EVIDENCE PRONOVE LECTURE OBJECTIONS Rule 132 Secs. 35, 36, 37 & 38 Your Honor, I object
%o %o the same class o# evidence al!ead" obje object cted ed to, to, !eeti eetiti tion on o# the the same same objection is not necessa!".
When to Object Evidenc Evidence e not objected objected to is deemed deemed admitted and becomes the “!oe!t" o# the case.$ case.$ %o be eclu ecluded, ded, timel" timel" object objection ion to its its int!o int!oduct duction ion must must be made 'hen the (!ound #o! its obje object ctio ion n becom become e )no'n )no'n o! shou should ld have been )no'n.
Co!"t&s R!lin' t is the the dut" dut" o# the the cou! cou!tt to !ule !ule immedi immediate atel" l" on the object objection ion.. ut i# the cou!t desi!es to stud" the matte! #u!t #u!the he!, !, it must must !ul !ule at suc such time ime du!i du!in( n( the the t!ial !ial so as to (iv (ive the the a!t a!tie ies s an oo oo!t !tuni unit" t" to me meet et the the situation c!eated b" the !ulin(
Testimonial Evience *bjection to the testimon" o# a 'itn 'itness ess should should be ma made de as soon soon as the +uestion is as)ed and be#o!e the ans' ans'e! e! is (ive (iven. n. # the the 'itn 'itness ess has has be(un to ans'e! an im!oe! +ues uestion, he shoul hould d be sto toe ed immediatel" and the objection made. %his is so because testimonial evidenc evidence e is conside conside!e !ed d o-e o-e!e !ed d !i(ht !i(ht a#te! bein( (iven.
Wei'ht O( Evience #te! evidence is admitted, the cou!t shal shalll dete dete!!mine mine its 'e 'eii(ht (ht 'hil 'hile e !e !ea! a!in in( ( the the deci decisi sion on.. dmit dmitte ted d evid eviden ence ce does does not not me mean an that that it is si(ni0 si(ni0can cantt o! believ believabl able. e. t does does not mea me an that that it is enti entittled led to 'e 'eii(ht (ht automaticall".
# the +uestion is !o !oe! e! but the ans'e! is objectionable, e.(., #o! bein( hea!sa", the !emed" is to st!i)e the ans' ns'e! o- the !eco!d. %he same !em emed ed" " is avai availa labl ble e i# the the 'itn 'itnes ess s ans'e ns'e!s !s immed mmediiatel atel" ", de! de!iv ivin in( ( oosin( counsel o# sucient oo!tunit" to object. Doc!menta"# Evience /ocuments, on the othe! hand, should be obje object cted ed to at the the time time the" the" a!e a!e bei bein( o-e -e!!ed, ed, not not 'hen 'hen the" he" a!e a!e me!el" bein( identi0ed b" a 'itness o! ma!)ed as ehibits b" couns unsel. /ocu /o cume ment nts s have have to be iden identi ti0e 0ed d so that thei! authenticit" can be established. %he o-e! o# documenta!" evidence is made a#te! the 'itnesses have testi0ed and just be#o!e a a!t" !ests his his case case.. nd nd the the oo-e! e! is ma made de b" disc disclo losi sin( n( the the u! u!os ose e #o! #o! 'hic 'hich h a document is bein( !esented. $"o!ns %o" Objection %he (!ound #o! objection, 'hethe! #o! testimonial o! documenta!" evidence, must be sec eci0ed al'a"s. "s. *nce nce stat stated ed,, the the objec bjecttion ion is (oo (ood and and e-ective onl" #o! that (!ound.
INCO)PETENT* INCO)PETENT* IRRELEV+NT I RRELEV+NT +ND I))+TERI+L Rule 128 Secs. 3 & “Objection, Your Honor Ho nor,, it is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue.” lthou(h the!e is a distinction bet'een !elevanc" and mate!ialit", on the one hand, and incometenc", on the othe!, othe!, these these th!ee th!ee (!ound (!ounds s have have been been lum lumed ed to(e to(ethe the!! to beco become me a common common #o!m o# objection. objection. %he" have been invo)ed #!e+uentl" 'hen counsel cannot thin) o# the a!o!iate (!ound #o! objectin(. ut these (!ounds should not be used indis indisc! c!im imin inat atel el" " #o! #o! the" the" lose lose thei thei!! e-ectiveness in ecludin( objectionable evidence. I""elevant Evience !!elevant o! immate!ial evidence a!e those 'hich do not shed li(ht on, have no lo(ic lo(ical al conn connec ecti tion on to, to, o! a!e a!e too too !emote in time and substance to the matte! in issue. 4ot o# much hel to the case, the" a!e ecluded because the" tend to mislead, con#use, un#ai!l" su!!ise a a!t" o! 'aste the time o# the cou!t. Collate"al )atte"s s a !ule, !ule, collat collate!a e!all matte!s matte!s a!e not admitted #o! the" do not !ove di!ectl"
