POINTERS FOR MDTERMS: t.

Objection to the question for being improper

in re-cross examination.
MCQ - 7 questions

ESSAY:
OR
1. Know all kinds of objections in the
examination of witness Proper deposition objections
Objection to the question for being leading;
 Privilege. This is the big one. It must be
a. Objection to the question for it calls for made or it is waived. This
hearsay evidence; covers anyprivilege, such as attorney-client
and physician-client. Object if your client is
b. Objection to the question for lack of basis, asked what he said to his lawyer. Of course,
or it assumes a fact not established; the deposing lawyer can properly ask
“When you spoke with your lawyer about
c. Objection to the question for it invades the this case, was anyone else in the room?
field of confidential communication; Who?” Based on the answer, the privilege
may have been waived. Privilege is also the
d. Objection to the question for being vague; one case in which you should instruct your
client not to answer. If the opposing lawyer
e. Objection to the question for it calls for a continues to attempt to invade the privilege,
conclusion of law; you can threaten to terminate the
deposition. If the privilege questions
f. Objection to the question for it calls for a continue, terminate the deposition.
conclusion of fact;
 Form of the question. This objection is
g. Objection to the question for being usually asserted to make a clear record.
argumentative; Form questions fall in several categories.
Some jurisdictions only require that the
h. Objection to the question for the proper lawyer state a general “form” objection.
foundation has not been laid; Others require that the type of form
objection be stated as well. Form questions
i. Objection to the question for it calls for the are waived if they are not made during the
opinion of the witness; deposition.
j. Objection to the question for being  Compound. If the question is
misleading; compound and the person answers
yes, what portion of the question are
k. Objection to the question for it has already they agreeing with? For example, if
been answered; your client is asked “When you
turned left were you in the turn lane
l. Objection to the question for the witness is
and was your signal on and was the
incompetent;
light green and how do you
know”— object! Ask the lawyer to
m. Objection to the question for being
ask one question at a time.
inadmissible under the parol evidence rule;
 Confusing. I know I stated above
n. Objection to the question for it attempts to
that it is improper to ask for
elicit from the witness self-serving evidence;
clarification, but it depends. If the
question is truly confusing, an
o. Objection to the question for the document
objection may be proper.
offered is self-serving;
 Calls for speculation. A form
p. Objection to the question for it tends to elicit
objection should also be made to a
evidence which is not the best evidence;
question that calls for the witness to
q. Objection to the question for it calls for parol speculate. Be careful, though. Don’t
evidence of an alleged agreement under the suggest an answer, which would not
statutes of fraud; be proper.

r. Objection to the question for being improper  Mischaracterizes earlier testimony. This is

in cross-examination; also to make sure there is a clear record.
For example, if the deponent earlier stated
s. Objection to the question for being improper he was not sure of his speed, and was then
in re-direct examination; and asked: “So you testified earlier that you
were speeding …” it is proper to object as
mischaracterizing earlier testimony. The
 deponent said she did not know how fast 12. Do you have resume? (admit resume
she was going; she did not admit she was into evidence)
speeding.
13. What specific training do you have in the
 Asked and answered. This is a useful area of your specialty?
objection to make sure that your client
doesn’t give a different answer than he gave 14. Do you have any publications or
earlier in the deposition. If you don’t make research?
the objection and your client does provide
differing information, your client loses 15. What licenses do you possess?
credibility. And the testimony can be used
for impeachment at trial. The opposing 16. How long have you had those licenses?
lawyer may not realize that he asked the
question earlier, and making the objection 17. Do you have any board certifications?
can throw him off and make him doubt
himself. 18. If so, how long have you had those
certifications?
 Calls for a legal conclusion. Deponents are
there to testify about facts, not legal 19. Please list your previous places of
conclusions. If the deponent is a lawyer, it employment, including the each
may be a proper question, depending on the position.
circumstances. Otherwise, it’s not.
20. Please state the duties you had at each
 Harassment. If the deponent is being of your previous positions.
harassed or bullied, object. If that behavior
continues, describe the specific conduct that 21. What type of scientific or technical
is objectionable for the record, and further studies have you conducted?
state on the record that you will terminate
the deposition if the behavior continues. 22. Has your work been peer reviewed?
Make sure the record will be clear to an
outsider (i.e. the judge) that the witness was 23. Did you prepare a report in this case?
being harassed or bullied. As with privilege,
24. Can you please explain the materials
if the lawyer does not stop the harassment,
that you reviewed in creating your
terminate the deposition.
report?
 x x x."
25. After you completed your report did you
2. Questions about expert witness. arrive at a conclusion?

Below is a Sample Voir Dire that can be used in 26. Please describe the specific facts and
qualifying an expert witness. This voir dire data that you relied on in coming to your
should be altered depending on the type of conclusion.
expert you are using.
27. Please describe the scientific or
1. Please state your name. technical principles or methods that you
used in coming to your conclusion.
2. Where do you work?
28. Please describe the way that you relied
3. What is your title there? on those principles or methods

4. How long have you been at that job? 29. Are the specific scientific or technical
principles or methods that you used in
5. What are some of your duties at that coming to your conclusion widely used
place of employment? in your field?

6. Where did you attend school? 30. Do you believe that your testimony will
be helpful in assisting the judge or jury
7. What degrees do you possess? understand the facts of this case?

