha. Nagipit lang talaga ako. Plano ko naman ibalik.”
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The statement is extrajudicial, made without proof of corpus delicti. The
officer is also not competent to establish the corpus delicti of the crime.
JUDGE-MAYBELLE:
Sustained. A confession outside of court must be corroborated by other evidence proving the
body of the crime—i.e., that the theft actually occurred. Without such corroboration, the
confession is not sufficient for conviction, as provided in Rule 133, Section 3.
EXPLAINER:
A confession is a direct acknowledgment of guilt. But when it is made outside the courtroom, it is
considered extrajudicial and, under Philippine jurisprudence, cannot be the sole basis for

Page 36 of 69
conviction. This is clearly stated in Rule 133, Section 3 and reinforced in Zabala v. People and
People v. Calates.
In this case, the police officer testifies that Ramon admitted guilt during custodial interrogation.
However, for that confession to be admissible, the prosecution must prove corpus delicti—that a
crime was in fact committed—through independent evidence. The confession itself cannot be used
to prove the crime it confesses to. Further, if the confession occurred during custodial
investigation, it must comply with RA 7438—it must be in writing, signed in the presence of
counsel or under a valid waiver. If these requirements are unmet, the confession becomes
inadmissible, even if it were voluntary. Hence, in this scenario, the confession is excluded.

C. ADMISSION BY SILENCE
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Mr. Ignacio, what was the reaction of Ramon when the supervisor confronted everyone about the
missing items?
JOMAR- WENZEL:
Sir, when our supervisor asked if anyone was responsible, Ramon stayed silent. He didn’t deny it
like the rest of us did.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The statement lacks probative value. Silence is inherently ambiguous, and
the witness cannot competently infer guilt from it.

Page 37 of 69
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Overruled. Under Rule 130, Section 33, the accused’s silence in the face of a direct accusation,
when circumstances called for a reply, may be considered as an implied admission.
EXPLAINER - JUSTIN/FRANCIS
The principle of admission by silence is codified under Section 33, Rule 130. It recognizes that
under certain conditions, silence can be just as meaningful as words. The law presumes that a
reasonable person would speak up to deny an untrue allegation, especially one that could result in
criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court in People v. Paragsa laid down five requirements for this doctrine to apply.
Here, Ramon was present, the accusation was made openly, he was free to speak, he had personal
knowledge, and it was a material accusation. His silence, especially when others actively denied,
can be interpreted as an implied admission. However, this doctrine applies only outside of
custodial investigations. If Ramon were already in police custody, his silence would be protected
under his right against self-incrimination (RA 7438). But in this non-custodial setting—during an
internal company meeting—his silence is relevant and admissible.

D. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE – First Branch

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we submit a notarized affidavit from a former co-employee of the accused, stating
that Ramon had previously committed similar thefts in another warehouse.

Page 38 of 69
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The affidavit is irrelevant and inadmissible under the Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule. The accused was not a party to that proceeding nor was he cross-examined.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. The affidavit concerns an act or declaration of another individual, and as such, is not
admissible against the accused unless it falls under a recognized exception.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/ FRANCIS :
The first branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule, enshrined in Section 29, Rule 130, prohibits the
use of a person’s statement to prejudice another. This rule is rooted in due process—you cannot be
bound by what someone else said unless you had a chance to respond or challenge it.
In this case, a co-worker’s affidavit refers to Ramon’s supposed past misconduct at a different
company. Ramon had no opportunity to cross-examine this declarant, nor was he a party to that
past transaction. Therefore, the statement is inadmissible against him. As clarified in People v.
Andan and Dynamic Signmaker v. Potongan, only judicial admissions made under oath and tested
by cross-examination may be used against another party—not extrajudicial declarations by third
parties.

E. DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

DEFENSE- FRED:
Your Honor, for the record, we remind the court that any statements made outside of this

Page 39 of 69
proceeding by the accused are extrajudicial. Only judicial admissions—those made during trial or
in pleadings—are binding on the accused without further proof.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
That’s correct. The Court recognizes that admissions made in court are conclusive unless
withdrawn with leave, whereas out-of-court statements are not binding and must meet the
standards of admissibility.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
It is important to distinguish between judicial and extrajudicial admissions. A judicial admission,
as defined in Rule 130, Section 4, is made in the course of the same proceeding and is conclusive
against the party making it. No further proof is required. On the other hand, extrajudicial
admissions, governed by Section 21, are made outside the courtroom and require further scrutiny
to determine voluntariness and relevance.
In the scenario at hand, the defense rightly asserts that none of the alleged statements were
made in open court. Hence, they are not judicial admissions. Their admissibility will depend on
compliance with the rules for extrajudicial evidence, including requirements for hearsay
exceptions and relevance. Therefore, unless the prosecution can validate them under these
standards, they may be excluded or limited in probative value.

F. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE – FIRST BRANCH (Co-Conspirator's
Admission)

Page 40 of 69
PROSECUTOR - JANE:
We call Mr. Allan Santos, head of security, to testify on a statement made by Jonas Perez, a co-
worker of Ramon, during their internal investigation.
CLERK- ROXY:
Ms. Santos, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
SANTOS- ARA:
Yes, Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
What did Mr. Jonas Perez tell you?
SANTOS- ARA:
He said, “Plano ito ni Ramon. Siya ang may susi ng bodega. Sinabihan niya ako na huwag mag-
report ng pasok noong gabing ‘yun.”
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The statement is hearsay and inadmissible under the Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule. Jonas is not here to be cross-examined.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Overruled. The statement may be admitted under Section 31, Rule 130 as a co-conspirator’s
admission, provided there is independent evidence of conspiracy and that the declaration was
made during and in furtherance of it.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
Normally, one person’s statement cannot be used against another—that's the core of the Res

Page 41 of 69
Inter Alios Acta Rule under Section 29, Rule 130. However, an important exception arises when
there is a conspiracy. Under Section 31, the declaration of a co-conspirator is admissible against
others in the conspiracy, but only if three requisites are met:
1. The existence of conspiracy must be independently proven.
2. The statement must be made during the conspiracy.
3. It must be in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In this scenario, the statement by Jonas (“Plano ito ni Ramon...”) was made during internal
investigation and referred to events before the crime occurred. There’s also supporting testimony
from warehouse access logs and Ramon’s control over the keys—independent evidence. Thus, the
statement falls under the co-conspirator exception, making it admissible.

G. ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We also present a statement made by Jonas during police questioning, stating: “Ako ang lookout.
Si Ramon ang kumuha ng gadgets at nagsara ng pinto pagkatapos.”
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The statement was made after the crime. It's not in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. A co-conspirator’s statement is admissible only if made during and in furtherance of
the conspiracy, not after its completion.

Page 42 of 69
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
Section 31 of Rule 130 is clear that a conspirator’s act or declaration is admissible only if made
during the existence of the conspiracy and to further its object. If the conspiracy has already been
completed—or if the statement was made after arrest or during police custody—then the
statement is no longer in furtherance of the conspiracy and reverts to being hearsay.
In our case, Jonas’s statement was made during police interrogation, after the theft had already
been discovered. Therefore, this falls outside the bounds of admissibility under the conspiracy
exception. It may still be used against Jonas, but not against Ramon.

H. ADMISSIONS BY PRIVIES
DEFENSE- FRED:
We now offer into evidence a notarized affidavit by Ramon’s cousin, Ana Castillo, who states that
Ramon was at their home the entire night of the alleged theft.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Objection, Your Honor. The declarant is not present and no legal relationship has been established
to qualify the declarant as a privy. The affidavit is hearsay.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. The relationship of the declarant to the accused has not been properly established to
invoke Section 32, Rule 130.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
The law allows admissions by privies—those who derive their interest from another, such as heirs

Page 43 of 69
or successors—to be used in evidence, but only if the declarant's legal connection to the party is
shown. Under Rule 130, Section 32, such admission is valid only if:
 The person making the admission held the title or interest at the time;
 The person against whom the admission is offered derives title through that declarant; and
 The legal relationship is proven independently of the declaration.