the #act in issue. %he" stand !emote #!om the oint bein( disuted. o'ev o'eve!, e!, the" the" beco become me admi admiss ssib ible le 'hen the eistence eistence o! noneiste noneistence nce o# the #act in disute ma" be imlied o! deduced #!om them, as in the case o# ci!cumstantial evidence. ut note that i# the in#e!ence d!a'n #!om collate!al matte!s is seculative o! conjec conjectu!a tu!all in natu!e natu!e,, the o-e o-e!e !ed d evidenc evidence e is i!!ele i!!elevan vant. t. o! o! eam eamle, le, the !esence !esence o# blood blood stain stain inside inside a ca!, ca!, 'ith 'ithou outt !oo !oo## that that it is human human blood o! that it belon(s to the victim, cannot be admitted, even as a!t o# the mosaic o# ci!cumstantial evidence, because because the in#e!ences in#e!ences that the blood stai stain n is huma human n and and belo belon( n(s s to the the vict victim im a!e a!e hi(h hi(hl" l" sec secul ulat ativ ive e and and conjectu!al. Dete"mination o( Relevanc# Sinc Since e +ues +uesttions ions o# !elev elevan anc" c" a!e a!e add!ess add!essed ed to !easo !eason, n, lo(ic, lo(ic, commo common n sens sense e and and ee ee!i !ien ence ce,, the! the!e e a!e a!e no ha!d ha!d and #ast #ast !ules !ules (ove!n (ove!nin( in( them. them. %hei! dete!mination is usuall" le#t to the sound disc!etion o# the cou!t. s a !ule, thou(h, i# the evidence has a “ten “tende denc nc" " in !ea easo son n$ to !ov !ove e a disuted #act in issue, it is conside!ed !ele !eleva vant nt.. (ood (ood +ues +uesti tion on to as) as) is is 9ould ould a !ea easo sona nabl ble e mind mind d!a' d!a' an in#e in#e!e !enc nce e #!om #!om the the evid eviden ence ce bein( bein( o-e!ed that the disuted #act eists o! does not eist: n c!os c!oss s eam eamin inat atio ion, n, mo mo!e !e than than in di!ect eamination, a 'ide! latitude is some somettimes imes allo allo'e 'ed d to counse unsell in as)in( +uestions desi(ned to test the c!edibilit" o# 'itnesses. ut this should not be done at the eense o# !elevanc". When Inamissible lthou(h u(h a ie iece o# evidence nce is !elevant, it ma" still be inadmissible i# its its !es !esen enta tati tion on is #o!b #o!bid idde den n b" the the !ules o! b" la'. The introduction of such evidence may not be allowed by: ;a< !ovi ovision o# la' = e.(., ban) an) accounts unde! Re. ct 4o. 1>5 ;1?55<@ ;b< !ule o# evidence = e.(., hea!sa" !ule@ ;c< Settled ju!is !is!ud !udence = e.(. in !evie evie'i 'in( n( an admi admini nist st!a !ati tive ve case case b" ce!tio!a!i, evidence not !esented du!in( the the adm adminis inist! t!at atiive inve invest sti( i(at atiion is inadmissi inadmissible ble in the ce!tio!a!i ce!tio!a!i !oceedi !oceedin( n( ;Aov ;Aoviina v. Bo!en o!eno, o, C.R C.R. 4o. 4o. 17821 7821,,
4ove 4ovemb mbe! e! 2?, 2?, 1?63 1?63,, 62 *.C. .C. 7D* 7D*ct ct., ., 1?6 1?6DD 118 118 hil hil.. 1>1 1>1,, ? S.F. S.F.R R.. .. 557 557 D 1?63D<. Evidence ille(all" seiGed is not admissible ;Stonehill v. /io)no, C.R. 1?55>, Hune 1?, 1?67, 2> S.F.R.. 383 D1?67D<. Et!ajudi Et!ajudicial cial con#essio con#ession n obtained obtained 'ithout 'ithout the assistance o# a la'"e! is inadmissible ;eo ;eol le e v. Roble obles, s, C.R C.R. 4os. 4os. 3?52 3?523 3 & 3?52, Ba" 15, 1?81, 1> S.F.R. 5> D 1?81D<.
Incom,etent Evience %he te!m “incometent evidence$ has meant mea nt eviden evidence ce 'hose 'hose admiss admission ion is !ohibited b" the !ules o! b" la'. ut no', no', it is the 'itne itness ss and and not not the the evidence that is !oe!l" !oe!l" !e#e!!ed to as bein( incometent. OPINION OR CONCLUSION O% + WITNESS Rule 13> Secs. 3>, 2 & “Objection, Your Honor, Honor, on the round that the !uestion calls for the o"inion or conclusion of the witness.” +ct!al -no.le'e Neee *u! *u! s"st s"stem em o# !oo !oo## dema demand nds s the the most !eliable sou!ce o# in#o!mation. t !e+ui !e+ui!e !es s actu actual al )no' )no'le led(e d(e o# #act #acts s de!i de!ive ved d #!om #!om 0!st 0!st hand hand o! e!so e!sona nall obse!vation. enc ence, e, an o!din o!dina! a!" " 'itn 'itnes ess s canno cannott testi#" on #acts he has not e!ceived o! )no' )no'n n th! th!ou(h ou(h his his sens senses es,, that that is, is, those 'hich he himsel# has not seen, hea!d, smelled o! touched. Inte","etation P"ohibite eca e cause use it is the the cou!t cou!t and not not the the 'itness 'ho 'ill jud(e and decide the case case,, the the o!di o!dina na!" !" 'itn 'itnes ess, s, 'ho o# cou!se, is not an ee!t, is not allo'ed to int inte!! e!!et et the the #ac #acts. ts. e cann cannot ot att!i tt!ibu butte mea eani nin( n( to #acts acts,, #o! #o!m oin oinio ions ns o! d!a' d!a' conc conclu lusi sion ons s #!om #!om them. ns'e!s o# a 'itness 'hich a!e me!e (uesses, seculations, conjectu!es o! suositions on his a!t a!e banned and ecluded. # a 'itness is not allo'ed to inte!!et #acts, he is 'ith mo!e !eason !ohibited !ohibited #!om inte!!et inte!!etin( in( the la' la'.. is testimon" in this !e(a!d 'ill be in the natu!e o# a le(al conclusion 'hich onl" a cou!t can ma)e.
