A.

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court.

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

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded.

The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing,
o including
the questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto,
the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case,
shall be recorded by means of
o shorthand or
o stenotype or
o by other means of recording found suitable by the court.

A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist
or recorder and
certified as correct by him
shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.

A witness must answer questions,
o although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him.
However, it is the right of a witness:
o (1) To be protected from
irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
harsh or insulting demeanor;
o (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
o (3) Not to be examined
except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
o (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law; or
o (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation,
 unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed.
But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense.

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness.

The order in which the individual witness may be examined is as follows:
o (a) Direct examination by the proponent;
o (b) Crossexamination by the opponent;
o (c) Redirect examination by the proponent;
o (d) Recrossexamination by the opponent.

Section 5. Direct examination.

the examinationinchief of a witness
by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.

Section 6. Crossexamination; its purpose and extent.

Upon the termination of the direct examination,
the witness may be cross examined by the adverse party
o as to many matters stated in the direct examination,
o or connected therewith,
with sufficient fullness and freedom
o to test
his accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias,
or the reverse,
o to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Section 7. Redirect examination; its purpose and extent.

After the crossexamination of the witness has been concluded,
he may be reexamined by the party calling him,
o to explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination.
On redirect examination,
o questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.

Section 8. Recrossexamination.
Upon the conclusion of the redirect examination,
the adverse party may recrossexamine the witness
o on matters stated in his redirect examination,
o and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.

Section 9. Recalling witness.

After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded,
 o the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court.
The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
require.

Section 10. Leading and misleading questions.

A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is
a leading question.
It is not allowed,
o except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from
a witness who is
ignorant, or
a child of tender years, or
is of feeble mind, or
a deafmute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is
an adverse party or
an officer,
director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an adverse party.

A misleading question is
o one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
o or contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed.

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness.

A witness may be impeached by
o the party against whom he was called,
o contradictory evidence,
o evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or
o evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present,
testimony,
o 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.

Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.

Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10,
o the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
 A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
o only if so declared by the court
o upon adequate showing of his
adverse interest,
unjustified 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,
o except by evidence of his bad character.
He may also be impeached and cross examined by the adverse party,
o but such crossexamination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-
inchief.

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
o related to him,
o with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present,
o and he must be asked whether he made such statements,
o and if so, allowed to explain them.
o If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any
question is put to him concerning them. (16)

Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness.

GR: Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
E: until such character has been impeached.

Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses.

On any trial or hearing,
the judge may
o exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination,
so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
o also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing
with one another until all shall have been examined.

Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum.

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact,
by anything written or recorded
o by himself or
o under his direction at the time when
 the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or
at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the
same was correctly written or recorded;
but in such case the writing or record
o must be produced and
o may be inspected by the adverse party,
who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it,
and may read it in evidence.
So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record,
o though he retain no recollection of the particular facts,
o if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction
when made;
o but such evidence must be received with caution.

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, the
remainder admissible.
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record
is given in evidence by one party,
the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other,
and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence,
o any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness.

Whenever a writing is shown to a witness,
it may be inspected by the adverse party.

B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Section 19. Classes of Documents.

For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either
o public or
o private.

Public documents are:

 o (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
o (b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
o (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to
the entered therein.
All other writings are private.

Section 20. Proof of private document.

Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
o (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
o (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary.

Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is
o produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
o unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion,
no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved.

The handwriting of a person may be proved by
o any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
o made by the witness or the court,
o with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or
o proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

Section 23. Public documents as evidence.

Documents consisting of entries in public records
o made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
o are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence,
o even against a third person,
 o of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

Section 24. Proof of official record.

The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by
o an official publication thereof or
o a copy attested by
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or
his deputy,
and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the
certificate may be made by
o a secretary of the embassy or legation,
o consul general,
o consul,
o vice consul,
o or consular agent or
o by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state.

Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence,
the attestation must state, in substance,
o that the copy is a correct copy
of the original,
or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be.
The attestation must be
o under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
o or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

Section 26. Irremovability of public record.

Any public record,
an official copy of which is admissible in evidence,
must not be removed from the office in which it is kept,
o except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the
just determination of a pending case.

Section 27. Public record of a private document.

An authorized public record of a private document
 may be proved by
o the original record, or
o a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record,
with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Section 28. Proof of lack of record.

A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his
deputy
that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor
is found to exist in the records of his office,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided,
is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.

Section 29. How judicial record impeached.

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
o (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
o (b) collusion between the parties, or
o (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.

Section 30. Proof of notarial documents.

Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law,
may be presented in evidence without further proof,
the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved.

Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain.

The party producing a document as genuine
o which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution,
o in a part material to the question in dispute,
o must account for the alteration.
He may show that the alteration was
o made by another,
without his concurrence, or
o made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
o otherwise properly or innocent made, or
o that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.

Section 32. Seal.

There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents
insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned.
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language.
Documents written in an unofficial language
o GR: shall not be admitted as evidence,
o E: unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings,
o parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before
trial.

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence.

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.

Section 35. When to make offer.

As regards the testimony of a witness,
o the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence

o shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
o Such offer shall be done orally
unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.

Section 36. Objection.