In this case, Ana Castillo is merely a cousin, and no legal interest in the property or issue has been
established. Therefore, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay, lacking the legal foundation required
to invoke the privy exception.

I. OFFER TO COMPROMISE IN CIVIL CASES

DEFENSE- FRED:
Your Honor, we submit into evidence a letter written by the accused to TechCore, offering to pay
₱30,000 “in good faith to resolve the issue peacefully.”
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Objection, Your Honor. The letter is not relevant as an admission. Offers to compromise in civil
cases are inadmissible under Rule 130, Section 28.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. The letter constitutes an offer to compromise in a civil matter and is inadmissible to
prove liability.

Page 44 of 69
EXPLAINER - JUSTIN. FRANCIS:
Under Rule 130, Section 28, any offer to compromise in a civil case is not considered an admission
of liability, nor is it admissible in evidence. The public policy behind this rule is to encourage
amicable settlement of disputes without fear of prejudicing one’s legal standing.
In our scenario, Ramon offered to pay a sum to settle the matter. The defense offers this to show
good faith, but the prosecution cannot use it to claim guilt or consciousness of guilt. Since this
relates to a civil remedy, such as restitution or payment for damages, the rule on compromise
applies, and the letter is properly excluded as evidence of guilt.

J. OFFER TO COMPROMISE IN CRIMINAL CASES

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We submit a police blotter entry where the accused offered to settle with the company in
exchange for dropping the case.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. This is a compromise offer in a criminal case. It is irrelevant and
inadmissible under Rule 130, Section 28.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. An offer to compromise in a criminal case is treated as an implied admission of guilt,
but is only admissible when the offense is a quasi-offense or legally subject to compromise.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
The Rules of Evidence treat an offer to compromise in a criminal case differently from civil cases.

Page 45 of 69
Under Rule 130, Section 28, an offer to compromise in a criminal case may be considered an
implied admission of guilt, except when:
1. The offense is a quasi-offense (e.g., criminal negligence), or
2. The law expressly allows compromise (e.g., certain private crimes like adultery, seduction).

In this case, qualified theft is a public crime and not subject to compromise. Therefore, the
accused’s offer to pay or settle with the company can be construed as an admission, but under
strict judicial scrutiny. However, courts also consider whether the accused truly understood the
implications or acted under counsel. Thus, while technically admissible under some conditions, its
probative value may be limited depending on the context and voluntariness.

K. PLEA OF GUILTY LATER WITHDRAWN

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, for the record, the accused previously entered a plea of guilty during arraignment but
later withdrew the same.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The earlier plea was withdrawn and has no probative value. It is
inadmissible under Rule 130, Section 28.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. A plea of guilty later withdrawn is not admissible in evidence against the accused.

Page 46 of 69
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
Rule 130, Section 28 provides that a plea of guilty later withdrawn shall not be admissible against
the accused. This rule safeguards the integrity of plea bargaining and protects the accused’s right
against self-incrimination.
In this scenario, Ramon may have initially pleaded guilty—whether out of fear, miscommunication,
or misunderstanding of the consequences—but later changed his plea to not guilty. Courts
recognize that allowing withdrawn pleas to be used against the accused would discourage honest
participation in pre-trial negotiation and place undue pressure on the accused. Hence, any
reference to a withdrawn plea has no evidentiary weight.

L. UNACCEPTED PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We would also like to note that the accused previously offered to plead guilty to simple theft, but
the prosecution declined.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. That was an unaccepted offer to plead to a lesser offense. It is inadmissible
under Rule 130, Section 28.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. Offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense that were not accepted are inadmissible.
EXPLAINER - JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
Under Rule 130, Section 28, an unaccepted offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not

Page 47 of 69
admissible against the accused. This rule upholds the fairness of plea negotiations by ensuring
that good faith efforts to resolve the case—especially through compromise or reduced charges—
cannot later be weaponized in trial.
In this instance, Ramon’s offer to plead guilty to simple theft (as opposed to qualified theft) was
rejected. The law recognizes that such proposals may be strategic or exploratory. Therefore, this
cannot be used to imply guilt for the more serious charge and must be excluded.