the #act in issue. %he" stand !emote #!om the oint bein( disuted. o'ev o'eve!, e!, the" the" beco become me admi admiss ssib ible le 'hen the eistence eistence o! noneiste noneistence nce o# the #act in disute ma" be imlied o! deduced #!om them, as in the case o# ci!cumstantial evidence. ut note that i# the in#e!ence d!a'n #!om collate!al matte!s is seculative o! conjec conjectu!a tu!all in natu!e natu!e,, the o-e o-e!e !ed d evidenc evidence e is i!!ele i!!elevan vant. t. o! o! eam eamle, le, the !esence !esence o# blood blood stain stain inside inside a ca!, ca!, 'ith 'ithou outt !oo !oo## that that it is human human blood o! that it belon(s to the victim, cannot be admitted, even as a!t o# the mosaic o# ci!cumstantial evidence, because because the in#e!ences in#e!ences that the blood stai stain n is huma human n and and belo belon( n(s s to the the vict victim im a!e a!e hi(h hi(hl" l" sec secul ulat ativ ive e and and conjectu!al. Dete"mination o( Relevanc# Sinc Since e +ues +uesttions ions o# !elev elevan anc" c" a!e a!e add!ess add!essed ed to !easo !eason, n, lo(ic, lo(ic, commo common n sens sense e and and ee ee!i !ien ence ce,, the! the!e e a!e a!e no ha!d ha!d and #ast #ast !ules !ules (ove!n (ove!nin( in( them. them. %hei! dete!mination is usuall" le#t to the sound disc!etion o# the cou!t. s a !ule, thou(h, i# the evidence has a “ten “tende denc nc" " in !ea easo son n$ to !ov !ove e a disuted #act in issue, it is conside!ed !ele !eleva vant nt.. (ood (ood +ues +uesti tion on to as) as) is is 9ould ould a !ea easo sona nabl ble e mind mind d!a' d!a' an in#e in#e!e !enc nce e #!om #!om the the evid eviden ence ce bein( bein( o-e!ed that the disuted #act eists o! does not eist: n c!os c!oss s eam eamin inat atio ion, n, mo mo!e !e than than in di!ect eamination, a 'ide! latitude is some somettimes imes allo allo'e 'ed d to counse unsell in as)in( +uestions desi(ned to test the c!edibilit" o# 'itnesses. ut this should not be done at the eense o# !elevanc". When Inamissible lthou(h u(h a ie iece o# evidence nce is !elevant, it ma" still be inadmissible i# its its !es !esen enta tati tion on is #o!b #o!bid idde den n b" the the !ules o! b" la'. The introduction of such evidence may not be allowed by: ;a< !ovi ovision o# la' = e.(., ban) an) accounts unde! Re. ct 4o. 1>5 ;1?55<@ ;b< !ule o# evidence = e.(., hea!sa" !ule@ ;c< Settled ju!is !is!ud !udence = e.(. in !evie evie'i 'in( n( an admi admini nist st!a !ati tive ve case case b" ce!tio!a!i, evidence not !esented du!in( the the adm adminis inist! t!at atiive inve invest sti( i(at atiion is inadmissi inadmissible ble in the ce!tio!a!i ce!tio!a!i !oceedi !oceedin( n( ;Aov ;Aoviina v. Bo!en o!eno, o, C.R C.R. 4o. 4o. 17821 7821,,
4ove 4ovemb mbe! e! 2?, 2?, 1?63 1?63,, 62 *.C. .C. 7D* 7D*ct ct., ., 1?6 1?6DD 118 118 hil hil.. 1>1 1>1,, ? S.F. S.F.R R.. .. 557 557 D 1?63D<. Evidence ille(all" seiGed is not admissible ;Stonehill v. /io)no, C.R. 1?55>, Hune 1?, 1?67, 2> S.F.R.. 383 D1?67D<. Et!ajudi Et!ajudicial cial con#essio con#ession n obtained obtained 'ithout 'ithout the assistance o# a la'"e! is inadmissible ;eo ;eol le e v. Roble obles, s, C.R C.R. 4os. 4os. 3?52 3?523 3 & 3?52, Ba" 15, 1?81, 1> S.F.R. 5> D 1?81D<.
Incom,etent Evience %he te!m “incometent evidence$ has meant mea nt eviden evidence ce 'hose 'hose admiss admission ion is !ohibited b" the !ules o! b" la'. ut no', no', it is the 'itne itness ss and and not not the the evidence that is !oe!l" !oe!l" !e#e!!ed to as bein( incometent. OPINION OR CONCLUSION O% + WITNESS Rule 13> Secs. 3>, 2 & “Objection, Your Honor, Honor, on the round that the !uestion calls for the o"inion or conclusion of the witness.” +ct!al -no.le'e Neee *u! *u! s"st s"stem em o# !oo !oo## dema demand nds s the the most !eliable sou!ce o# in#o!mation. t !e+ui !e+ui!e !es s actu actual al )no' )no'le led(e d(e o# #act #acts s de!i de!ive ved d #!om #!om 0!st 0!st hand hand o! e!so e!sona nall obse!vation. enc ence, e, an o!din o!dina! a!" " 'itn 'itnes ess s canno cannott testi#" on #acts he has not e!ceived o! )no' )no'n n th! th!ou(h ou(h his his sens senses es,, that that is, is, those 'hich he himsel# has not seen, hea!d, smelled o! touched. Inte","etation P"ohibite eca e cause use it is the the cou!t cou!t and not not the the 'itness 'ho 'ill jud(e and decide the case case,, the the o!di o!dina na!" !" 'itn 'itnes ess, s, 'ho o# cou!se, is not an ee!t, is not allo'ed to int inte!! e!!et et the the #ac #acts. ts. e cann cannot ot att!i tt!ibu butte mea eani nin( n( to #acts acts,, #o! #o!m oin oinio ions ns o! d!a' d!a' conc conclu lusi sion ons s #!om #!om them. ns'e!s o# a 'itness 'hich a!e me!e (uesses, seculations, conjectu!es o! suositions on his a!t a!e banned and ecluded. # a 'itness is not allo'ed to inte!!et #acts, he is 'ith mo!e !eason !ohibited !ohibited #!om inte!!et inte!!etin( in( the la' la'.. is testimon" in this !e(a!d 'ill be in the natu!e o# a le(al conclusion 'hich onl" a cou!t can ma)e.
O,inion +llo.e On Ce"tain )atte"s o'eve o'eve!, !, the!e the!e a!e a!e ce!tai ce!tain n matte! matte!s s !e(a! !e(a!din din( ( 'hich 'hich an o!dina o!dina!" !" 'itness 'itness ma" be e!mitted to e!e !ess an oinion in o!de! to eedite the ta)in( o# testimon". %hus hus, an o!dina dina!!" 'itness ma" testi#" on ;a< h"sical dimension o! measu! mea su!eme ement nt = siGe, siGe, 'ei 'ei(ht, (ht, shae, shae, hei(ht@ ;b< Folo! = da!), li(ht, shade@ ;c< h" h"sica sicall o!ien !ienta tattion ion = see seed, d, motion, time, di!ection, visibilit"@ ;d< ;d< e!so e!sona nali lit" t" = em emot otio ion, n, an(e an(e!, !, hainess, and sadness@ ;e< /emean /emeano! o! o! e!son e!sonal al !eact !eaction ion = calm, uset, sca!ed, #!ust!ated@ ;#< dentit" o# e!sonal bac)(!ound = a(e, se, nationalit", lan(ua(e@ ;(< ntoication = d!un), sobe!@ ;h< ;h< Bent Bental al cond condit itio ion n = (ood (ood heal health, th, bad health@ and ;i< Cenuineness o# hand'!itin(. 9itn 9itnes esse ses s some someti time mes s !e# !e#ac ace e thei thei!! testim testimoni onies es 'ith 'ith e! e!essi essions ons li)e li)e “ believe$ o! “ thin) so.$ Such oenin( h!ases should be conside!ed mo!e as indicative o# oo! memo!" o! inattentiv inattentive e obse!vation. obse!vation. %he" can be (!ounds #o! objection onl" i# the" a!e #ound to mean that the 'itness sea)s #!om conjectu!e o! #!om hea!sa".