Objection to evidence offered orally
o must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
o shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.

An offer of evidence in writing

o shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the ____
unless a different period is allowed by the court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.

Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary.

When it becomes reasonably apparent
o in the course of the examination of a witness
o that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made,
whether such objection was sustained or overruled,
o it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection,
it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions.
Section 38. Ruling.
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
o unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented;
o but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by
the ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.

o However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds,
a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.

Section 39. Striking out answer.

Should a witness answer the question
before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same,
and such objection is found to be meritorious,
the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the
record.

On proper motion,
o the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent,
irrelevant, or
otherwise improper.
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence.
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court,
o the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record.
If the evidence excluded is oral,
o the offeror may state for the record
the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and
the substance of the proposed testimony.

NOTES:

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES (Sec. 1-18)

Testimonial evidence is given in open court in answer to questions of counsel as well as of

the court.
There are no rules in the kind of manner of the questions which the court may ask a
witness, but there are many rules on HOW counsel may examine a witness.
Despite the absence of any express provision in the Rules, the practice is that the court
 may question a witness on its own and may even call witnesses.
Questioning conducted by trial judges however should not be at the expense of their
impartiality or appearance thereof and should not undermine the trial techniques or
strategies of the lawyers.
The right of the court to call a witness is founded on the notion that a judge is more than a
moderator and he cannot remain inert. A courts witness is much like a hostile or surprise
witness, and neither party to the litigation is responsible for the testimony of this witness
and both may cross-examine him.

How Examination Conducted

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 to the witness shall be given orally.
The order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows:
o Direct examination by the proponent
o Cross-examination by the opponent
o Re-direct examination by the proponent
o Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot
be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion,
as the interests of justice may require.

Open court and under oath, on record

In open court A phrase describing an act done publicly in the presence of the judge,
and the other officers of the court. Opposed to in chambers. (Ravin, Law Dictionary 2nd
ed.)
Reason: To enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witness manner
of testifying, their intelligence, and their appearance. It is unquestionably
the safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts, and affords the greatest
protection to the rights and liberties of the citizen. (Arzadon vs. Arzadon)
Oath -

Judicial Affidavit Rule

Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of
cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has
in place;

Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually owing to the fact that
complainants simply give up con1ing to court after repeated postponements;

Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its
courts are unable to provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its
people poor;

Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in
cases under litigation, on February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial
courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies
of witnesses;

Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds
the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and
adjudication of cases;

Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, headed by
Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the
Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, have recommended
for adoption a Judicial Affidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon
City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the recommendation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby issues and promulgates the
following:
Section 1. Scope.

(a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception
of evidence before:

(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall
not apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;

(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;

(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Shari'a Appellate Courts;

(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and

(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject
to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure
contravene the provisions of this Rule.1

(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating
officers shall be uniformly referred to here as the "court."

Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies.

(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by
licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or
the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:

(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such
witnesses' direct testimonies; and

(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the
judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the
respondent or the defendant.

(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a
faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the
original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with
the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.

This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when
allowed by existing rules.

Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit.

A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in English
or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:

(a) The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;

(b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;

(c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that
he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;

(d) Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:

(1) Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;

(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and

(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(e) The signature of the witness over his printed name; and

(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.

Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer.

(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer
who conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
 (1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and

(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.

(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.

Section 5. Subpoena.

If the government employee or official, or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of
the adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or
refuses without just cause to make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual production in court, the requesting
party may avail himself of the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness
in this case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except that the taking of a judicial
affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.

Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial affidavit.

The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state
the purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party
may move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it
on ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall
cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section
40 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit.

The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and
on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine
him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness to
determine his credibility as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it
needs for resolving the issues.

Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits.

(a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make an
oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which he offers the particular exhibit.

(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately make its ruling respecting
that exhibit.

(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part of the judicial affidavits that describe
and authenticate them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited by their markings
during the offers, the objections, and the rulings, dispensing with the description of each
exhibit.

Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions.

(a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;

(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or

(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days
before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused. The complainant or public
prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have,
marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as well as those of his
witnesses to the court within ten days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each
on the public and private prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously
marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the
accused and his witnesses when they appear before the court to testify.

Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule.

(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be
deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late
submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice
the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more
than P 5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.

(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any witness who fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear without valid cause
despite notice shall be deemed to have waived his client's right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present.

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits
before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly
prejudice the opposing party and provided further, that public or private counsel responsible for
their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more
than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules.

The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of procedure governing investigating officers
and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed or modified
insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.

The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies inconsistent herewith are hereby
disapproved.

Section 12. Effectivity.

This rule shall take effect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.

Direct Examination

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party by presenting him

on the facts relevant to the issue.

On direct examination, leading and misleading(?) questions are allowed only in the ff.
cases:

o On preliminary matters

o When there is difficulty in getting direct and

o intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, of feeble-mind, a deaf-mute, an

unwilling or hostile witness, or a child of tender years.

o Or of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent

of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party.

To be verified: Even for misleading questions?