M. OFFER TO PAY OR PAYMENT OF MEDICAL, HOSPITAL, OR OTHER EXPENSES

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we submit receipts showing that the accused offered to pay the security guard’s
medical expenses, who got injured during the alleged break-in.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible to prove liability. It is not
relevant to whether the accused committed the crime.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. Rule 130, Section 28 bars the admission of offers to pay expenses arising from injury
as evidence of civil or criminal liability.
EXPLAINER- JUSTIN/FRANCIS :
The rule protects acts of compassion from being used to establish legal fault. Under Rule 130,
Section 28, an offer to pay hospital or medical expenses following an injury cannot be used to
prove civil or criminal liability.

Page 48 of 69
In this case, Ramon may have paid for the injured guard's hospital bills out of guilt—or simply out
of sympathy. The law does not want to penalize humanitarian gestures. The courts understand
that a person may assist an injured party without intending to admit responsibility. Thus, this
evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove that Ramon committed qualified theft.

N. SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES

DEFENSE- FRED:
Your Honor, TechCore only installed improved warehouse locks and CCTV cameras after the
incident. We argue this proves negligence or lack of proper control.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Objection, Your Honor. The evidence refers to subsequent remedial measures and is irrelevant to
proving the company’s prior negligence.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. Evidence of post-incident improvements is not admissible to prove prior fault or
negligence.
EXPLAINER - JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
Although not expressly covered in the Revised Rules, courts often refer to the principle of
subsequent remedial measures based on equity and comparative authority like the U.S. Federal
Rule of Evidence 407. The rationale is clear: encouraging individuals or institutions to make post-
incident corrections should not later be used to imply past wrongdoing.

Page 49 of 69
In this case, the warehouse’s decision to install better locks or surveillance after the alleged theft
cannot be used to argue that their previous setup was flawed. Admitting such evidence would
create a chilling effect—discouraging improvements for fear of legal repercussions. The focus
should remain on the circumstances before and during the incident, not on corrective action taken
afterward.

O. EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR CONDUCT

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We present a record showing that, three years ago, Ramon was once caught placing company
phones inside his lunch bag. This is similar to how the gadgets were allegedly taken in this case.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. The prior act is irrelevant. The prosecution is attempting to show
propensity, which is inadmissible under Rule 130, Section 35.
JUDGE- MAYBELLE:
Sustained. Prior conduct cannot be used to prove that the accused acted in conformity with it,
unless offered for a specific permissible purpose.
EXPLAINER - JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
Rule 130, Section 35 is explicit: evidence that a person did something in the past is not admissible
to prove they acted the same way again. This is to avoid unfairly prejudicing the accused and
turning the trial into a character attack rather than an inquiry into the specific offense charged.

Page 50 of 69
In this situation, Ramon’s alleged use of a lunch bag to conceal items in a prior case cannot be
used to say, “He did it before, so he must have done it again.” That’s pure propensity evidence,
which is barred. Unless the prosecution offers it for another reason—like intent, identity, or
common scheme—it must be excluded.

P. WHEN EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR ACTS OR PREVIOUS CONDUCT IS ADMISSIBLE

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we re-offer the lunch bag incident—not to show character—but to demonstrate a
unique modus operandi in concealing stolen items. The same method is used in this case.
DEFENSE- FRED:
Objection, Your Honor. Still irrelevant and prejudicial.
JUDGE - MAYBELLE:
Objection overruled. If offered to establish identity or system, and not character, the evidence
may be admitted under Rule 130, Section 35.
EXPLAINER JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
The general rule prohibits similar acts to prove conformity, but Rule 130, Section 35 provides
specific exceptions. When evidence of a prior act reveals a distinctive method or pattern, it
becomes admissible to show:
 Identity
 Intent or motive
 Modus operandi or system

Page 51 of 69
  Plan or absence of mistake

Here, the prosecution offers the lunch bag incident not to paint Ramon as a repeat offender, but to
link the method used in both cases. This qualifies as showing a signature crime or modus operandi
—a narrow exception that supports relevance and admissibility. Thus, the court properly admits it
for that limited purpose.