E/PERT OPINION Rule 13> Sections 3 & 5 “Objection, Your Honor, Honor, because the !uestion calls for an o"inion of the witness who has not been !uali#ed to testify as an e$"ert.” Batte!s that a!e not 'ithin the common )no'led(e o! unde!standin( o# an ave! ave!a( a(e e e!s e!son on a!e a!e the the onl" onl" ones that !e+ui!e ee!t oinion. # the #act #acts s to be !ov !oved ed do not not !e+ui e+ui!!e ee!t )no'led(e, the!e is no !eason #o! callin( an ee!t. 0!ali1cations o( an E2,e"t 'itn 'itnes ess s is cons consid ide! e!ed ed an ee ee!t !t because o# his secial s)ill, )no'led(e o! ee!ience in some 0eld o# science, a!t, !t, t!a t!ade, de, !o !o#ess #essiion o! calli allin( n(.. ecause use he is suo uos sed to d!a' !a' conclu conclusio sions ns #!om #!om #acts, #acts, his s)ill s)ill and )no'led(e must be such as to enli(hten the cou!t on matte!s it does not o!dina!il" unde!stand. ndeed, an
ee!t is called mo!e #o! his oinion on a (iven set o# #acts than his !ecollection o# events. e#o! e#o!e e an ee! e!tt can can e! !ess ess his his oinion, his +uali0cation must 0!st be esta establ blis ishe hed. d. is is educ educat atio ion, n, sec secia iall stud stud", ", 'o 'o!) !) and and ee! e!ie ienc nce e in the the a!tic a!ticula ula!! 0eld 0eld he is (oin( (oin( to testi# testi#" " has to be )no'n. *# cou!se, conside!able time ma" be saved i# the a!tie a!ties s can stiul stiulate ate on an ee!t ee!tIs Is +uali0cations. S!bject Re3!i"in' E2,e"t O,inion Some o# the subjects on 'hich ee!t oinion a!e usuall" !eceived a!e ;a< Bedical cause o# inju!" o! death, etent tent o# disa disab bilit ilit", ", cha chances nces and len(th o# !ecove!". ;b< o!ensi o!ensic c science science identi0cati identi0cation on o# 0n(e 0n(e! !!i !int nts, s, #oot #oot! !in ints ts,, ball ballis isti tics cs,, blood chemist!", chemist!", hand'!itin( hand'!itin( and +uestionable documents. ;c< !oe!t" a!aisal just comen ensation in condem demnat nation !oceedin(s, !ecove!" in 0!e insu!ance cases. ;d< Bechan hanical en(in (inee!in( and a!chitectu!al const!uction ;e< *the! sciences 'eathe! ;#< Jn'!itten la' o# #o!ei(n count!ies %he numbe! o# ee!ts a a!t" ma" call ma" be limited b" the cou!t. %+ILURE TO )+-E )+ -E CONNECTION “Your “Y our Honor Hon or,, I move that tha t the testimony or e$hibits be stric%en o& the record for failure of counsel to ma%e the necessary connection.” Conitional +missibilit# o( Evience nvolved he!e is the !ule on conditional admissibilit" o# evidence. s in the const!uction o# a house, a case o! de#ense is built ste b" ste. *nl" *nl" one one iec iece e o# evid eviden ence ce can can be int!oduced at a time. t the be(innin(, a a!t a!tic icul ula! a! evid eviden ence ce ma ma" " ae aea! a! i!!e i!!ele leva vant, nt, alth althou ou(h (h it is !ele !eleva vant nt i# conn connec ectted to othe! the! #ac #acts not not "et "et !esented. %o %o meet this move #o! the evidence on late! on tie it
!oblem, counsel should admission o# the isolated the !omise that he 'ill u 'ith othe! #acts. #te!
the cou!t admits it conditionall", it ma" be st!ic)en o- the !eco!d i# the necessa!" connection is not made be#o!e the case is closed.
IN+D)ISSIBLE %OR P+RTICUL+R PURPOSE 4Objection, Your Honor, on the round that it is inadmissible for the "ur"ose for which it is bein o&ered.” )!lti,le +missibilit# o( Evience %his involves the !ule on multile admissibilit". Since a iece o# evidence ma" be !elevant #o! t'o o! mo!e u!oses, it is necessa!" that it satis0es the !e+ui!ements o# the a!ticula! u!ose #o! 'hich it is bein( o-e!ed. *the!'ise, it 'ill be !ejected even i# it #ul0lls the !e+ui!ements o# the othe! u!oses. o! eamle, a decla!ation o# a deceased e!son ma" be admitted as a decla!ation a(ainst inte!est, a d"in( decla!ation, o! as a!t o# the !es (estae.
CROSS5E/+)IN+TION BE6OND SCOPE O% DIRECT E/+)IN+TION Rule 132 Secs. 8 & 11 “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is not within the sco"e of direct e$amination” Sco,e o( C"oss E2amination Jnlimited c!osseamination is not allo'ed unde! ou! !ules. 'itness ma" be c!osseamined onl" as to matte!s 'ithin the scoe o# the di!ect eamination, that is, to those stated in the di!ect eamination and connected the!e'ith. 4ote that “scoe o# di!ect eamination$ etends to imlied #acts as 'ell as to those stated in the 'itnessIs testimon". %hus, a c!oss eamination ma" cove! the enti!e t!ansaction and not be limited to the e!iod about 'hich the 'itness testi0ed. ndeed, 'hen a!t o# an act, decla!ation, conve!sation, o! '!itin( is (iven in evidence, the 'hole o# the same subject ma" be in+ui!ed into b" the othe! a!t".