Cross-Examination; English Rule versus American rule

Upon termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party as to any 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.
Cross-examination is considered so important that the failure of an opportunity for
adequate cross-examination may cause the entire testimony of a witness to be struck.
(Dela Paz vs. IAC; People vs. Seneris)
o However, the direct testimony of a witness was allowed to stand to the extent that
he had been cross-examined thereon although the cross examination had not
been completed as to his entire testimony. (Seneris case)

English Rule: Cross-examination is wide open without restrictions. A witness may be cross-
examined not only upon matters testified to by him on his direct examination, but also on all
matters relevant to the issue. (we follow this)

American Rule: Cross-examination must be confined to the matters inquired about in the
direct examination.

Note: It is obvious from the provisions of Sec. 87 already mentioned that the rule obtaining in
this jurisdiction on the subject is more in accord with the English rule just stated. (Gonzales vs.
Bautista)

Re-Direct Examination
The principle object of re-examination is to prevent injustice to the witness and the party
who has called him by affording an opportunity to the witness to explain or amplify the
testimony which he has given on cross- examination and to explain any apparent
contradiction or inconsistency in his statement, an opportunity which is not ordinarily
afforded to him during his cross- examination.
The witness may be allowed to reaffirm or explain his statements, their meaning or import,
and to minimize or destroy discrediting tendencies.

Scope
The re-direct examination should ordinarily be confirmed to the matters as to which the
witness was cross- examined; it should not extend to collateral matters which have not
been touched upon in the cross- examination, unless allowed by the court in its discretion.
On re-direct examination, a witness may be given an opportunity to explain his testimony
or answers given on cross-examination.
Thus, when on cross-examination, the witness was asked about a certain conversation, on
re-direct, the witness may be examined as to the details of such conversation.
The party calling the witness has no right, without leave of court, to re-enter upon subjects
which have been inquired into in the direct examination.

Re-Cross Examination (Scope)

It is proper to allow re-cross examination on a matter which was opened upon on direct
examination, or which is designed to test the credibility of the witness or of testimony
elicited on re-direct examination.
 It is proper to EXCLUDE questions as to matters which were not opened up, or brought
out, on redirect examination, or as to matters already fully covered, or discussed at length
on cross-examination, or as to matters with respect to which the witness was examined on
direct examination and as to which he was cross- examined, or as to which there was an
opportunity to cross-examine him, where there is no claim of oversight and no reason
stated why the matter was not inquired into on the cross-examination proper.

Leading and Misleading Questions

A question is leading where it suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires.
A question is misleading where it assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness,
or contrary to that which has been previously stated.

Witness Credibility (Factors affecting Credibility)

A) Their behavior at the witness stand.
Manner, general bearing and demeanor and even the intonation of his voice often disclose
unconsciously the degree of credit to which is is entitled as a witness. (US vs. Decir;
People vs. Solana)
The testimony of a witness whose answer to questions propounded to him are to the point,
straight forward, plausible and consistent, has the earmarks of sincerity and may be given
full weight and credence. (People vs. Erit)
A witness demeanor in the witness box is often better evidence of his veracity than the
answers he gives. (People vs. Arnan)
Since the judge who heard the witness at the trial had the opportunity to observe the
gestures, features, demeanor, and manner of testifying of the said witnesses, the reviewing
court will not interfere with his judgment in the determination of their credibility. (Pico,
Maralit, Remigio, etc cases)

B) Delay in giving testimony

A long and unexplained silence of a complaining witness may well give rise as to his
motive for breaking that silence, and his credibility will be put in grave doubt and lead to
the suspicion that he is actuated by sinister and ulterior motives in his charges against a
person with the commission of a crime. (US vs. Cardona)
Thus, where the prosecution of an alleged crime committed in 1899 is not instituted until
1916, the testimony of witnesses for the defense should be given special consideration in
case of such a delay in instituting of proceedings. (US vs. Pagaduan)
However, the credibility of a witness for the prosecution cannot be impugned due to their
failure to promptly reveal their knowledge of the crime to the authorities where it was the
result of a conspiracy among members of a certain political faction to spread terror and
some of the witnesses had been shot at and others threatened. (People vs. Timbang;
Umali)
Moreover, fear of likely retaliation by the several accused who were still at large has been
considered as a justified reason for the witnesses delay in coming forward with their
testimony. (People vs. Gutierrez, etc)
 In sum, the delay of witnesses in informing other people of what they knew about a
criminal offense would not affect their credibility where the delay was satisfactorily
explained. (People vs. Lao Wan Sing)

C) Attitude of witnesses toward litigants

(When neutral)
In the absence of evidence to show of any reason or motive why witnesses should have
testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that there is no such improper motive and that
their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. (People vs. Borbano)
The testimony of a formidable array of disinherited witnesses produced by one party
cannot be ignored in the absence of credible evidence, such as a public document, the
authenticity of which is unquestioned or unquestionable, presented to overcome it.
(Erlanger vs. Exconde; People vs. Nadura)

(When friendly)
Where the witnesses are in one way or another bound to accused by ties of friendship or
family relation, it has been held that the trial court is in error in giving no credence to the
defendants alibi and their witnesses testimony. (People vs. Elizaga)
However, the solicitude shown by the offended party for his witnesses is not sufficient to
impugn the latters veracity, since it is natural and common for a party to a case to attend
to the needs and comforts of his witnesses, especially if these have no independent
means of defraying their own expenses or are lukewarm. (id)

