Short answer. Generally no. Rule 132, Section 1 requires that examination of witnesses be done in open court, under oath or affirmation, and that answers be given orally, unless the witness is incapacitated to speak or the particular question calls for a different mode of answer.

What the law says

The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.

Rule 132, Section 1 — Examination to be done in open court. Read the full provision →

Why oral, in-court testimony is the default

The rule sets up two requirements working together: the examination happens in open court, and the answers are given orally. Open-court examination lets the judge, opposing counsel, and the public observe the witness directly — the tone, hesitation, and demeanor of live testimony carry information that a written statement simply cannot convey, and it lets opposing counsel cross-examine in real time rather than responding to answers prepared and reviewed at leisure. Requiring oral answers reinforces that same purpose: a spontaneous verbal response is harder to script and easier for a judge to weigh for credibility than a written one.

The two situations where a different mode is allowed

The rule itself carves out room for exceptions rather than being absolute. A witness who is incapacitated to speak — someone who is mute, or otherwise physically unable to answer verbally — is plainly not being asked to do the impossible, so a different mode, such as writing or sign language through an interpreter, becomes appropriate. Separately, some questions by their nature call for a different mode of answer regardless of the witness's own capacity, such as being asked to demonstrate a gesture, identify an object, or point to a location on a diagram rather than describe it purely in words.

What this rules out

Because the default requires both open-court presence and oral answers, a party generally cannot substitute a witness's pre-written affidavit or a set of typed answers for actual live testimony at trial, even if the witness is available and willing — an affidavit may serve other procedural purposes, such as a judicial affidavit used in place of direct examination under separate rules, but the underlying examination and cross-examination still has to happen through the witness physically present and answering questions as they are put, not through paperwork submitted in place of the witness taking the stand.

Who this binds and what a violation looks like

The requirement runs against whichever party is presenting the witness, and against the court itself, which is expected to insist on live, oral testimony rather than accept a shortcut for convenience alone. A party who tries to introduce a witness's written statement as a substitute for actual examination, outside the recognized exceptions, faces an objection that the statement is inadmissible on this ground, and a court that lets it in over a timely objection risks that error being raised later. The rule protects the opposing party's ability to observe and cross-examine as much as it protects the fact-finding process generally, so both sides have a stake in it being followed.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.