E2ce,tion ut 'hen attac)in( the c!edibilit" o# a 'itness, the c!osseamine! is not limited to the scoe o# di!ect eamination. # a a!t" 'ishes to as) +uestions outside the scoe o# the di!ect eamination, to establish his cause o# action o! de#ense, he should ma)e the 'itness his o'n 'hen his tu!n to !esent evidence comes. 'itness cannot be c!osseamined about 'hat anothe! 'itness has said and 'hich he has not !eeated in his testimon" #o! that 'ill be eaminin( him outside the scoe o# his di!ect eamination.
LE+DIN$ 0UESTION Rule 132 Sec. 5 “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is leadin”. leadin( +uestion su((ests to the 'itness the ans'e! the eaminin( a!t" 'ants. t is objectionable because o# the dan(e! that 'hat is bein( su((ested b" the +uestion ma" inKuence the 'itness in his ans'e!. Wh# Objectionable lthou(h the su((estiveness o# the substance o# the +uestion dete!mines 'hethe! a +uestion is leadin(, the 'a" the +uestion is #!amed ma" sometimes indicate 'hethe! it is objectionable. Luestions that a!e be(un 'ith “did$ o! “didnIt$ o! endin( 'ith h!ases such as “didnIt he$ o! “doesnIt it$ a!e o#ten leadin(. o'eve!, a +uestion that ma" be ans'e!ed b" a simle “Mes$ o! a simle “4o$ is not necessa!il" leadin(. When P"ohibite* +llo.e Aeadin( +uestions ma" be as)ed ;a< in c!osseamination, but not 'hen the 'itness is #!iendl" to the c!oss eamine!@ ;b< to assist a 'itness 'ho is i(no!ant, "oun(, o! mentall" and h"sicall" handicaed in e!essin( himsel#@ ;c< to eamine an adve!se a!t"@ ;d< to eamine an uncooe!ative and !ejudiced o! hostile 'itness@ and
;e< to identi#" e!sons, ehibits ;#< !elimina!" +uestions.
thin(s
o!
)ISLE+DIN$ 0UESTION “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is misleadin”. %his t"e o# +uestion is objectionable not onl" #o! su((estin( an ans'e! but mo!e so #o! su((estin( a '!on( o! unt!uth#ul ans'e!. Wh# Objectionable t is classi0ed as a t!ic) +uestion, one that is calculated to ma)e the 'itness (ive a #alse o! inconsistent ans'e!. 9hile leadin( +uestions a!e allo'ed in c!oss eamination, misleadin( +uestions a!e not allo'ed in both di!ect and c!oss eaminations. n eamle is “Mou stated in "ou! last testimon" that "ou sa' d!ivin( the ca!, 'h" a!e "ou no' insistin( that 'as not d!ivin($, 'hen 'hat the 'itness had me!el" said 'as that he had seen on the #!ont seat o# the vehicle.
CO)POUND 0UESTION “Objection, Your Honor, it is a com"ound !uestion”. comound +uestion is objectionable because it contains t'o o! mo!e +uestions. t is identi0ed b" the use o# conjunctions, “and$ o! “o!$. Wh# Not +llo.e t is not allo'ed because a a!t o# the +uestion ma" call #o! i!!elevant and inadmissible testimon". lso, the cou!t ma" 0nd it dicult to dete!mine 'hich a!t o# the +uestion is bein( ans'e!ed b" the 'itness. n eamle o# a comound +uestion is /oes F o! did F !oduce the (oods that "ou! coman" 'as intendin( to bu":
$ENER+L 0UESTION “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is too eneral”. Wh# S,eci1c +ns.e"s Necessa"# 9hen a +uestion elicits #!om a 'itness ve!" (ene!al ans'e!s such that he can
sa" almost 'hateve! comes to his mind, the int!oduction o# i!!elevant and inadmissible evidence cannot be heled. %his 'astes the time o# the cou!t and con#uses the issues. s much as ossible, the +uestion to a 'itness must call #o! a seci0c ans'e! on a a!ticula! subject. n eamle o# a too (ene!al +uestion is “9hat did "ou obse!ve about the coule a#te! the" (ot ma!!ied:$
0UESTION C+LLIN$ %OR N+RR+TION “Your Honor, the !uestion calls for a narrative answer.” +uestion that invites a na!!ation o# #acts is objectionable. Wh# Na""ation Objectionable t de!ives the oosin( counsel o# oo!tunit" to ma)e a timel" objection to the int!oduction o# inadmissible testimon". n a na!!ation, the 'itness is #!ee to sa" almost an"thin( he li)es even i# it is not connected o! !elevant to the issue. %he othe! dan(e! is that the 'itness usuall" 0nds it eas" to inject his oinion and e!cetion o# the case i# as)ed to na!!ate in his o'n 'a". n eamle is “%ell us in "ou! o'n 'o!ds, 'hat haened:$
V+$UE 0UESTION 4Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is vaue, ambiuous, unintelliible.” Wh# Not +llo.e %!uth is easil" asce!tained #!om clea! ans'e!s 'hich in tu!n a!e de!ived #!om clea! +uestions = +uestions that a!e not va(ue, ambi(uous o! unintelli(ible. De1nition +n Test Na(ue o! ambi(uous +uestions a!e those that cannot be ans'e!ed seci0call" o! a!e caable o# double meanin(. n unintelli(ible +uestion, on the othe! hand, is one that cannot be unde!stood because o# the 'a" it is #!amed o! e!essed.
%o be #!ee #!om va(ueness = and this is the test = the +uestion must call #o! a seci0c ans'e! the !elevance o# 'hich is aa!ent #!om the +uestion. Co!"t )a# +sce"tain Cla"it# # the cou!t is not su!e about the cla!it" o# the +uestion, it should as) the 'itness i# he unde!stands it. # the objection is ove!!uled, the 'itness cannot then sa", a#te! ans'e!in( the +uestion, that he did not unde!stand.
a!(umentative. %his is eseciall" t!ue 'hen the +uestion t!ies to oint out o! emhasiGe some !eal o! aa!ent inconsistencies in a 'itnessIs testimon". E2am,les # t'o statements, #o! eamle, a!e not !econcilable, as)in( a 'itness ho' he can !econcile t'o inconsistent statements is a!(umentative. s)in( 'hich o# t'o inconsistent statements is t!ue, ho'eve!, ma" be !oe!.
76POT7ETIC+L 0UESTION “Your Honor, I object because it is a hy"othetical !uestion and the witness is not "resented as an e$"ert.”
nothe! a!(umentative +uestion “o' is it that "ou can !ecollect a date as lon( a(o as that and "ou cannot !emembe! the da" o# the 'ee):$
"othetical +uestions usuall" be(in 'ith 'o!ds li)e “i#$I “suose$, “assumin($ o! “isnIt it ossible$.