8. Have you given any lectures? 31. Your honor, at this time I tender this
witness as an expert in the field of (state
9. Are you a member of any professional specific field of expertise).
associations?

10. Have you received any honors or 3. Questions on admissibility of evidence

awards?
Section 3 Rules of Court. Admissibility of evidence-
11. Did you specialize in any particular Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
field? issue and is not excluded by law or these rules.
I. Introduction.
A. Admissibility- the character or quality which any
material must necessarily possess for it to be
accepted and allowed to be presented or
introduced as evidence in court. It answers the
question: should the court allow the material to be
used as evidence by the party?
B. Weight- the value given or significance or
impact, or importance given to the material after it
has been admitted; its tendency to convince or
persuade. Hence a particular evidence may be
admissible but it has no weight. Conversely, an
evidence may be of great weight or importance but
it is not admissible.
II. Conditions for admissibility (Axioms of
admissibility per Wigmore)
A. RELEVANCY (None but facts having rational
probative value are admissible). Per section 4,
“Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence”.
1. The material presented as evidence must affect
the issue or question. It must have a bearing on the
outcome of the case. It requires both:
a). rational or logical relevancy in that it has a
connection to the issue and therefore it has a
tendency to establish the fact which it is offered to
prove. The evidence must therefore have probative
value
b). legal relevancy in that the evidence is offered to
prove a matter which has been properly put in issue
as determined by the pleadings in civil cases, or as
fixed by the pre-trial order, or as determined by
substantive law. If so the matter has materiality.
Illustration: (i). Criminal case: the fact that the
crime was committed at nighttime is rationally or
logically relevant to a killing at 12 midnight but
evidence thereon would be not be legally relevant if
nighttime was not alleged in the Information. It
would be immaterial. (ii) Civil Case: In an action for
sum of money based on a promissory note,
evidence that the defendant was misled into signing
the note would be rationally relevant but if fraud
was never alleged as a defense, then evidence
thereof would be legally irrelevant or immaterial.
The components of relevancy are therefore
probative value and materiality.
2. Rule as to collateral matters: “Evidence on
collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when
it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the facts in issue”
a). collateral matters-facts or matters which are not
in issue. They are not generally allowed to be
proven except when relevant.
b) In criminal cases, the collateral matters allowed
to be proven, being relevant include:
(i). Antecedent Circumstances, or those in existing
even prior to the commission of the crime. They
include such matters as habit, custom, bad moral
character when self defense is invoked; or plan
design, conspiracy, or premeditation, agreement to
a price, promise or reward
(ii) Concomitant circumstances or those which
accompany the commission of the crime such as
opportunity to do the act or incompatibility
(iii).Subsequent circumstances or those which
occur after the commission of the crime, such as
flight, escape, concealment, offer of compromise
c). Example: Motive is generally irrelevant and
proof thereof is not allowed except: when the
evidence is purely circumstantial, when there is
doubt as to the identity of the accused, or when it is
an element of the crime.
B. COMPETENCY ( All facts having rational
probative value are admissible unless some
specific law or rule forbids). In short the evidence is
not excluded by law or rules.
4. Know the stages of examination of witness,
their purpose, scope and effects,
Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct
examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness
by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to
the issue. (5a)
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined
by the adverse party as to many matters stated in
the direct examination, or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias,
or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue. (8a)
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and
extent. — After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination. On re-direct-examination, questions
on matters not dealt with during the cross-
examination, may be allowed by the court in its
discretion. (12)
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse
party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court
in its discretion. (13)
5. Know all the different rules and maxims in
criminal cases example: res ipsa loquitor...
Verba legis non est decendendum - from the words
of the law there can be no departure.
Dura lex sed lex - the law may be harsh but it is the
law.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat - ignorance of
the law excuses no one.
Ignorantia facti excusat - mistake of fact excuses.
Praeter Intentionem - different from that which was
intended.
Error in personae - mistake in identity.
Abberatio Ictus - mistake in the blow.
Nulum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - there is no
crime when there is no law punishing the same.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea - the act
cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.
Actus mi invictu reus, nisi mens facit reum - an act
done by me against my will is not my act.
Mens rea - guilty mind.
Actus reus - guilty act.
Res ipsa loquitor - the thing speaks for itself.
Causa Proxima - proximate cause which produced
the immediate effect.
Prima Facie - at first glance.
Locus Criminis - scene of the crime or crime scene.
Pro reo - principle in criminal law which states that
where the statute admits of several interpretations,
the one most favorable to the accused shall be
adopted.
Res Gestae - the thing itself.
6. Know about custodial investigation. What is
inquest? What is preliminary investigation?
Arraignment?
Custodial investigation involves any questioning
by law enforcement people after a person is taken
into custody or deprived of his freedom in any
significant manner. That includes "inviting" a person
to be investigated in connection of a crime of which
he's suspect and without prejudice to the "inviting"
officer for any violation of law. If a person is taken
into custody and the interrogation/questioning tends
to elicit incriminating statements, RA 7438
becomes operative (People vs. Tan, GR 117321,
February 11, 1998.) Application of actual force or
restraint isn't necessary; intent to arrest is sufficient
as well as the intent of the detainee/arrested
person to submit while thinking that submission is
necessary. It will also apply if the "invitation" is
given by the military and the designated
interrogation site is a military outpost (Sanchez vs.
Demetriou, GR 111771-77, November 9, 1993.)
Once a person has been taken into police custody
the rules of RA 7438 are to be applied. The rights
of a person under custodial investigation are the
following:
1.) To be assisted by counsel (and you can
demand it!)
2.) To be informed by the arresting officer, in a
language he can understand, of his right to remain
silent and to counsel (and if he can't afford one,
he'll be provided one)
3.) The custodial investigation report will be null
and void if it hasn't been read and explained to him
by counsel before he signed (or thumbmarked if
he's illiterate) it
4.) Extrajudicial confessions must be put in writing
and must be signed by him in the presence of
counsel or, if there's a valid waiver, any one of his
parents, older siblings, spouse, municipal mayor,
municipal judge, district school supervisor or a
priest or religious minister chosen by him
5.) The waiver of a person under custodial
investigation or detained under Art. 125 of the
Revised Penal Code (delay in delivering detained
persons to the proper judicial authority) must be put
in writing and signed by the detainee in the
presence of counsel or it will be null and void
6.) To be visited by, or have conferences with,
members of his immediate family, counsel, doctor,
priest or religious minister or any national NGO duly
accredited  by the CHR or international NGO duly
accredited by the office of the President
The immediate family includes the following:
spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents,
grandchildren, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces,
guardians, wards and girlfriends and boyfriends.
If the assisting counsel is a private practitioner, he
is entitled to the following amounts for his services
in the custodial investigation:
1.) Php150 if the crime in question is a light felony
2.) Php250 if it's a grave or less grave felony
3.) Php350 if it's a capital offense
This will be paid by the city or municipal
government where the custodial investigation is
performed and payable by the province in question
if the city/municipality can't pay -and the
municipal/city treasurer must certify that there is no
money first.
If counsel is absent, a custodial investigation can't
proceed and the detainee must be treated in
accordance with Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Penalties
If the arresting officer fails to inform the detainee or
arrested person of his rights, he will be sentenced
to 8 to 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of
Php6,000. And if he was previously convicted for a
similar offense, he gets perpetual absolute
disqualification as well.
The same penalty will also apply if the detainee or
arrested person can't afford counsel's services and
the arresting officers/authorities don't provide
counsel.
Obstructing counsel, immediate family members,
doctors, priests or religious ministers from visiting
or conferring with the detainee at any time of the
day (or night in urgent cases, like when the
detainee needs to have the sacrament of anointing
the sick administered to him) will be penalized by 4
to 6 years' imprisonment and a fine of Php4,000.
A person under a normal audit investigation
is not considered to be under custodial
investigation since a COA audit examiner isn't
considered an arresting officer under RA 7438
(Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan,  234 SCRA 175.)
RULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined;
when required. – Preliminary investigation is an
inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and
the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.
11. Accused doesn't have full gamut of rights
yet. He doesn't have right to counsel unless a
confession is being obtained from him.
12. There is also no right to confront witnesses
against him.
WHEN IS IT REQUIRED?
> Before a complaint or information is
filed, preliminary investigation is required for
all offenses punishable by imprisonment of at
least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, regardless of
the fine, except if the accused was arrested by
virtue of a lawful arrest without warrant

Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a
preliminary investigation is required to be
conducted before the filing of a compliant or
information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to
the fine.
WHAT IS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
> It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial
> In case of lawful arrest without warrant: the
complaint or information may be filed without a
preliminary investigation unless the accused asks
for a preliminary investigation and waives his
rights under Article 125 of the RPC
> Whether or not there is a need for PI depends
upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged
in the complaint filed with the city or provincial
prosecutor’s office and not upon the imposable
penalty for the crime fund to have been
committed by the respondent after a preliminary
investigation
PURPOSE OF ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
1. Double jeopardy to attach

WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF A 2. Court can proceed trial in absentia in case
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION? accused absconds

1. It is merely inquisitorial WHERE SHOULD THE ACCUSED BE

ARRAIGNED?
2. Only means of discovering whether the
offense has been committed and the persons > The accused must be arraigned before the
responsible for it court where the complaint was filed or assigned
for trial
3. To enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint
and information HOW IS ARRAIGNMENT MADE?

4. Not a trial on the merits Arraignment is made

5. Determine whether there is probable cause 1. In open court

to believe that an offense has been committed
and the accused is probably guilty of it 2. By the judge or clerk

6. Doesn't place the accused in jeopardy 3. By furnishing the accused with a copy of
the complaint or information
7. Doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the court—
only the regularity of the proceedings 4. Reading it in the language or dialect known to
him
8. Accused cannot assert lack of preliminary
investigation. Court cannot dismiss the case 5. Asking him whether he pleads guilty or not
based on this ground—it should conduct the guilty
investigation or order the fiscal or lower court to do
it WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT UNDER
9. Preliminary investigation may be waived SECTION 1(A)?

10. Accused should invoke right to PI before > It must be strictly complied with as it is
plea, otherwise it is deemed waived intended to protect the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him
> The constitutional protection is part of due CAN THE LAWYER OF THE ACCUSED ENTER
process THE PLEA FOR HIM?