(When hostile)
Where the only witnesses for the prosecution are enemies of the accused and their
testimony is not altogether reasonable and is in part contradictory, the accused is entitled
to acquittal, when he and his witnesses tell a fair and reasonable story demonstrating his
innocence. (US vs. Chien Suey)
The SC found that the testimony of prosecution witnesses charging the appellant with theft
of large cattle who had consulted a clairvoyant as to who took or stole the carabaos in
question, to be so tainted and prejudiced by the thief as to be incredible and not worthy of
belief. (People vs. Pabella)
But the fact that a witness is a secret agent and is anxious to find out who were connected
with the prohibited importation of opium, does not make him a biased witness. (US vs.
Grant and Kennedy)

D) Relationship of witness to litigants

(Relation to Offended Party)

Specifically, it has been held that a witness relationship to the victim does not, by itself,
impair his credibility. (People vs. Villalba, Berganio, etc)
 On the contrary, it would be unnatural for such persons interested in seeing retribution
exacted for the crime to impute the same to any person other that those responsible for the
crime. (People vs. Bagiscan, Reyes, Tagaro)
The fact that two witnesses for the prosecution in a crime of murder were suitors of the
victims daughter is not a sufficient motive for them to falsely impute on defendants the said
crime. (People vs Libed)
It has been held however, that the close relationship of prosecution witnesses with the
victim may taint their testimonies with bias and therefore this should not be accepted
without qualification. (People vs. Balancio)
Thus, full credence cannot be given to the testimony of a prosecution witness who is a first
cousin of the victim and was the only alleged eyewitness presented for that purpose,
considering that the crime was committed in a dance hall in the presence of many persons
and no other witness was presented to corroborate his testimony. (People vs. Calacala)
But where the relationship between the appellants and the deceased and his family was
cordial, as accepted by the former themselves, the testimony of the wife of the deceased
cannot be impeached, for there can be no reason why the widow should point out the
appellants as the authors of the death her husband unless she and her children actually
saw them do the criminal act. (People vs. Alido).
Surely, the testimony of the wife of the victim in favor of the accused is entitled to
credence. (People vs. Minuray)

(Relation to Accused)
The testimony of the mother of the defendant, showing her earnestness to get the acquittal
of the said defendant, has been rejected as springing from her relation to her own son.
(People vs. Valera)
In another case, the testimony of the son of the accused was likewise rejected on the
ground of his natural desire to shield his father. (US vs. Carlos)
The testimony of a wife and daughter of the accused were not believable; but in this case,
there were exceptionally disinterested witnesses who contradicted their story. (People vs.
Pamintuan)
Upon the other hand, relatives of the accused who testify against the latter have been
highly credited in their versions of the offense. In any case, it has been held that it is highly
unlikely that a prosecution witness who is married to the sister of the defendant would
testify falsely and impute to his brother-in-law the commission of a serious crime. (People
vs. Dayday)
And where the prosecution witness owes gratitude to the defendant for having, in effect,
adopted and treated said witness as his own son, said witness has no possible motive to
incriminate the defendant falsely in a crime of parricide, and therefore his testimony would
be given credence. (People vs. Damaso)

E) Testimony of interested persons

The testimony of interested witnesses, while rightly subjected to careful scrutiny, should not
be rejected on the ground of bias alone. If their testimony is reasonable and consistent,
 and is not contradicted by evidence from any reliable source, there is no reason, as a
general rule for not accepting it. (US vs. Mante)

F) Self-contradictions

(With reference to previous statements)

In one case, it was held that a witness recantation of his previous testimony is unreliable
where, in a previous testimony freely and voluntarily given, he averred that he knew the
accused very well because they grew up together, thereby precluding the possibility that he
was mistaken in identifying them in the first testimony. (People vs, Mamalayan)
A witness who changes his name and statement, like a chameleon who changes color,
does not inspire confidence, and when his testimony is likewise incompatible with his
conduct immediately after the crime in question, it has little probatory value. (People vs.
Go Lee)
However, a variation in the declarations of a witness is not always sufficient to discredit his
testimony in criminal procedure. The mere fact that a witness declares to a certain set of
facts and circumstances during a preliminary examination especially where it was not
conducted with that degree of impartiality which should characterize such proceedings,
and to another set of facts and circumstances upon trial of the cause does not necessarily
discredit his testimony nor destroy it, if such contradictions are satisfactorily explained to
the court.

(Self-Contradiction at trial)
Immaterial discrepancies or differences in the statements of witnesses do not affect their
credibility, unless there is something to show that they originate in willful falsehood. If there
are conflicts in the statements of witnesses, it is the duty of the court to reconcile them if it
can be done, for the law presumes every witness has sworn the truth. But if the conflicts
cannot be reconciled, the court must adopt the testimony it believes to be true. (US vs.
Lesada)
But when a witness makes two statements in one case, and these statements incur the
gravest contradictions, the court cannot accept either the first or the second statements as
proof. Such witness by his own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own testimony
and the court is compelled to exclude it from all considerations. (US vs. Pala)
The fact that a witness contradicts himself as to the circumstances may be due to a long
series of questions on cross-examination, and his mind becoming tired...especially when
the questions are leading and intended to make him contradict a former declaration.
(People vs. Limbo)
Aged and ignorant witnesses usually contradict themselves in a long series of tedious
questions on cross-examination, and their testimony must not be discredited for that
reason alone, especially if the principal point has been corroborated by other facts
contained in the record. (People vs. Limbo; Lacson)
Likewise, where a trial of a criminal case does not take place until three years after
commission of the offense, contradictions and errors in the testimony of witnesses for the
 prosecution in matters of details are to be expected and do not necessarily render their
testimony insufficient to convict. (People vs. Sigue)
Moreover, contradictions of witnesses, after a long series of questions, far from
demonstrating a falsehood, may constitute evidence of good faith. Not all persons who
witness an incident are impressed in the same manner, and are liable to disagree on minor
details. (People vs. Limbo; Sanchez)