CLOSING STATEMENT
JUDGE ALONZO- MAYBELLE:
Evidence is not merely what exists—it is what the law permits to be used in court. The rules on
admissions, confessions, and the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule are not just technical barriers—they
protect fairness, accuracy, and due process. The court will now rule on the merits based only on
properly admitted, relevant, and competent evidence.
Narrator- JUSTIN/FRANCIS:
In criminal trials, admissions and confessions are powerful, but they must be handled with
caution. The law allows a person's own words or silence to be used against them—but only when
made voluntarily, knowingly, and with full respect for constitutional rights.
A confession made outside court is never enough on its own. The law requires corroboration, not
just words, but proof that a crime was actually committed. Silence, too, may imply guilt—but only
under circumstances where a response is expected and possible.
As for the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule, it ensures that no person is judged by the acts or declarations
of others—except in specific, legally recognized relationships like co-conspirators or agents.
Page 52 of 69
These rules protect the fairness of trials. They remind us that in the pursuit of justice, truth must
be proven—not presumed.

COURTROOM ROLE PLAY: Judicial Affidavit Rule in Action

Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Melissa Gutierrez
Charge: Falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code
Judge: Hon. Ricardo Velasco- JUSTIN
Prosecutor: Atty. Lorenzo Javier- JANE
Defense Counsel: Atty. Clarisse Dizon - MAYBELLE
Witnesses: Mr. Jun Vergara (complainant)- SIN
Atty. Melissa Gutierrez (accused)- ARA, IBP Clerk of Investigation
Clerk of Court: Facilitates documents and roll call- ROXY
Narrator: Provides transitions and legal insights- WENZEL/FRANCIS

OPENING SCENE
Narrator:
The Honorable Regional Trial Court is set to hear People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Melissa
Gutierrez, where the accused stands charged with falsifying a notarized contract submitted in a
land dispute. Today’s proceedings highlight the real-world use of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M.
No. 12-8-8-SC)—from filing, attestation, and compliance to objections and remedies.
(Gavel sounds)
Page 53 of 69
JUDGE VELASCO- JUSTIN:
This Court is now in session. Call the case.
CLERK OF COURT- ROXY:
Criminal Case No. 23-112, People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Melissa Gutierrez, for falsification
under Art. 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Appearances?
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Atty. Lorenzo Javier for the People, Your Honor.
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Atty. Clarisse Dizon for the accused, who is present and ready.

A. RATIONALE FOR THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, in compliance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, we respectfully submit the Judicial Affidavit of
our complainant, Mr. Jun Vergara, in lieu of oral direct testimony.
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
No objection for now, Your Honor. We reserve the right to cross.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS:
The Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) was created to address courtroom congestion, unnecessary delay,

Page 54 of 69
and low conviction rates due to absent witnesses. In its “Whereas Clauses,” the Supreme Court
cited that nearly 40% of criminal cases are dismissed because complainants fail to appear
repeatedly.
A study in Quezon City found that using judicial affidavits reduced trial time by two-thirds. Hence,
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC was adopted nationwide starting January 1, 2013. This rule supplements—not
replaces—the Rules of Court. (Lara’s Gift & Decors v. PNB General Insurers, G.R. Nos. 230429-30)
In our case, Mr. Vergara’s judicial affidavit allows streamlined testimony while preserving the
accused’s right to cross-examine.

B. SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS & EXHIBITS

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, attached to the affidavit are Exhibits “A” to “F”—including the alleged forged contract,
comparison signature samples, and prior notarized documents.
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
We acknowledge receipt. No objections to pre-marking at this time.
EXPLAINER - WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Under Sec. 2(a) of the Rule, judicial affidavits take the place of oral direct examination. The
attached exhibits are likewise pre-marked and referred to within the affidavit.
In Lagon v. Velasco (2018), the Supreme Court confirmed that this shift accelerates presentation
of evidence and saves the court significant time. Here, the attached documents are relevant as
the very instruments allegedly falsified—thus integral to proving the elements of the crime.

Page 55 of 69
Moreover, Sec. 2(c) requires that original documents must be brought during preliminary
conference or trial. Failure to do so renders the copies inadmissible. Hence, their identification in
the affidavit is not enough—they must be authenticated during hearing.

C. SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, for the record, we are not waiving our objections as to scope. This being a criminal
case, we remind the court that the Rule is not automatic.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Noted. But as the maximum penalty here is less than six years, the Rule applies mandatorily
under Section 9.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/ FRANCIS :
The JAR applies to all proceedings requiring reception of evidence, including before:
 Trial courts (MeTC, RTC, etc.),
 Special courts (Sandiganbayan, CTA), and
 Investigating bodies (IBP, HLURB, etc.)

The rule covers criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, except for small claims. In our
case, being heard before the RTC, the court is within its discretion to enforce the JAR. It is not
optional here, as falsification under Art. 171(4) carries a penalty below six years, thus mandatory
compliance applies.

Page 56 of 69
D. APPLICABILITY TO CRIMINAL CASES
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we emphasize that the penalty here is prision correccional, hence this criminal case
squarely falls under the mandatory category of Section 9.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS
There are three tiers:
1. If max penalty ≤ 6 years → JAR applies mandatorily.
2. If max penalty > 6 years → JAR applies only with consent of the accused.
3. Civil aspect of any criminal case → JAR always applies (Sec. 9(3); Rule 111, ROC).
In our case, since falsification under par. 4 of Art. 171 involves simple documents (not public or
official records), the penalty is less than six years, hence JAR is automatically applicable.

E. CONTENTS OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Clerk, was the affidavit filed complete?
CLERK OF COURT- ROXY:
Yes, Your Honor. It includes: full name, address, occupation, Q&A format, authentication of
exhibits, oath, and lawyer’s attestation.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS :
According to Sec. 3, the affidavit must include:

Page 57 of 69
  Identity and address of the witness
 A declaration that the answers are made under oath
 The name of the lawyer who conducted the examination
 A question-and-answer format
 Identification and marking of exhibits
 Jurat and signature of the witness

Failure to comply may result in inadmissibility. Here, the affidavit met all formal requirements,
hence it’s formally valid.

F. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONTENT AND ATTESTATION REQUIREMENTS

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, we move to exclude the judicial affidavit of Mr. Vergara due to its failure to include the
address of the examining lawyer and the place of examination. These are mandatory under
Section 3.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
The oversight is minor and does not prejudice the defense. We ask the court to consider the
affidavit under substantial compliance.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Motion denied. The error is curable and does not affect the material substance of the affidavit.
The court allows it under Section 10(b) upon payment of a fine of ₱1,000.

Page 58 of 69
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Section 10(a) mandates that failure to comply with the required contents (Sec. 3) or the lawyer’s
attestation (Sec. 4) renders the affidavit inadmissible. However, Section 10(b) allows one-time
correction, provided:
 A valid justification exists
 No prejudice to the opposing party
 A fine is paid

In this case, the missing address and location are formal defects, not substantive omissions. Since
the defense was not prejudiced, the affidavit was rightly admitted with corrective measures.

G. SWORN ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER

JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Was the lawyer’s sworn attestation included?
CLERK OF COURT- ROXY:
Yes, Your Honor. Atty. Javier certified under oath that he recorded the answers faithfully and did
not coach the witness.
EXPLAINER - WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Under Section 4, the examining lawyer must:
1. Swear that the Q&A was faithfully recorded
2. Swear that the witness was not coached

Page 59 of 69
This ensures the integrity of affidavits and deters manipulation. Without it, the affidavit is
inadmissible. In our case, Atty. Javier complied, so the affidavit retains its probative value.