E)B+RR+SSIN$ 0UESTION Rule 132 Sec. 3 “I object, Your Honor, because the !uestion tends to embarrass or derade the character of the witness.”
%he Fou!t is inte!ested 'ith “'hat actuall" haened$, not “'hat mi(ht have ossibl" haened$ Wh# Objectionable %he" a!e not allo'ed #o! the same !easons that +uestions that assume #acts not in evidence a!e not allo'ed. Bo!eove!, a h"othetical +uestion usuall" calls #o! an oinion 'hich i# (iven b" an o!dina!" 'itness has no 'ei(ht o! !obative value. E2ce,tion *nl" an ee!t, 'ho is e!mitted to e!ess an oinion, ma" be as)ed h"othetical +uestions 'hich should be based on #acts that the evidence tends to !ove.
+R$U)ENT+TIVE OR 7+R+SSIN$ 0UESTION “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is arumentative.” “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is harassin the witness” P!",ose o( 0!estion Test Jsuall", +uestions that a!e intended to b!in( out ne' #acts o! additional in#o!mation a!e not a!(umentative. o'eve!, 'hen the u!ose is to co!ne! a 'itness, bad(e! o! t!ic) him, the +uestion is mo!e o#ten than not
D!t# To Testi(# t is the dut" o# eve!" citiGen to testi#" in cou!t 'hen !e+ui!ed. ut in the e!#o!mance o# this dut", the citiGen has the !i(ht not to be subjected to emba!!assment. Ri'ht Not To +ns.e" 9hen as)ed a +uestion the ans'e! to 'hich 'ill tend to de(!ade, dishono!, disc!edit o! humiliate him, the 'itness can !i(ht#ull" !e#use to ans'e! and ma" not be comelled to do so. E2ce,tion %his !ule, ho'eve!, is subject to an ecetion. Even i# the +uestion tends to de(!ade his cha!acte!, the 'itness must (ive his ans'e! i# it !e#e!s to the ve!" #act in issue o! to a #act #!om 'hich the #act in issue can be in#e!!ed. n othe! 'o!ds, i# the 'itness is as)ed the emba!!assin( +uestion me!el" #o! the u!ose o# imeachin( his c!edibilit", he can !e#use to ans'e!. 9hen the emba!!assin( +uestion is as)ed to !ove the #act in issue, the 'itness has no choice but to ans'e!.
UNRESPONSIVE +NSWER “Your Honor, the answer should be stric%en o& the record because it is not res"onsive.”
Reme# m!oe! +uestions can be objected to but not ans'e!s that do not !el" to o! add!ess the +uestions. Since the" cannot be anticiated o! )no'n until (iven, the !emed" is to st!i)e the un!esonsive ans'e! o- the !eco!d.
Reasons Jn!esonsive ans'e!s a!e not allo'ed because the" a!e usuall" i!!elevant to the issues. a!t #!om injectin( con#usion in a case, the" also !olon( the t!ial. %he #act that an ans'e! haens to be !elevant cannot save it #!om bein( st!ic)en o- the !eco!d. o! the sa)e o# o!de!l" !ocedu!e in the !esentation o# evidence, the !elevant but un!esonsive ans'e! has to be eun(ed.
+S-ED +ND +NSWERED 0UESTION “Your Honor, the witness has already answered the !uestion.” “Your Honor, already answered.” Wh# Not +llo.e Reeated +uestions on the same subject a!e not allo'ed because the" a!e time consumin( and ma" undul" emhasiGe testimon" on a a!ticula! oint. When +llo.e 9hen the u!ose o# the +uestion is to cla!i#" !io! testimon" it ma" be allo'ed, ho'eve!. n c!osseamination, a 'itness ma" be as)ed to !eeat 'hat he has said on a a!ticula! oint to test his !ecollection and to 0nd out i# he has va!ied his testimon". ut he cannot be made to !eeat his enti!e testimon" (iven in di!ect eamination, eseciall" i# the u!ose is to anno" him.
+SSU)ES %+CTS NOT IN EVIDENCE “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion assumes facts not in evidence.” Wh# Objectionable
+uestion that assumes a #act that has not been established b" an" evidence is objectionable #o! ;a< it b!in(s be#o!e the cou!t somethin( that has not and ma" neve! be !oved@ ;b< it ma" mislead the cou!t b" su((estin( that the assumed #act has al!ead" been established@ and ;c< it is un#ai! to the 'itness since an" ans'e! he ma)es ma" be ta)en to mean that he is a!min( the t!uth o# the assumed #act. %his t"e o# +uestion o#ten be(ins 'ith “/id "ou )no'$ o! “/o "ou )no'.$ o! eamle “/id "ou )no' that the accused had been beatin( his 'i#e ni(htl":$, 'hen the!e is no !io! evidence that such 'as the case. *! i# the accused is the one as)ed “9hen did "ou sto beatin( "ou! 'i#e:$, 'hen the!e is no evidence that he had been beatin( his 'i#e.
L+C- O% B+SIS OR %OUND+TION “Objection, Your Honor, no basis. It has not been shown that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “Your Honor, I object because a su'cient foundation has not been laid establishin that . . . . . . . . . Necessit# (o" P"elimina"# %act Fe!tain t"es o# evidence need a #oundation be#o!e the" can be admitted. %hat #oundation is called a !elimina!" #act. %hus, be#o!e +uestions about the contents o# a !ivate document a!e as)ed, the '!itin( must 0!st be authenticated. %he !elimina!" #acts a!e that the '!itin( is the same one si(ned b" the a!ties and that the si(natu!es aea!in( the!eon a!e (enuine si(natu!es. Instance Whe"e Necessa"# (ain, be#o!e a Oe!o co" o# a document can be admitted in lace o# the o!i(inal, the !elimina!" #act that the o!i(inal 'as lost o! is othe!'ise unavailable must 0!st be !oved. 9hen a 'itness is (oin( to desc!ibe an incident, it must 0!st be sho'n, as a !elimina!" #act, that he has e!sonal )no'led(e o# the incident because he sa' it. Nolunta!iness and a sho'in( that the Bi!anda 'a!nin(s have been (iven a!e !elimina!" #acts that should be established be#o!e a con#ession can be admitted in c!iminal cases. 9hethe! the decla!ant had e!sonal )no'led(e o# the cause and ci!cumstances o# his death, and 'hethe! he sensed his imendin( death a!e !elimina!" #acts to the admission o# the decla!antIs d"in( decla!ation. inall", the +uali0cations o# an ee!t a!e !elimina!" #acts that should be !oven be#o!e the ee!t is allo'ed to e!ess an oinion.