(In relation to statements after trial)

It has been held that the mere fact, after a solemn trial in a court of justice has terminated,
one of the witnesses, out of court and in conversation with friends or under pressure from
interested parties, makes statements verifying or contradicting his testimony given at the
trial, does not necessarily destroy the probative value of his testimony when on the witness
stand. (US vs. Dacir)

G) Variance with testimony of other witnesses

Though discrepancies are noted in the statements of the witnesses as to the details of the
occurrence related by them, yet if they agree on the material points and there is not in the
record any data against their veracity, such discrepancies do not constitute sufficient
ground for impeaching the credibility of said witnesses.
Moreover, discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is less a reflection
on their credibility than an indication that they have not been rehearsed to tell the same
story.
As a matter of fact, where two witnesses coincide in their statements on every detail of an
occurrence in a crowded place and partly under circumstances of confusion, there is every
reason to observe caution in accepting the veracity of their narration.
But the fact that there is not in the record sufficient ground for holding that there was a
previous agreement between the witnesses for the defense upon the facts of the case
does not necessarily mean that the said witnesses are entitled to credit. (People vs.
Durante)

Impeachment of Adverse Partys Witness Evidence of Past Crimes or Misconduct

Impeachment is an attack on the credibility of a witness. It may be done either on cross-
examination or by independent evidence. It encompasses all evidence intended to cast
doubt upon a witnesss testimony, including evidence that calls into question the accuracy
of his observation, his recollection, or the truthfulness of his testimony.
A party can impeach the adverse partys witness by (a) contradictory evidence, (b)
evidence of prior inconsistent statement, (c) evidence of bad character, and (d) evidence of
bias, interest, prejudice, or incompetence.
A party can impeach his own witness only by (a) evidence contradictory to his testimony,
or (b) evidence of prior inconsistent statements.
However, in the case of hostile witnesses, adverse party witnesses or involuntary
witnesses, they can also be impeached by other modes of impeachment, aside from
contradictory statements and prior inconsistent statements made by them.
 A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts except
evidence of his final conviction of an offense as disclosed by his examination or the
record of the judgment.
Thus, the witness cannot be impeached by enumerating in court specific wrongful acts he
had committed.
Prior convictions: The theory here is that the credibility of the witness is affected by his
having been convicted of a crime. It does not matter if the crime is serious or a light or
minor offense. By express provision of the Rules, the proof should be by record of
the judgment of conviction. The Rules also oblige every witness to answer to the fact of
his previous final conviction for an offense.

Evidence of Subsequent Acts

Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence
presented by him in the same case, but not to the testimony of another witness.
Impeaching a witness by contradiction means showing that something he said is not so.
Impeachment by contradictory evidence is limited in the interest of fairness to prevent
excursions into collateral matters.
Generally, a matter is deemed to be collateral unless it could be shown in evidence for
some purpose other than impeachment by contradiction.
The evidence is obviously collateral where it does no more than seek to demonstrate the
inaccuracy of a seemingly incidental part of a witnesss testimony by producing another
witness intended to establish facts contradicting those to which the witness has testified.
As to veracity: Limited to reputation evidence and may not be made by evidence of
particular acts, and may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Witness Impeached by Prior Inconsistent Statements

Prior inconsistent statements refer to statements, oral or documentary, made by the
witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in which he is testifying.
There is a special rule which requires what is known as the laying of the predicate for
the introduction of prior inconsistent statements as a mode of impeachment. The rule is
stated in Rule 132, Sec. 13. This is effected:
o (1) By confronting him with such statements with the circumstances under which
they were made.
o (2) By asking him whether he made such statements.
o (3) By giving him a chance to explain the inconsistency.
The requirement for laying the predicate derives from the rule laid down in the Queen
Carolines Case that held that before the attacking party may offer extrinsic evidence of an
inconsistent statement the witness must have a chance to explain or deny it. The witness
attention must first be directed at the discrepancies and then given an opportunity to
explain them.
Prior inconsistent statements may be introduced on cross-examination or by extrinsic
evidence, but the introduction of the former by extrinsic evidence is subject to the rule of
collateralness.
 Careful note however should be taken of
statements by a witness is admissible only
substantive evidence of the facts recited in
hearsay for that purpose.
The theory behind this kind of impeachment
to both statements is put in doubt.
the fact that evidence of prior inconsistent
for the purpose of impeachment and not as
the prior statements because they would be
evidence is that the credibility of a witness as

Evidence of Good Character (supra)

Evidence to impeach or rehabilitate the credibility of a witness is admissible.
Where evidence of the witness honesty or dishonesty is admitted for impeachment or
rehabilitation, the purpose is to prove that the witness is acting in conformity with that
character at the time of giving testimony (by testifying truthfully or falsely).
But the option to introduce evidence of the good character of a witness is available only
where such character has been impeached.

