Validity of an Affidavit With a Date Discrepancy in Philippine Law
Practical takeaway: A Philippine court will usually look past a date mistake in an affidavit if it is clearly a clerical error and there is other evidence of authenticity (e.g., a proper jurat, the affiant’s testimony, corroborating documents). But when the discrepancy undermines the affiant’s personal knowledge, raises a whiff of fabrication, or breaks a mandatory notarization rule, the affidavit can be stricken altogether. Understanding where that line is drawn—and how to cure defects—lets litigants and notaries avoid needless challenges.
1 What an Affidavit Is—and Why Dates Matter
| Element | Source | Why it must be correct |
|---|---|---|
| Written statement of facts made under oath | Rule 132, §20 & Rules on Electronic Evidence | Substitutes for in‑court testimony when the witness cannot be present. |
| Personal knowledge of the affiant | Rule 130, §36 (2020 Rules of Evidence) | An affidavit that shows when events occurred helps prove the affiant actually perceived them. |
| Jurat by a notary/public officer attesting that the affiant swore on a given date and place | §6 & §7, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (RONP) | The date establishes the notary’s contemporaneous administration of the oath—central to authenticity and to the notary’s official journal. |
A wrong or conflicting date therefore touches two levels of reliability: (a) the affiant’s memory of the facts and (b) the official act of notarization.
2 Kinds of Date Discrepancies and Their Typical Impact
| Scenario | Example | Typical judicial view |
|---|---|---|
| Body vs. jurat mismatch | Body dated 01 Mar 2025; jurat 03 Mar 2025 | Usually treated as clerical if the interval is short and the affiant or notary can explain. |
| Back‑dating | Jurat dated before events narrated | Presumed false—strikes at personal knowledge; may be perjury or falsification (Revised Penal Code art. 171). |
| Post‑dating / “advance” jurat | Jurat dated after notary’s commission lapsed | Invalid notarization; the document may be treated as an unnotarized private writing and lose evidentiary weight. |
| Multiple conflicting dates in the body | Different pages show 15 Jan 2024 and 15 Jan 2023 | Courts suspect alteration; burden shifts to the proponent to prove authenticity. |
| No date at all | Blank space for date left unfilled | If jurat bears a date, the jurat normally supplies it; but some administrative agencies (e.g., NLRC, HLURB) still require correction. |
3 Governing Rules and Doctrinal Tests
Substantial‑Compliance Principle Root: Bongcac v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. 212461, 26 Feb 2020) – defects in form do not void a pleading if the purpose of the rule is served. Application: Courts ask whether the affidavit “reasonably conveys its intent and authenticity” despite the date error.
Mandatory vs. Directory Formalities Mandatory → omission voids notarization (e.g., no personal appearance, unsigned jurat, notary outside territorial jurisdiction, commission expired). Directory → omission is excusable or curable (typographical mistake in date, wrong year typed but clearly a slip).
Best Evidence & Hearsay Rules When the affidavit narrates a dated event, and the date discrepancy shakes personal knowledge, the affidavit may be disregarded under Rule 130 §3 unless cured by the affiant’s in‑court testimony.
Notarial Discipline Under RONP §2(b)(5) and §12, back‑dating or false dating is serious misconduct punishable by revocation of commission, administrative fines, and even criminal liability.
4 Key Supreme Court and CA Rulings (Illustrative)
| Case | G.R. / CA No. | Held |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Dizon (11 Jan 2016) | G.R. 205321 | Affidavit dated three days after arrest but narrating the arrest events was still admissible; gap was “not fatal” because affiant later testified and was cross‑examined. |
| Malayan Ins. v. Alberto (28 Jan 2013) | G.R. 172261 | Insurance claim affidavit invalid where jurat date preceded the loss; Court called it an indicium of fabrication and denied the claim. |
| Uy v. Court of Appeals (16 Apr 2005) | G.R. 131901 | In land registration, affidavit with undated jurat treated as a private writing; could not prove compliance with publication requirements. |
| Re: Petition for Notarial Discipline vs. Atty. Abalos (CBD‑10‑301) | IBP 2012 | Notary suspended for one year for post‑dating jurats to accommodate late‑coming affiants. |
(Specific citations are provided for orientation; always retrieve the full text before relying on a case.)
5 Consequences in Various Proceedings
| Forum | Likely consequence of a fatal date error |
|---|---|
| Trial courts (civil/criminal) | Affidavit may be expunged; witness must testify orally. |
| Summary procedures (e.g., barangay protection orders, search‑warrant applications) | Application may be dismissed outright; undermines probable cause. |
| Administrative bodies (NLRC, PRC, immigration) | Filings often rejected unless a corrected affidavit is submitted nunc pro tunc. |
| Corporate filings (SEC, CDA, BIR) | Receiving officer may accept pro forma but flag for later compliance; penalties for false entries still apply. |
| Banking/insurance claims | Company may treat as a breach of warranty; could be ground to deny the claim. |
6 How to Cure or Mitigate a Date Discrepancy
- Re‑execute and re‑notarize the affidavit with correct dates.
- Affidavit of correction/clarification signed by the same affiant, attaching the original.
- Judicial admission: the affiant testifies in open court explaining the clerical error. Courts often admit such testimony to cure.
- Stipulation of facts: parties may agree on the intended date to avoid delay.
- Leave of court to submit a supplemental affidavit (Rule 11, §5 Rules on Criminal Procedure; Rule 15 Motions in civil).
7 Best‑Practice Checklist for Affiants, Lawyers, and Notaries
- Always write the date twice—in the body (after the venue line) and immediately above the affiant’s signature.
- Compare the notary’s journal: the entry must match the jurat date; discrepancies invite disbarment complaints.
- Use ISO‑style dates (e.g., “2025‑07‑23”) to avoid confusion over day/month order.
- Sign in blue ink in front of the notary; never pre‑sign to be notarized later.
- If correcting, never erase—use a single‑line strikethrough, insert the correct date, and have the affiant initial; the notary notes the correction in the jurat.
- Retain photocopies of IDs and notarized pages to prove contemporaneous execution.
8 Conclusion
Date discrepancies do not automatically render an affidavit void in the Philippines, but they create vulnerability. The decisive question is whether the error goes to the substance (personal knowledge, truthfulness, regularity of the oath) or merely to form (typographical slip). Courts, administrative agencies, and even insurers have wide discretion to disregard an affidavit whose date problem sows doubt. Thus, meticulous dating and immediate correction of any mismatch remain essential parts of sound Philippine legal practice.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for advice on a specific affidavit or dispute.