PRIVILE$ED CO))UNIC+TION 8 ST+TE SECRET Rule 13> Sec. 21 ;e< “Objection, Your Honor, on the round that the !uestion calls for the disclosure of a state secret.” Onl# State Sec!"it# P"otecte t is essential that (ove!nmental matte!s o! activities that bea! on o!
involve the secu!it" o# the state be )et sec!et. o! this !eason, a ublic oce! o! emlo"ee cannot be comelled to testi#" on an" communication made to him o! ac+ui!ed b" him in ocial con0dence, i# to disclose such communication 'ill inju!e ublic inte!est.
SEL%5INCRI)IN+TIN$ 0UESTION “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion is self(incriminatin. I re!uest that the witness be advised of his riht aainst self( incrimination.” nvolved he!e is the constitutional !i(ht o# a e!son not to be comelled to be a 'itness a(ainst himsel#. De1nition +uestion that has a tendenc" to eose a 'itness to a c!iminal cha!(e o! to an" )ind o# unishment is sel# inc!iminatin(. %hus, a +uestion that attemts to establish a lin) in the chain o# evidence 'hich ma" lead to the conviction o# a 'itness, o! 'ill call #o! the disclosu!e o# the names o# e!sons uon 'hose testimon" the 'itness mi(ht be convicted, is !ohibited. 7o. Ri'ht Invo9e %he !i(ht a(ainst sel#inc!imination 'hich is st!ictl" e!sonal can be invo)ed onl" b" the 'itness. 4ot even his la'"e! o! the a!t" 'ho called him to testi#" can claim the !i(ht #o! him. ence, 'hen an inc!iminatin( +uestion is as)ed, the la'"e! should object and !e+uest the Fou!t to advise the 'itness o# his !i(ht a(ainst sel# inc!imination o! the la'"e! ma" do the advisin( di!ectl" 'ith the cou!tIs e!mission. *nce the !i(ht is invo)ed, the cou!t shall dete!mine 'hethe! the +uestion is inc!iminatin( o! not. # it 0nds that the dan(e! o# sel#inc!imination is not ima(ina!" o! seculative but is !eal and !easonable, conside!in( all the ci!cumstances, the cou!t 'ill not allo' the +uestion to be ans'e!ed. Fe!tainl", the (ove!nment cannot comel an accused to testi#" as a !osecution 'itness in a c!iminal case. ut a con#ession that 'as volunta!il"
(iven does not violate a(ainst sel#inc!imination
the
!i(ht
can be convicted solel" on the basis o# his con#ession.
What Ri'ht Consists O( asicall", the !i(ht !otects the 'itness a(ainst testimonial comulsion, that is, the (ivin( o# o!al decla!ations a(ainst his 'ish. Jon !oe! sho'in(, the!e#o!e, a 'itness ma" be as)ed to sho' his bod" #o! insection 'ithout violatin( his !i(ht.
)i"ana Wa"nin' %he !ulin( in the Bo!ales case ma)es it clea! that the Bi!anda 'a!nin(s, as the" a!e (ene!all" called, have to be made so that a con#ession can be admitted. %he!e#o!e, 'hile unde! olice custod" and investi(ation, the accused must be a!ised o# his Ri(ht to !emain silent 'ith an elanation that an"thin( he mi(ht sa" mi(ht be used a(ainst him@ Ri(ht to tal) to a la'"e!, !elative o! #!iend and have a la'"e!, !elative o! #!iend !esent 'hile he is bein( +uestioned@ and Ri(ht to the aointment o# a la'"e! i# he cannot a-o!d one.
ILLE$+LL6 OBT+INED EVIDENCE “Objection, Your Honor,” to the introduction of the evidence on the round that it was obtained illeally.” “Objection, Your Honor, the evidence was illeally obtained throuh an unreasonable search and sei)ure.” ll ille(all" obtained evidence is made inadmissible in o!de! to en#o!ce the constitutional !otection a(ainst un!easonable sea!ch and seiGu!e. n the Jnited States, seci0call" in Fali#o!nia, the un!easonableness o# a sea!ch o! seiGu!e o# evidence that has been o! 'ill be o-e!ed a(ainst an accused can be tested in a motion to !etu!n !oe!t" o! su!ess evidence. %his motion has to be 0led be#o!e the t!ial o! i# allo'ed du!in( the t!ial, be#o!e conviction. %he!e is no !eason 'h" 'e cannot #ollo' the same !ocedu!e since it is eedient and not violative o# an" !ule.
DE%ECTIVE CON%ESSION Rule 13> Sec. 2? Rule 133 Sec. 3 “Objection, Your Honor”, to the admission of the confession because it was not voluntary or the accused was not "ro"erly advised of his rihts.” When Con(ession +missible con#ession, to be admissible, must be volunta!". n ma)in( it, no #o!ce, th!eat, intimidation o! inducement o# an" )ind must have been emlo"ed. %his !e+ui!ement is ve!" imo!tant because a con#ession is evidence o# the hi(hest o!de!. ndeed, 'ith evidence o# co!us delicti, a e!son
%he !i(ht to a la'"e! ma" be 'aived but the 'aive! to be valid must be 'ith assistance o# counsel.
P7OTO$R+P7S* /5R+6S* VIDEO T+PE +ND )OTION PICTURES Rule 13> Sec. 1 “Your Honor, I object to the use or introduction in evidence of the "hotora"h because it has not been authenticated or because it does not accurately re"resent the scene that it de"icts.” hoto(!ahs, !a"s, etc. al'a"s (ive the cou!t a mo!e detailed and convincin( ictu!e o# the situation o! o# 'hat had occu!!ed. %hei! use is, the!e#o!e, encou!a(ed. # availed o#, the" a!e made a!t o# the testimon" o# the 'itness 'ho mentioned o! !e#e!!ed to them. +!thentication Necessa"# n o!de! that hoto(!ahs, etc. ma" be used, the" must 0!st be authenticated b" sho'in( that the" accu!atel" o!t!a" at a a!ticula! time the scenes o! events that a!e sho'n. *# cou!se, authentication is best done b" the hoto(!ahe! o! e!son 'ho too) the motion ictu!e o! video tae etc., but othe! e!sons can also authenticate !ovided the" can assu!e the cou!t that the" )no' o! a!e #amilia! 'ith the scenes o! objects sho'n in the ictu!es and that hoto(!ahs, etc. accu!atel" deict them.
hoto(!ah that is disto!ted is objectionable #o! it does not accu!atel" !e!esent a scene.
