f) Former testimony and other exceptions to the hearsay rule ● Before a party may be qualified under Section 12,

qualified under Section 12, Rule 132, the

● There is no reason to complain of denial of the right to cross-
examine following the death of the witness or unavailability of the
witness involving testimony or deposition in a previous case involving
the same parties and subject matter.
o Condition: There was opportunity to cross-examine.
g) Defendant’s escape from confinement
● An accused who escaped from prison or confinement loses his
standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek
relief from the court unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court.
party presenting the adverse party as witness must comply with
Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. There must be service of
written interrogatories first.
o Purpose: To prevent fishing expeditions and needless
delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct
of trial.
o It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written
interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most
likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts
to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness.
j) Misleading and inadmissible

● The cross-examination of any witness cannot be premised on a

● Gimenez v. Nazareno: An escapee who has been tried in absentia
misleading question or inadmissible evidence such as hearsay.
did not retain his rights to cross-examine and to present evidence on
o Condition: Timeliness of an objection from the party who
his behalf. By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had
presented the witness.
notice, he virtually waived these rights.
● On cross-examination, a witness should not be asked questions
● The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the trial
which assume facts not in evidence, or facts without sufficient basis
on a particular date of which he had notice shall be considered a
in the record, or which assume that the witness has given testimony
waiver of his right to be present during that trial.
which he has not given, or that matter has been proved when it was
not.
h) Accused who testifies