> Failure to observe the rules necessarily > No, the accused must enter the plea himself
nullifies the arraignment
WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF
X IS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. HE ARRAIGNMENT?
PLEADS GUILTY BUT PRESENTS EVIDENCE
TO ESTABLISH SELF-DEFENSE. WHAT > Arraignment is the means for bringing the
SHOULD THE COURT DO? accused into court and informing him of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
> The court should withdraw the plea and enter a
plea of not guilty him.

WHEN SHOULD THE ARRAIGNMENT BE HELD?
> The general rule is that the accused should be
arraigned within 30 days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
> During arraignment, he is made fully aware
of possible loss of freedom or of life. He is
informed why the prosecuting arm of the State is
mobilized against him. It is necessary in order to fix
the identity of the accused, to inform him of the
charge, and to him an opportunity to plead.

> The time of pendency of a motion to quash or
a bill of particulars or other cause justifying
suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded
in computing the period.
> However in the following cases, the
accused should be arranged within a shorter
period, as required by law:
DURING THE ARRAIGNMENT, IS THE JUDGE
DUTY-BOUND TO POINT OUT THAT AN
INFORMATION IS DUPLICITOUS?
> No, the judge has no obligation to point out
that an information is duplicitous or to point out
any other defect in an information during
arraignment

1. Where the complainant is about to depart from > The obligation to move to quash a defective
the Philippines with no definite date of return, information belongs to the accused, whose failure
the accused should be arraigned without delay to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to object
and his trial should commence within 3 days from
arraignment X WAS TRIED FOR MURDER WITHOUT
HAVING BEEN ARRAIGNED. AT THE TRIAL,
2. The trial of cases under the Child Abuse Act X’S COUNSEL PRESENTED WITNESSES AND
requires that the trial should be commenced within CROSS-EXAMINED THE PROSECUTION
3 days from arraignment WITNESSES. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE
CASE WAS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
3. When the accused is under preventive THAT X WAS ARRAIGNED. X WAS
detention, his case shall be raffled and its CONVICTED. CAN X INVOKE THE FAILURE OF
records transmitted to the judge to whom the THE COURT TO ARRAIGN HIM BEFORE
case is raffled within 3 days from the filing of the TRIAL FOR QUESTIONING THE CONVICTION?
information or complaint. The accused shall be
arraigned within 10 days from the date of raffle. > No, the failure of the court to arraign X before
trial was conducted didn’t prejudice the rights of
N.B: X since he was able to present evidence and
cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution
1. Rearraignment needed for substitution
> The error was cured by the subsequent
2. Substantial amendment needs arraignment
rearraignment but formal amendment doesn’t
IS THE ACCUSED PRESUMED TO HAVE
PRESENCE OF OFFENDED PARTY BEEN ARRAIGNED IN THE ABSENCE OF
PROOF TO THE CONTRARY?
1. Plea bargaining
> Yes
2. Civil liability
> In view of the presumption of regularity in
3. Identification of accused the performance of official duties, it can be
presumed that a person accused of a crime
WHAT IF PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY was arraigned, in the absence of proof to the
FAILED TO ATTEND DESPITE DUE NOTICE? contrary