Referral to Memorandum Revival of Present Memory, Revival of Past Recollection

In American Jurisprudence, the first sentence of Sec. 16 is known as the rule on revival of
present memory, and the second sentence is known as revival of past recollection.
The first rule applies if the witness remembers the facts regarding his entries and is
entitled to greater weight; the second rule applies where the witness does not recall the
facts involved, and is entitled to lesser weight.
A witness may refer to a memorandum while testifying, and examining counsel may
introduce in the course of his examination part of a writing or record in evidence.
The resort to this memorandum is subject to specific rules. (Rule 132, Sec 16-18)

Public Documents
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
o The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country.
o Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments.
o Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
Public documents generally include notarial documents and are admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof as to its authenticity and due execution. (Antillon
vs. Barcelon), except where a special rule of law requires proof thereof despite its being a
document acknowledged in accordance with said Sec. 30 (as in the case of the probate of
notarial wills where the testimony of the attesting witnesses are still required for its probate.
(Rule 76, Rule 30)
Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an
affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a
notarial jurat. (Cequena vs. Bolante, 2000)
Private Documents
All other writings which do not constitute public documents are private.
Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be proved either:
o By anyone who saw the document executed or written or
o By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Note: Any other private document need only be identified as that which is claimed
to be.
Authentication of a document is NOT REQUIRED when:
o The writing is an ancient document under Sec. 21.
o The writing is a public document or record under Sec. 19.
o It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved, or certified in accordance with
Sec.30.
o The authenticity and due execution of the document has been expressly or
impliedly admitted by a failure to deny the same under oath. (as in the case of
actionable documents under Sec. 8, Rule 8.)
Of course there is no need for authentication where the execution of a document is not in
issue, but only the contents or the fact of the existence of a document of such a tenor is in
issue. Neither is there a need for authentication when the execution of the document is
admitted by the party, either judicially or extrajudicially. (Wigmore)
Such comparative analysis of signature/handwriting may be made by an expert, and the
latters testimony was used as the basis for the finding that the deed of sale was a forgery.
(Lopez vs. CA)

Reply Letter Rule

- A common form of authentication by circumstantial evidence.
- Wigmore gives three (3) circumstances covered by the Reply Letter Rule:
o The tenor of the letter as a reply to the first indicates a knowledge of the tenor of
the first.
o The habitual accuracy of the mails, in delivering a letter to the person addressed
and to no other person, indicates that no other person was likely to have received
the first letter and to have known its contents.
o The time of the arrival, in due course, lessens the possibility that the letter, having
been received by the right person but left unanswered, came subsequently into a
different persons hand and was answered by him. To this may be added the
empirical argument that in usual experience the answer to a letter is found in fact
to come from the person originally addressed.

Ancient Private Document

Our ROC expressly recognize at least one type of self- authenticating document, and that
is what is known as ancient documents.
Rationale: The Rule creates a presumption that a document under the conditions set forth
above is self- authenticating; otherwise, the antiquity of the document itself would, by
 definition, create great difficulty or impossibility of actual authentication. (Louden vs. Apollo
Gas Co.)
Examples: Baptismal records kept by parish churches (But any document, even letters,
certificates and whatever other writings may qualify as ancient documents.)

Proving Genuineness of Handwriting (Sec. 22)

The authenticity and due execution of a private document are proved, inter alia, by
evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker.
Such handwriting, in turn, is proved by:
o A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument.
o A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon,
such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule.
o A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted genuine
specimens thereof.
o Expert evidence.
Sec. 22 of the ROC merely enumerates the methods of proving handwriting but does not
give preference or priority to a particular method. (Lopez vs. CA)

Proof of Official Record

Sec. 24 lays down the requirements for the admissibility in evidence of a foreign public
document.
Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records and the
certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the foreign
document is not admissible as evidence to prove the foreign law. (Wildvalley Shipping Co.
vs. CA)

Irremovability of Public Record

A public record cannot be removed from the office in which it is kept without a court order.
(such as a subpoena duces tecum), and even the court cannot order its removal therefrom,
except when essential to the just determination of a pending case.
This rule, however, refers only to a public record an official copy of which could be made
available to the interested party and is admissible in evidence.

Alterations in Document (Sec. 31)

Documentary Evidence in Unofficial Language (Sec. 33)

Offer of Evidence, when

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified.
A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and their
judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial.
 To allow the parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to
consider it as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted
consequences.
Opposing parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to
its admissibility.
On the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not
previously scrutinized by the court below. (Ala-Martin vs. Sultan)
Generally, the mere marking of a document as an exhibit during the trial is not equivalent
to its being formally offered because the party may opt not to formally offer the exhibit
which he had marked during the trial.
However, the requirement of a formal offer has now been relaxed by our SC, as reiterated
in Vda. De Onate vs. CA.

Objections
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall
be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of offer
unless a period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for objection must be
specified.