H. EFFECT OF A FALSE ATTESTATION BY THE LAWYER

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
We reserve the right to file an administrative complaint against Atty. Javier, should we discover
that the witness was coached during the preparation of the affidavit.
EXPLAINER WENZEL/FRANCIS (H – Narrative Format)
Section 4(b) states that a false attestation subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action, including:
 Suspension
 Disbarment

It’s a severe offense because it undermines judicial truth-seeking. In this case, there’s no proof yet
of misconduct, but if found, consequences will follow. The rule reinforces that lawyers are officers
of the court, bound by professional integrity.

I. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT OR ANSWER

CLERK OF COURT- ROXY:
Your Honor, the judicial affidavit was filed as part of the complaint package.
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
We acknowledge receipt and confirm it was attached.
Page 60 of 69
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Under Sec. 6(b), Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a judicial affidavit must be attached to both
the complaint and answer. This promotes early disclosure and ensures that witnesses are pre-
identified.
Only those witnesses whose affidavits were attached may testify—unless exceptional reasons
justify additional ones. In our case, the affidavit of Mr. Vergara was properly filed and served,
satisfying procedural due process.

J. EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS ON TIME

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, we note that the defense failed to submit the judicial affidavit of the accused within
the required deadline.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We object to any attempt to present the accused’s affidavit unless proper motion to admit is filed.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Noted. Defense must file a motion under Section 10(b) if they intend to present late affidavits.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Under Section 10(a), failure to submit judicial affidavits or exhibits on time constitutes a waiver.
The party:
 Loses the right to present testimonial evidence

Page 61 of 69
  May be barred from submitting exhibits not identified in affidavits

However, under Section 10(b), a motion to admit late affidavits is allowed once, with:
 Justification
 No prejudice
 Fine (₱1,000–₱5,000)
This balances orderly procedure with equitable relief. In this case, the defense must justify any late
submissions before trial resumes.

K. REMEDY FOR LATE SUBMISSIONS

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, we respectfully move to admit the judicial affidavit of the accused, filed two days late
due to medical emergency of the notary.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
We object only insofar as it delays today’s cross.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Motion granted. Pay a ₱2,000 fine. We will reschedule cross-examination if needed.
EXPLAINER - WENZEL/FRANCIS (K – Narrative Format)
Section 10(b) provides a one-time remedy for late submission:
 Valid cause
 No prejudice to the other party

Page 62 of 69
  Fine imposed

In Lara’s Gift v. PNB, the Supreme Court upheld this flexibility. In this case, the delay was minimal
and justifiable. The court’s discretion is properly exercised.

L. OFFER OF TESTIMONY IN THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, we now present the Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Melissa Gutierrez, our client, as her direct
testimony to prove:
1. That the notarized contract was executed by the parties voluntarily;
2. That she personally witnessed the signing; and
3. That the signatures were not falsified.

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Noted. We will cross after the Court allows its formal admission.
EXPLAINER- [Link]
As per Section 6 of the JAR, the presenting counsel must:
1. Offer the judicial affidavit at the start of the witness’s turn;
2. State the purpose of the testimony (e.g., to prove execution, identity, or facts in issue).

This satisfies the offer of evidence requirement under Rule 132, Section 34, and transforms the
affidavit into evidence-in-chief, subject to cross-examination. In this case, defense complied,
clearly linking the affidavit to the elements of the crime charged.
Page 63 of 69
M. OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY IN THE AFFIDAVIT; COURT’S RULING
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we object to Q&A No. 12 in the Judicial Affidavit of the accused. The answer states,
“The buyer personally told me they already agreed privately on the price,” which is hearsay.
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
It’s not offered to prove the truth of the buyer’s declaration, only the fact that it was said.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Objection sustained. The answer is stricken out as it lacks personal knowledge and violates the
hearsay rule.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS
Under Sec. 6 of the JAR, the opposing party may object to:
 Inadmissible testimony
 Lack of personal knowledge
 Irrelevant or incompetent answers

The Court must rule immediately. If sustained, the stricken portion is bracketed and initialed by
court personnel.
Here, the Court correctly ruled that the answer was hearsay and not within the personal
knowledge of the witness—thus inadmissible.