> The accused may be allowed by the court to > However, the presumption of regularity is
plea guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily not applied when the penalty imposed is death
included in the offense charged with the conformity
of the prosecutor alone
> When the life of a person is at stake, the
court cannot presume that there was an
arraignment, it has to be sure that there was on
IS THE ACCUSED ENTITLED TO KNOW IN
ADVANCE THE NAMES OF ALL PROSECUTION
WITNESSES?
> Under the same amended rules on pre-trial,
this would be up to the trial judge’s discretion
X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. HE
ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY. HE
WAS LATER ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN
ORDER TO PROVE THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-
DEFENSE. AT THE TRIAL, HE PRESENTED
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE ACTED IN
COMPLETE SELF DEFENSE. THE COURT
ACQUITTED HIM. LATER, X WAS AGAIN
CHARGED WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES. X showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
INVOKED DOUBLE JEOPARDY. CAN X BE
PROSECUTED AGAIN FOR PHYSICAL
INJURIES?
> Yes. There was no double jeopardy. In order
for double jeopardy to attach, there must have been
a valid plea to the first offense.
> In this case, the presentation by X of
evidence to prove self-defense had the effect of
vacating the plea of guilt
> When the plea of guilt was vacated, the court
should have ordered him to plead again, or at
least should have directed that a new plea of
not guilty be entered for him
> Because the court didn’t do this, at the time of
the acquittal, there was actually no standing plea
for X.
> Since there was no valid plea, there can be no
double jeopardy
CAN A PERSON WHO PLEADED GUILTY STILL
BE ACQUITTED?
> Yes, when an accused pleads guilty, it
doesn’t necessarily follow that he is convicted
> Additional evidence independent of the
guilty plea may be considered by the judge to
ensure that the plea of guilt was intelligently
made
> The totality of evidence should determine
whether the accused should be convicted or
acquitted
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ACCUSED REFUSES
TO ENTER ANY PLEA?
> The court may validly enter a plea of guilty for
the accused who refuses to plead
7. Impeachment of witness
Rule 132
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's
witness. — A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation
for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by
evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present, testimony,
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he
has been convicted of an offense. (15)
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own
witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10,
the party producing a witness is not allowed to
impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate
reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party
into calling him to the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character. He
may also be impeached and cross-examined by the
adverse party, but such cross-examination must
only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-
chief. (6a, 7a)
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can
be impeached by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, the statements must be related to him,
with the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present, and he must be asked
whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing they must be shown to the witness before
any question is put to him concerning them. (16)
IMPEACHMENT
 A. Concept: The process of showing that a witness
is not credible or that his testimony is not worthy of
belief, i.e. casting doubt as to the credibility of the
witness or credibility of his testimony. Note that
credibility of the witness is different from credibility
of testimony
 B. Impeachment of the witness of the adverse
party
Generally the witness may be impeached during his
cross-examination or during the presentation of
evidence by the party. Thus the witness of the
plaintiff may be impeached at the time he is cross-
examined by the defendant and/or during the
presentation of evidence in chief by the defendant.
On the other hand, the witness of the defendant
may be impeached by the plaintiff during the cross
examination of said witness and/or during the
presentation of evidence during the rebuttal stage.
C. Specific Modes pursuant to section 11 and
jurisprudence
1. By presenting evidence or facts which contradict
the version of the witness
2. By proving the bad general reputation of the
witness for truth or honesty or integrity.
a).  He cannot be impeached by the direct
testimony of witnesses of the adverse party as to
particular instances of immoral acts, improper
conduct, or other evidence of misconduct.
b). The person who is called by the adverse party
to testify to the bad general reputation of the
witness of the opponent is called the “Impeaching
witness” who himself may also be impeached.    
3. By proof of prior inconsistent statements in that a
truthful person will be consistent with his statement
even on different occasions and to different
persons
4. By introducing evidence of his bias or interest,
such as his relationship to a party, or financial gain
as well as of his motive or intent.
5. By showing his social connections, occupations
and manner of living in that he voluntarily
associates with those who are engaged in
disreputable activities, or if he is addicted to
disgraceful or vicious practices, or follows an
occupation which is loathsome and vile, even if not
criminal, as all these affects his credibility.  c). Contrast: Confront the witness by the fact that
6.  By proof of prior conviction: the moral integrity of
a person is placed in doubt by reason of a
conviction for violation of the law, but not by the fact
that  there are pending cases against  him  different statement from his previous statements
7. By showing the improbability of his testimony or
that it is not in accordance with ordinary human
experience. Example: (i) the claim of an accidental
firing of a caliber gun is not believable because the
mechanism of the gun which requires that pressure
be applied on the trigger for the gun to fire (ii) the
claim of four big able men having been attacked
and mauled by one person who is who is much
smaller in height and heft      embarrassment, and similar reasons.
8. By showing defects in his observation, or that he
has a faulty or selective memory
9. By  showing that this actions or conduct  is
inconsistent with his testimony.
Example: A rape victim was shown to have been
partying with the alleged rapist after the rape  
10. By engaging the witness in contradictions and
discrepancies as to the material facts testified by
him.
D. Impeachment of one’s own witness.
1. General Rule: It is not allowed pursuant to
section 12. The reason is that a party calling a
witness is supposed to vouch for the truthfulness of
the witness and of his testimony, which he is
assumed to know before hand, and is therefore
bound by whatever the witness testifies to in court.
A party is not permitted to let the witness be
believed as to facts favorable to him, but to
impeach him as to facts not favorable.
2. Exceptions: If the witness presented is any of the
following:
a). An unwilling witness
b). He turns out to be a hostile witness or a
treacherous witness and the party was mislead into
calling him as a witness
c). An adverse party witness
E. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement.
1. The procedure or Laying the Foundations is
outlined by section 13. To be effective the steps
should follow the following sequence:
a). Recommit: Confront the witness with his prior
statements narrating the circumstances of time,
place, persons or occasion, or by showing him the
prior written statement. Get the witness to affirm he
made the statements   
b). Build-Up. Let the witness affirm he made the
prior statements freely, knowingly and that he stood
by the accuracy and truthfulness of said statements
his prior statement contradicts or deviates or is
materially different from his present statement
d). Demand an explanation why he made a
 
2. Reason for the Procedure:
a). Fairness to the witness and avoid surprising
him, so that he may recollect the facts, and to give
him the opportunity to explain the reason, nature,
circumstances, or meaning, of his statements.
Example: He might have been too emotional then,
or was improperly influenced, or wanted to avoid
b).   To save time if he admits his prior statements
3. Exceptions when there is no need to lay the
foundation:
a). In case of statements made by a deceased
which contradicts his dying declarations         
b). If the contradictory statements are testified to by
another person as an admission
8. As presiding judge, what are his rights and
authority during trial
Rule 135
SEC. 5.  Inherent powers of courts. -  Every court
shall have power:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate
presence;
Effective Direct Examination
a). KEEP IT SIMPLE. Avoid these two pitfalls (i) too
little time on critical points and (ii) too much time on
unimportant points

(b) To enforce order in proceedings before a b). ORGANIZE LOGICALLY. Determine the key
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial points and organize them in a logical order. If
investigation under its authority; possible resort to a chronological presentation of
testimony.
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders
and processes, and to the lawful order of judge out c). INTRODUCE THE WITNESS AND DEVELOP
of court, in a case pending therein; HIS BACKGROUND