● Section 1(c), Rule 115 implies that once custody is regained over the Duration of the right to cross-examine
escapee, the defendant’s right to cross-examine is recovered insofar
● Rests very largely in the discretion of the trial judge, subject to the
as a witness who will testify against the accused, or if the
right of the witness against self-degradation as provided in Section
prosecution witness is still under examination-in-chief.
3(2), Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
● A defendant in a criminal case who opts to testify can be cross-
● Thoroughness, as well as cleanliness and orderliness, ought to
examined like any other witness, subject to cross-examination only
permeate the whole texture of cross-examination, whatever
on matters covered by the direct examination.
particular technique is for the moment employed.
● If the defendant in a criminal prosecution voluntarily offers himself as
a witness in his own behalf and testifies in chief, he thereby subjects Three main techniques of cross-examination:
himself to a legitimate and pertinent cross-examination.
1. Confrontation
i) Unwilling or hostile witness 2. Probing
3. Insinuation
● An unwilling or hostile witness cannot be subjected to cross-
examination on matters that transcend the direct examination. Confrontation
 ⮚ Consists in confronting the witness with the damaging facts which he
cannot deny, and which are inconsistent with his evidence.
⮚ It is a destructive technique, and even if it fails to destroy, it may still
succeed in weakening.
Probing
⮚ Carried out by inquiring thoroughly into the details of the story to
discover the flaws. It may be used either to weaken or to destroy.
⮚ It consists only in delving into the story as told, so as to detect and
expose its inherent weaknesses.
⮚ It has a marked advantage over confrontation.
Insinuation
⮚ A many-sided technique; the most important of the three techniques
in everyday practice.
⮚ It is the building up of a different version of the evidence-in-chief by
bringing out new facts and possibilities, so that, while helping to
establish a positive case in one’s favor, it simultaneously weakens
the evidence-in-chief by drawing out its sting.
Two forms of insinuation:
1. Gentle insinuation
2. Firm insinuation
Fourth line of approach: Undermining
⮚ Its object is not to break down the evidence by delving into it, but to
take away the foundations of the evidence by showing that either:
o The witness does not know what he is talking about; or
o If he does know the truth, he cannot be trusted to tell it.
Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony
● Wigmore attributed 5 occasions that can impede cross-examination:
o The witnesses’ death or illness
o The witness’s refusal to answer on cross-examination or the
party’s prevention of his answer
o The witness’s answering the direct examination non-
responsively
o The framing of the direct examination so as to prevent
adequate cross-examination
o Sundry circumstances preventing adequate cross-
examination.
● R Transport Corporation v. Philhino Sales Corporation: The
Supreme Court disagreed with petitioner’s invocation of due process
when the testimony of its witness was stricken off the record by the
trial court after the cross-examination can hardly be completed on
account of repeated postponements of the hearing at the behest of
the petitioner’s counsel.
● Bachrach Motors Co., Inc. vs. CIR: The witness failed to appear at
the scheduled hearings for his cross-examination for the simple
reason that he left for abroad. Having been deprived, without fault on
its part, of its right to cross-examine the witness, the respondent was
entitled to have the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the
record.
● Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines: Oral testimony may be
considered only when it is complete, that is, if the witness has been
wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or the right to cross-
examine is lost wholly or in part through the fault of such adverse
party.
o When cross-examination is not and cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the
witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered
incompetent.
DOCTRINES:
● Until such cross-examination has been finished the testimony of
the witness cannot be considered as complete and may not,
therefore, be allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered
by the court in deciding the case.
● The right to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a
judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings
before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a
fundamental right which is part of due process.
● The said right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or
impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of
cross-examination.
● Common basic principle on implied waiver: The party was given
the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing
witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to
himself alone.
● Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino:
Private respondents were given not only one but five opportunities to
cross-examine the witness but despite warnings and admonitions of
the court, and despite the readiness and willingness of the witness
that he be cross-examined, the counsel by his repeated absence
and/or unpreparedness failed to do so until death sealed the
witness’s lips forever.
o The mere fact that the witness died after giving his direct
testimony is no ground in itself for excluding his testimony
from the record so long as the adverse party was afforded
an adequate opportunity for cross-examination but through
fault of his own failed to cross-examine the witness.
● People v. Gorospe: If the witness has been thoroughly cross-
examined on material points, it is but proper to rule out the prospect
of disregarding the direct testimony of the witness although the
defense counsel has not completed the cross-examination.
● People v. Seneris: If the witness dies due to a fortuitous event after
the cross-examination on material points, then the direct examination
should not be ignored.
o As a general rule, the testimony of a witness, given on direct
examination, should be stricken where there is not adequate
opportunity for cross-examination, as where the witness by
reason of death, illness, or absence cannot be subjected to
cross-examination.
o HOWEVER, the direct testimony of a witness who dies
before conclusion of the cross-examination can be stricken
only insofar as not covered by cross-examination and
absence of a witness is not enough to warrant striking his
testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination
where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-
examined.
● People v. Narca: The direct testimony of the prosecution witness for
the bail hearing was preserved after her death when it was shown
that the defense counsel requested for the deferment of the cross-
exam. “Mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the
essence of the right to cross-examine.”
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
● After the cross-exam by the opponent to the witness, the proponent
may subject the witness to a re-direct examination which is intended
to explain or supplement the answers given by the witness during the
cross examination.
● Questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination
can be permitted, subject to the court’s discretion.
● On re-direct examination, it is proper to draw from the witness an
explanation or clarification of his testimony given on cross-
examination, or of former statements as to which he has been cross-
examined or of matters brought out on cross-examination, and on
such re-direct examination the witness may give explanation of an
answer and what he meant by certain words or expressions.
Principal function of a re-direct examination: To prevent injustice to the
witness and the part who has called him by affording an opportunity to the
witness to explain the testimony given on cross-examination, and to explain
any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his statements. It serves the
purpose of completing the answer of a witness, or of adding a new matter
which has been omitted, or of correcting a possible misinterpretation of
testimony.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
● The adverse party can subject the party to re-cross examination on
matters declared during the re-direct examination and also on such
 other matters as may be permitted by the court in the exercise of its
sound discretion.

● It is proper to allow re-cross-examination on a subject which was

opened upon on direct examination, or as to new matter which was
brought out on re-direct examination, or which is designed to test the
credibility of the witness or of testimony elicited on redirect
examination.

RECALL

● After the conclusion of a witness’s examination by both sides,

incremental evidence from the witness rests solely on the court’s
discretion. (Sec. 9, Rule 132, ROC)

● It can be insisted as a matter of right if so reserved by a party prior to

the witness’s discharge and with the court’s previous permission.

● In the process of recall, there must be due regard to the right of the
witness against unnecessary examination longer than the interest of
justice so requires in Section 3(2), Rule 132.

● Where it was shown that a witness had been previously cross-

examined extensively, it was more in consonance with justice and
equity for the court to have denied the recall of the witness
concerned. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino)

● Castillo v. Sebullina: No one can doubt the power of a trial judge in

the course of a proceeding pending before him to recall and re-
examine a particular witness, if he deems it advisable to do so for the
development of the truth as to the issues he is called upon to
adjudicate and of course upon such re-examination he may repeat
any or all of the questions asked in the examination in chief.