Page 64 of 69
N. APPEARANCE OF THE WITNESS AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Is the defense witness present?
CLERK-ROXY:
Yes, Your Honor. Atty. Melissa Gutierrez is present and available for cross-examination.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/RANCIS:
As clarified in Section 7 of the JAR, submission of a judicial affidavit does not exempt a witness
from appearing. The affidavit substitutes only for direct testimony, not for presence.
Cross-examination is a matter of right. Without appearance, the affidavit holds no evidentiary
weight. Here, the accused’s appearance validates her affidavit and preserves the prosecution’s
right to confront the witness.

O. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR (WITNESS OR COUNSEL)

(Scene within the same day)
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Is the prosecution’s second witness, a handwriting expert, present?
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Unfortunately not, Your Honor. He is attending a seminar abroad. We seek to reset his
appearance.

Page 65 of 69
DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
We strongly object. His judicial affidavit has no value unless he is presented for cross.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Objection sustained. The Court reminds the prosecution that failure to present the witness renders
the affidavit ineffective.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS
Section 10(b) of the Rule provides that if a witness fails to appear, the court shall not consider the
judicial affidavit.
Also, if counsel fails to appear, the right to cross-examine is waived.
In this case, the witness’s absence invalidates the affidavit. The defense’s right to cross cannot be
bypassed. This preserves due process and protects against trial by affidavit alone.

P. NEED FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA

PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Your Honor, we respectfully request the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to compel the City
Assessor’s Office to bring original copies of the notarized deed.
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Request granted. The subpoena shall be issued under Sec. 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
EXPLAINER- WENZEL/FRANCIS
Under Section 5, a party may request a subpoena if:

Page 66 of 69
  A witness refuses to execute a judicial affidavit; or
 Refuses to make documents available for inspection or authentication.

The Court may issue:

 Subpoena ad testificandum (to compel testimony), or
 Subpoena duces tecum (to compel document production).

In this scenario, the City Assessor is not a party, so the subpoena is proper to compel production of
relevant public records.

Q. ORAL OFFER AND OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

DEFENSE- MAYBELLE:
Your Honor, we now make an oral offer of the following exhibits:
 Exhibit 1: Notarized Contract
 Exhibit 2: Sample Signatures
 Exhibit 3: Certification from the Register of Deeds
All were authenticated in the judicial affidavit of the accused.
PROSECUTOR- JANE:
Objection, Your Honor, as to Exhibit 2. The signatures were not personally witnessed by the
accused.

Page 67 of 69
JUDGE- JUSTIN:
Objection sustained for Exhibit 2. Exhibits 1 and 3 are admitted.
EXPLAINER WENZEL/FRANCIS:
Under Section 8, JAR and Sec. 35, Rule 132, after all testimony is completed:
 The party shall orally offer documentary or object evidence, piece by piece

 The purpose of each exhibit must be stated

 The adverse party immediately objects, and
 The Court rules promptly

This eliminates post-trial memoranda and expedites the case.

Here, the Court correctly excluded Exhibit 2 for lack of proper foundation, ensuring that only
relevant and competent evidence is admitted.

FINAL NARRATOR CLOSING STATEMENT

Narrator- WENZEL/FRANCIS:
In this simulated courtroom, the Judicial Affidavit Rule lived out its promise—to reduce delay,
encourage early preparation, and enhance judicial efficiency, all while preserving the fundamental
right to cross-examine. Each rule, from sworn attestation to oral offers, worked not to replace
justice but to make it more accessible.

Page 68 of 69
The Court is now ready to decide—not based on surprise or delay, but on duly offered, verified,
and adversarially tested evidence.

Page 69 of 69