(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct d). USE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in INTRODUCTORY, TRANSITION OR ORIENTING
any manner connected with a case before it, in QUESTIONS
every manner appertaining thereto;
e). ELICIT SCENE DESCRIPTION
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify
in a case pending therein; f). ELICIT GENERAL FLOWING DESCRIPTION.
Let the witness paint a picture. Avoid excessive
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths detail.
in a case pending therein, and in all other cases
where it may be necessary in the exercise of its g). USE PACE IN DESCRIBING ACTION. Control
powers; chan robles virtual law library the speed of the examination by eliciting testimony
in small segments at the most advantageous rate.
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so SLOW DOWN THE ACTION.
as to make them comformable to law and justice;
h). USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE. Choose simple
(h) To authorize copy of a lost or destroyed words and phrases. Word choice affects answers.
pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead Avoid jargons, idioms and technical words. WHAT
of the original, and to restore, and supply MATTERS AND WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED
deficiencies in its records and proceedings. IS NOT HOW BEAUTIFUL AND IMPRESSIVE THE
LAWYER PHRASED HIS QUESTIONS BUT
WHAT THE WITNESS NARRATED.
9. As presiding judge, what ruling will you make
when confronted with incidents during trial, i). HAVE THE WITNESS EXPLAIN.
example: motion for postponement
j). USE NONLEADING OPEN-ENDED
WHAT ARE THE FACTORS FOR GRANTING A QUESTIONS
CONTINUANCE/POSTPONEMENTS?
k). USE EXHIBITS TO HIGHLIGH AND
1. Whether or not the failure to grant a SUMMARIZE
continuance in the proceeding would likely make
a continuation of such proceeding impossible or l). PRACTICE WITH THE WITNESS.
result in a miscarriage of justice; and 11. As officer of the court, what attitude are you
going to show during the course of the trial