Continuing Objection
Sec. 37 provides that the repetition of objections to the same class of evidence is not
required. The party may just enter a general and continuing objection to the same class of
evidence and the ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence of the same
class.
The court itself may motu propio treat the objection as a continuing one. (Ed.A.Keller & Co.
vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.) -> Trivia: Hindi to AmJur haha.
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that
the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has
been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary
to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions.

(Objections, continued)
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the questions presented but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.

Striking Out Answer

 Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the
court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
The remedy by way of a motion to strike out objectionable testimony may also be availed of
by the aggrieved party where the answer of a witness is not responsive to an
unobjectionable question or where a witness has volunteered statements in such a way
that the party has not been able to object thereto. (Jones)
There is another occasion for a motion to strike, where the judge admits evidence
conditionally and later on it becomes clear that the condition failed. Effectively, a motion to
strike is a delayed objection. (Mueller & Kirkpatrick)

General vs. Specific Objection

The objecting party must specify the grounds for his objection.
But the objecting party may phrase his objection generally. If the trial judge excludes
evidence under such a general objection, even on a mistaken theory, the ruling is usually
upheld if the evidence was excludible for any reason at all. (Mueller)
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence
may be admissible for several purposes under the Doctrine of Multiple Admissibility, or
may be admissible for one purpose and not for another, otherwise the adverse party
cannot interpose the proper objection.
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other purpose. (People
vs. Diano)

Waiver of Objection

Tender of Excluded Evidence (Sec. 40)

Where evidence has been excluded upon objection, the
proponent is not remediless. He can make what our ROC denominate as a tender of
excluded evidence, but which is otherwise better known under the rubric offer of proof.
This device has a very practical merit: It will enable the appellate court to appreciate the
trial courts questioned ruling excluding the evidence as it will then have before it what this
evidence is.
Secondly, a remand to the trial court could very well be obviated where the trial courts
exclusion ruling is reversed as all that has to be done is to consider the excluded evidence
as having been admitted.
An offer of proof is inappropriate on cross-examination because the cross-examiner is not
expected to know how and what the witness will answer.
However, the court can require an offer of proof during direct examination of adverse
witnesses.

Newly-Discovered Evidence (Rule 121, Sec 2[b] and 6[b]

Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following
grounds:
That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
have been committed during the trial;
That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

Sec. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. The effects of granting a new trial or
reconsideration are the following:
When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed
during the trial, all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside
and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of
additional evidence.
When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly- discovered evidence, the evidence
already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other evidence as the
court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and
considered together with the evidence already in the record.
In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment
shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.

An erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the trial court is not a ground for a new trial
or reversal of the decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have
changed the decision. (People vs. Bande)

Otherwise, a new trial is warranted by reason of such erroneous ruling which goes into the
merits of the case and would have affected the decision. (US vs. Villanueva)

If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and discovered such error before the
judgment had become final or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected, it may re-open
the case. (Tinsay vs. Yusay)

Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33, Sec 1, and Rule 119, Sec 23)

Sec. 1. Demurrer to evidence.

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief.

If his motion is DENIED, he shall have the right to present evidence.

If the motion is GRANTED but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed
to have waived the right to present evidence.
Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss
the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce
evidence in his defense.

When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution.

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds
and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its
case. The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer
itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.

Process; Perpetuation of Testimony; Discovery; Examinations

Suerte-Felipe v. People

Siguan v. Lim

Antillon v. Barcelon
- A public document duly acknowledged before a notary public, under his hand and seal with
his certificate thereto attached, is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due
execution and delivery until some question is raised as to the verity of said
acknowledgment and certificate. One of the very purposes of requiring documents to be
acknowledged before a notary public is to authorize such documents to be given in
evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery.

Lopez v. CA

Security Bank v. Triumph Lumber

- The proper procedure in the investigation of a disputed handwriting was not observed. The
initial step in such investigation is the introduction of the genuine handwriting of the party
sought to be charged with the disputed writing, which is to serve as a standard of
comparison. The standard or the exemplar must therefore be proved to be genuine.

Anstine v. McWilliams
- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY; LETTERS
RECEIVED IN REPLY
- In an action for conversion of an automobile, defended on the ground that the plaintiff had
removed the car from the state without the permission of the defendant, contrary to the
provisions of the mortgage held by the defendant on the car, the court properly admitted in
evidence a letter impliedly granting permission to the plaintiff to take the car out of the
state, signed by one other than the defendant but written on a letterhead on which his
name appeared and replying to a letter from the plaintiff to the defendant asking such
permission; no preliminary proof of the authority of the signer being necessary under the
circumstances.

Malayan v. Phil. Nail and Wires

Heirs of Lacsa v. CA
- Moreover, the last requirement of the ancient document rule that a document must be
unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion refers to the extrinsic quality
of the document itself. The lack of signatures on the first pages, therefore, absent any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion cannot be held to detract from the fact that the
documents in question, which were certified as copied of the originals on file with the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga, are genuine and free from any blemish or circumstances
of suspicion. The documents in question are ancient documents as envisioned in Sec. 22
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Further proof of their due execution and authenticity is
no longer required.
Sanson v. CA

Mariano v. Roxas

Lazaro v. Agustin
- An affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a
notarial jurat. The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only
so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.
- While indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is
notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. As earlier discussed, the
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. The presumption cannot be made to apply to the present case because the
regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings below
where its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances
under which it was supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of witnesses who
testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the
physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned document was supposedly
executed.