 be diligent in their observance of

2. Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so undertakings.
novel, unusual and complex, due to the number
 o not mislead the court.
of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or
that it is unreasonable to expect adequate
 be frank in their responses and disclosures
preparation within the periods of time established to the Court.
therein.
 be independent (free from personal bias).
 No continuance under section 3(f) of this
 act with competence, honesty, and courtesy
Rule shall be granted because of congestion of
towards other solicitors, parties and
the court’s calendar or lack of diligent
witnesses.
preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses
on the part of the prosecutor.
12. Know about the presentation of witness and
exclusion of witness
10. As a lawyer, what technique during trial are
you going to ask for the benefit of your client
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. Rule 132 governs the manner by which
Testimonial and Documentary evidences are to be
presented in Court.
2. Principles in the presentation of evidence by
the parties:
a). A case is won or lost depending upon how
effective was the presentation of evidence,
particularly as to what evidence were presented
and how they were presented
b). Parties should be allowed a certain latitude in
the presentation of their evidence otherwise they
might be so hampered that the ends of justice may
eventually be defeated or appear to be defeated.
The court should not limit the evidence to be
presented.
c). The parties should be allowed to maintain their
own way or style of presenting evidence when
these can be done without injury to the speedy
disposition of the case and to the best interest of
the administration of justice
d) The court should liberally receive all evidence
offered in the trial to be able to render its decision
with all the possibly relevant proof in the record and
to assure the appellate court to have a good
judgment and to obviate remanding the case for re-
trial or reception of evidence
Section 1. Provides the manner of presenting
testimonial evidence to be as follows:
By presenting the witness personally in open court
a). The witness must appear in person so that the
court and the opponent may observe him and hear
his testimony
b). His personal presence cannot be substituted by
the submission of written statements or audio
testimony
c) There is also no secret testimony and it must
always be in the presence of the adverse party,
except when the presentation is allowed to be ex
parte, or testimony through interrogatories or
depositions in advance of trial before a hearing
officer but upon prior approval of the court and with
proper notice to the adverse party
d). CHILD WITNESSES: the witness may testify
inside a room but the child must be visible and can
be heard through the medium of facilities
appropriate for the purpose such as a mirror
QUESTION: May the witness testify wearing
masks to preserve his identity?
To be examined under oath or affirmation
a). To answer questions as may be asked by the
proponent, the opponent and by the court
(i). Oath: an outward pledge by the witness that his
testimony is made under an immediate sense of
responsibility to a Supreme Being. An appeal is
made to the almighty that he will tell the truth.
(ii.) Affirmation: a solemn and formal declaration
that the witness will be truthful
iii). The purpose of an oath or affirmation are : (i) to
affect the conscience of the witness and compel
him to speak the truth and (ii) to lay him open to
punishment for perjury. But it is not essential that
he knows what or how he will punished.
iv). If the opponent believes the witness is not
aware of his obligation and responsibility to tell the
truth and consequences of telling a lie, the party
may ask for leave to conduct a VOIRE DIRE
examination ( PP. vs. Alma Bisda, July 17, 2003)
v). Effect of lack of oath: If the opponent fails to
object then the testimony may be given weight as
the party would be estopped or, the party may
move to disallow the witness from testifying, or
move to strike the testimony after he found the lack
of oath. The proponent however may ask that the
witness be placed under oath. . .
The form of testimony must be :
a). Oral answers to questions unless (i) the
question calls for a different form of answer such as
by bodily movements or demonstrable actions, (ii)
or the witness is a deaf mute (iii) in case of a child
witness
b) Not in a narrative (i) in order to prevent the
witness from testifying and narrating facts which
are irrelevant and thus he will testify straight to the
point in issue, as well as (ii) to give the opponent an
opportunity to raise an objection.
Sec. 2. The Proceedings must be recorded.
Courts of the Philippines are courts of record.
Anything not recorded is deemed not to have
transpired or taken-up and will not be considered in
the resolution of the case. The matter to be
recorded include:
a). Questions by the proponent, opponent and the
court, which are propounded to the witness
b). The answers of the witness to the questions
c). Manifestations, arguments, and statements of
counsel
d). Statements of the court to the counsel
e). Instructions or statements of the court to the
court personnel
f). Demonstrable actions, movements, gestures or
observations asked to be described and recorded
g). Observations during the conduct of ocular
inspections
Matters not recorded:
Off-the-records statements
Statements which were ordered or requested to be
stricken from the record such as those which are
improper, irrelevant or objectionable. Example:
hearsay direct testimony
Sec. 3. Rights and Obligations of Witnesses
The obligation of a witness is to answers all
questions which are asked of him. He cannot
choose which questions to answer and to
answering others.
The witness however has the right to be protected
against tactics from the opponent which are
intended to “brow beat, badger, insult, intimidate, or
harass him”.
He has the right not to be detained longer that is
necessary.
He may refuse to answer the following questions:
a). Those which are not pertinent to the issue
b). Those which are self-incriminatory except in the
following cases:
(i) where the accused is testifying as a witness in
his own behalf, as to questions relating only to the
offense upon which he is testifying
(ii) where the witness was granted immunity from
prosecution as when he is under the Witness
Protection Program or was discharged to be used a
s a state witness, or he is a government witness in
Anti-Graft Cases.
c). Those which are self-degrading, unless it is to
discredit the witness by impeaching his moral
character
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
Section 5. Direct Examination. Direct examination
is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
A. Procedural Requirement
Offer of Testimony- the proponent shall state the
substance of the intended testimony of the witness
( an outline of the major points) and the purpose
of said testimony ( what the proponent intends to
prove by said testimony)
a). Importance of the Offer- (i) The direct
examination may be objected to by the opponent
(ii) Matters not included in the offer may not be
allowed to be testified on upon proper objection and
(iii) to shorten the proceedings as the opponent
may admit or stipulate on the matters to be testified
on.
In cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure,
the sworn statement of the witness must have been
submitted to the court before hand
B. Importance of the Direct Examination
This is the only opportunity for the proponent to
elicit from the witness all the facts which are
important and favorable to him. The witness should
be considered as a sponge heavy with facts. By the
time the direct examination is over, all favorable
facts should have been squeezed from the witness.
The examination must be clear, forceful,
comprehensive, and must efficiently present the
facts of the case.
Effective Direct Examination
a). KEEP IT SIMPLE. Avoid these two pitfalls (i) too
little time on critical points and (ii) too much time on
unimportant points
b). ORGANIZE LOGICALLY. Determine the key
points and organize them in a logical order. If
possible resort to a chronological presentation of
testimony.
c). INTRODUCE THE WITNESS AND DEVELOP
HIS BACKGROUND
d). USE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
INTRODUCTORY, TRANSITION OR ORIENTING
QUESTIONS
e). ELICIT SCENE DESCRIPTION
f). ELICIT GENERAL FLOWING DESCRIPTION.
Let the witness paint a picture. Avoid excessive
detail.
g). USE PACE IN DESCRIBING ACTION. Control
the speed of the examination by eliciting testimony
in small segments at the most advantageous rate.
SLOW DOWN THE ACTION.
h). USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE. Choose simple
words and phrases. Word choice affects answers.
Avoid jargons, idioms and technical words. WHAT
MATTERS AND WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED
IS NOT HOW BEAUTIFUL AND IMPRESSIVE THE
LAWYER PHRASED HIS QUESTIONS BUT
WHAT THE WITNESS NARRATED.
i). HAVE THE WITNESS EXPLAIN.
j). USE NONLEADING OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
k). USE EXHIBITS TO HIGHLIGH AND
SUMMARIZE
l). PRACTICE WITH THE WITNESS.
Sec. 6. Cross Examination.
A. Concept: The examination of the witness by the
opponent after the direct examination.
B. Nature:
1. An essential part of the right to procedural due
process i.e. the right of a party to confront
witnesses against him face-to-face. The essence
however is not actual cross examination but that a
party be given the opportunity to cross examine.
Hence the consequences are as follows:
a). If the opponent was never given the opportunity
to cross examine a witness, the direct testimony
may, on motion of the opponent, be stricken off as
hearsay.
b). All assertions of facts not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness may also be stricken off
as hearsay since the source cannot be subjected to
the opportunity of cross-examination
2. :Limitations:
a). The right may however be waived expressly
b). It may be lost through the fault or negligence of
the opponent.
c). After a witness has been cross-examined and
discharged, further cross-examination is no longer
a right but must be addressed to the sound
discretion of the court
d). The Court may limit the cross-examination if its
needlessly protracted, or is being conducted in a
manner which is unfair to the witness or is
inconsistent with the decorum of the court, as
when it degenerates into a shouting match with the
witness
3. Effect of the Loss or non-completion of the cross
examination
a). If the loss, in whole or in part, was due to the
fault of the adverse party, the testimony of the
witness is to be taken into consideration
b). If the cross-examination cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the party
offering the witness, the testimony is rendered
incompetent
c). If the loss or –non-completion was due to the
death or unavailability of the witness then that part
of the testimony which was subjected to cross-
examination remains admissible.
4. Character of Cross Examination: It is both an Art
and a Science
a). It is an Art because it requires consummate skill
which is acquired and developed. There is no
standard method as it is highly personalized,
subjective and be adaptive to who the witness is
and to the subject of the cross examination. The
length, style of questioning or approach to a
witness requires intuition and understanding of
human nature; of the habits, weaknesses, bias and
prejudices of people; their reactions to situations,
their perception of matters, and such other factors
that vary according to circumstances of time,
place, people and occasions.
It requires the ability to think quickly, read quickly
and to know when to quit. The lawyer’s antennae
must ever be tuned in to the witness: his character,
personality; mannerism, and all traits which will give
a favorable clue; to the adverse counsel and to the
Court.
b). Should a party cross examine or not depends
on a full understanding of what to expect. The
following must be considered before a party
attempts to cross-examine:
i). Whether the witness has hurt the case or the
impact of his testimony on the case
ii). Whether the witness is important, as for
example an eye witness, or a party witness
iii). Whether the testimony is credible
iv). The risks that the party undertakes
2. It is a science. It requires a thorough preparation
and mastery of certain rules/jurisprudence on
procedure in the presentation of evidence.
C. Importance and Purpose of Cross Examination
Cross examination is both a weapon to destroy or
weaken the testimony of the opponent’s witness
and a tool to build up or strengthen a party’s case.
The conduct of cross-examination must always be
directed towards achieving a specific purpose or
purposes.
Constructive Cross-Examination, where the
purposes are: (a) to amplify or expand the story of
the witness so as to place the facts in a different
light which is favorable to the party. Note that the
witness of the opponent seldom volunteer facts
favorable to the cross-examiner, hence the manner
of questioning should be “insinuating”, and (b) To
obtain favorable or establish additional facts
favorable to the cross-examining party.
Destructive Cross-Examination The purposes are:
(a) to discredit the testimony of the witness by
showing its absurdity, or that it is unbelievable or
contrary to the evidence (b) To discredit the witness
by showing his bias, interest, lapse of or selective
memory, incorrect or incomplete observation of
event, and similar situations.
D. Scope of Cross Examination
1. Under section 6 the witness may be examined:
(a) As to any matter stated in the direct examination
(b) or any matter connected therewith (c) as to the
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom of the
witness from interest or bias, or the reverse and (d)
upon all important facts bearing upon the issue.
2. The English Rule is followed in the Philippines:
the cross examination is not confined to matters
subject of the direct examination but extends to
other maters, even if not inquired in the direct
examination but are material to the issues. This is
distinguished from the American Rule which holds
that the scope of the cross-examination is confined
to the facts and circumstances brought out, or
connected with, matters stated in the direct
examination
2. Expert witnesses as they testify to their opinions
based on facts of their own knowledge, or on
hypothetical facts
3. Witnesses on rebuttal
4. Character witnesses
5. Spectators unless they behave in a manner
which is against the proper decorum of the court or
when the evidence to be presented are sensitive
13. How do you prove the existence of loss or
destroyed documents (codal provision)

D. Questioning by the Court: RULE 130

1. The Court may ask questions : 1. To clarify itself 2. Secondary Evidence

on certain points 2. To call the attention of counsel
to points at issue that are overlooked and 3.To
direct counsel to questions on matters to elicit facts
and clarify ambiguous answers
2. However, the questioning by the court should not
be confrontational, probing and insinuating. It
should not be partisan and not over extensive. The
court is not to assume the role of an advocate or
prosecutor.
Section 5. When original document is unavailable.
— When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
(4a)

Section 14. Exclusion and separation of

witness.

A. Concept: The act of excluding a future witness

from the court room at the time another witness is
testifying or, of ordering that witnesses be kept
separate from one another to prevent them from
conversing with one another. 

1. This is upon the court’s own motion or on motion

of the adverse party.

2. A disobedient witness may be testify but his (a)

testimony may be excluded or (b). his disobedience
may be considered to affect his credibility and (c)
he maybe punished for contempt of court   

B. Purpose: To ensure the witnesses testify to the

truth by preventing them from being influenced by
the testimony of others; to prevent connivance or
collusion among witnesses 

(Note: the practical purpose of this rule is defeated

by the reservations for cross examination or
resetting to present another witness, such that the
counsel and other witness have the opportunity to
go over the testimony of the witnesses).

C. Who may not be excluded.

1. Parties to an action even if they are numerous.

a) In criminal cases, the presence of the accused is

indispensable and he may not be excluded.

b). The private offended party should not also be

excluded even if he will be a witness. As such he
has a right to be present because it is his interest
which is involved and also to assure that the
proceedings are conducted properly. Besides he is
party to the civil aspect of the case.