Patula v. People

Pan Pacific v. CA
- Notarial documents celebrated with all the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial
certificate is evidence of a high character and to overcome its recitals, it is incumbent upon
the party challenging it to prove his claim with clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant evidence.
- A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and it has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be
rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the
falsity of the certificate. Absent such, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof
to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies on the one
contesting the same. Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.
- He who disavows the authenticity of his signature on a public document bears the
responsibility to present evidence to that effect. Mere disclaimer is not sufficient. At the
very least, he should present corroborating witnesses to prove his assertion. At best, he
should present an expert witness.
- The courts below may have forgotten that on Capistrano lies the burden to prove with clear
and convincing evidence that the notarized documents are spurious. Nothing in law or
jurisprudence reposes on Cruz the obligation to prove that the documents are genuine and
duly executed. Hence it is not incumbent upon Cruz to call the notary public or an expert
witness. In contrast, Capistrano should have called the expert witness, the notary public
himself or the witnesses to the document to prove his contention that he never signed the
 deed of sale, that its subscribing witnesses never saw him sign the same, and that he
never appeared before the notary public before whom the acknowledgment was made.

Delfin v. Billones
- A duly-registered death certificate is considered a public document and the entries found
therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce
positive evidence establishing otherwise. Nevertheless, this presumption is disputable and
is satisfactory only if uncontradicted, and may be overcome by other evidence to the
contrary.
- The documents presented by respondents were mere certifications and not the certified
copies or duly authenticated reproductions of the purported death certificates of Esperanza
Daradar and Cipriano Degala. They are not the public documents referred to by the Rules
of Court, nor even records of public documents; thus, they do not enjoy the presumption
granted by the Rules.

Cruz v. Cristobal
- Article 172 of the Family Code provides: Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following:
o The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
o An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
- In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
o The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
o Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
- Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws may consist of the
childs baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family bible in which the childs name
has been entered, common reputation respecting the childs pedigree, admission by
silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130
of the Rules of Court.
- In the present case,
o the baptismal certificates of Elisa, Anselmo, and the late Socorro were presented.
Baptismal certificate is one of the acceptable documentary evidence to prove filiation
in accordance with the Rules of Court and jurisprudence.
o In the case of Mercedes, who was 18 born on 31 January 1909, she produced a
certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro
Manila, attesting to the fact that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, 1932 to
1939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear.
o Petitioners likewise presented Ester Santos as witness who testified that petitioners
enjoyed that common reputation in the community where they reside as being the
children of Buenaventura Cristobal with his first wife.
o Testimonies of witnesses were also presented to prove filiation by 19 continuous
possession of the status as a legitimate child.

People v. Yap
- In actual practice, there is a difference between presentation or introduction of evidence
and offer of such evidence at the trial of a case. The presentation of evidence consists of
putting in as evidence the testimony of the witnesses or the documents relevant to the
issue. An offer of evidence, on the other hand, means the statement made by counsel as
to what he expects to prove through the witness. This is what trial lawyers understand by
the offer of evidence. Thus, offer of evidence, as used in Section 34 of Rule 132 must be
understood to include the presentation or introduction of evidence. What is essential in
order that an offer of testimony may be valid, therefore, is that the witness be called and
asked appropriate questions.

Bloodgood v. Lynch
- Summary: Evidence Admissibility of defendants statement obtained in hospital by State
trooper
o Error to refuse admission to statement upon objection on ground incompetent and
in violation of section 270-b of Penal Law making it crime to take statements in
hospitals
o Section 270-b does not apply to State trooper
o Statement admissible even if illegally obtained
o Since objections specific, exclusion not sustainable on unstated ground of
inadmissibility as against other defendant
o For use on new trial, rules stated for determining whether photograph privileged so
as to deprive court of power to require its production for opposing party

Faden v. Estate of Midcap

Atlas Consolidated v. CIR

- Forgotten evidence, not presented during the trial nor formally offered, is not newly found
evidence that merits a new trial.

Dizon v. CA

Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa

- Evidence formally offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court.

o What can party do?
if object or documentary evidence excluded, party may move that it be
attached to form part record of the case.
if oral, he may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witnesses and the substance of the proposed
testimony.
o These procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence for
purposes of APPEAL. If judgment is rendered against offeror, he may state that
there was error in the rejection of the excluded evidence. The appellate court will
 better understand and appreciate the assignment of error if evidence involved is
included in the record of the case.

- Ruling on an objection must be given after an objection is made. Objections based on

irrelevancy and immateriality need no specification or explanation.

People v. Godoy

Luzon Hydro v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- GR: The concept of newly discovered evidence is applicable to litigations in which a litigant
seeks a new trial or the re-opening of the case in the trial court. However, seldom is the
concept appropriate when the litigation is already on appeal.
- In order that newly discovered evidence may be a ground for allowing a new trial, it must
be fairly shown that: (a) the evidence is discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence; (c) such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching; and (d) such evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the
judgment if admitted.

Design Resources International v. Eristingcol