S-ETC7ES* C7+RTS* DI+$R+)S +ND )+PS Rule 13> Sec. 1 “Your Honor, I object to the use or introduction of the s%etch because it does not accurately re"resent the scene it "ur"orts to de"ict.” s)etch, cha!t, etc. al!ead" !ea!ed ma" be used !ovided a 'itness testi0es that it accu!atel" sho's the scene, situation o! thin( that it o!t!a"s. s in the case o# hoto(!ahs, it ma" be authenticated b" the e!son 'ho made them o! b" somebod" 'ho can con0!m thei! authenticit". Consie"e Testimon# o( Witness *# cou!se, i# the s)etch is !ea!ed in cou!t b" a 'itness 'hile testi#"in(, no mo!e authentication is necessa!". %hat s)etch is conside!ed the “testimon" o# the 'itness in (!ahic #o!m$. s)etch need not be d!a'n to scale, but i# it misleads o! (!ossl" mis!e!esents a scene it ma" be ecluded and !ebutted b" the othe! a!t".
a!eciate the obli(ation o# bein( a 'itness. *# cou!se, his havin( been insane (!eatl" a-ects his c!edibilit"@ ;b< Chil"en 8 %he test is not the a(e but the matu!it" o# the child. # #ound b" the cou!t, a#te! !elimina!" eamination, that the child has enou(h intelli(ence, unde!standin( and sense o# dut" to tell the t!uth, he ma" be allo'ed to testi#". ;c< Dea(5m!tes5 # o# sucient intelli(ence and abilit" to communicate thei! ideas, b" sin(s o! in '!itin(, the" a!e cometent to (ive testimon"@ and ;< 8 Into2icate ,e"sons 8 e!sons 'ho a!e d!un), as to lose all sense o# !easonin(, at the time the" a!e called to the 'itness stand cannot testi#" because o# thei! inabilit" to !ecollect #acts accu!atel". lthou(h thei! intoication at the time o# the incident does not dis+uali#" them as 'itnesses, it a-ects thei! c!edibilit", ho'eve!. TR+NS+CTION WIT7 + DE+D OR INS+NE PERSON Rule 13> Sec. 2> ;a< “Objection, Your Honor, because the !uestion calls for a communication, or involves a transaction, with a dead or insane "erson.” %his is the !ule on su!vivo!shi dis+uali0cation.
INCO)PETENT WITNESSES Rule 13> Sec. 18 & 1? “Objection, Your Honor, on the round that the witness is incom"etent to testify”. %his !e#e!s to the cometenc" o# a e!son to testi#", not to the cometenc" o# his testimon". Who a"e Incom,etent: /ue to thei! h"sical disabilit", the #ollo'in( e!sons cannot testi#" ;a< Insane ,e"sons 8 %he insanit" that 'ill dis+uali#" is that 'hich eists at the time the 'itness is called uon to testi#". # the e!son 'as insane at the time the incident occu!!ed, but not 'hen he is laced on the 'itness stand, he ma" be e!mitted to testi#" i# he can !ecollect the #acts and
Who Can Object Cannot Testi(#: %his objection ma" be invo)ed onl" b" the eecuto!, administ!ato! o! !e!esentative o# a dead o! insane e!son, 'ho is the de#endant in a case 'he!e a claim o# demand is made a(ainst the estate o# such e!son. Those who cannot testify, and to whom the objection is directed are: ;a< the lainti- o! de#endant in a counte!claim and thei! assi(no!s@o! ;b< the e!son on 'hose behal# the case is bein( !osecuted.
Reasons an Instances %hese e!sons cannot testi#" on an" o!al communication o! t!ansaction 'hich 'as made 'hile the deceased 'as still livin(, o! be#o!e the insane lost his mind because the deceased is
no lon(e! alive and the insane is not in a osition to dis!ove such testimon". %hus, the a!t" lainti- claimin( a(ainst the estate is !ohibited #!om testi#"in( on cont!act #o! a"ment o# (oods #u!nished the deceased o! insane e!son@ n a(!eement to divide !oe!t"@ settlement o# an indebtedness o! obli(ation due to the deceased o! insane e!son@ and cont!act #o! a"ment o# (oods (iven o! se!vices !ende!ed to the deceased o! insane e!son o'eve!, the lainti- himsel# is !ohibited #!om testi#"in(, he is allo'ed to !esent 'itnesses to !ove his claim since 'itnesses a!e not included in the !ohibition. %he objection ma" also be 'aived.
INCO)PETENT SPOUSE +S + WITNESS Rule 13> Sec. 2> ;b< “Objection, Your Honor, this "erson is "rivileed not to be a witness for bein the s"ouse of the accused or of a "arty in this case.” %he la' 'ants to !ese!ve the mutual t!ust and con0dence o# the ma!!ia(e !elation. Who Can Invo9e %he!e#o!e, this objection can be invo)ed onl" b" the souse 'ho is a a!t" o! coa!t" in a case. 9ithout the consent o# such a!t" souse, the othe! souse cannot testi#", o! even !oduce and identi#" a document, on an" matte! eithe! in #avo! o# o! a(ainst him. In What Cases *# cou!se, this objection cannot be used in a civil case 0led b" one souse a(ainst the othe!, as in le(al sea!ation, o! in a c!iminal case 'he!e one souse is cha!(ed 'ith committin( a c!ime a(ainst each the othe!, as in adulte!" o! bi(am". Rae committed on a dau(hte! is conside!ed a c!ime committed b" the husband a(ainst the 'i#e unde! this !ule.
%he a!t" souse ma" 'aive the dis+uali0cation o# the othe! souse b" (ivin( his consent, callin( the othe! souse as a 'itness, o! b" #ailin( to object. o! not e!mittin( a souse to testi#" eithe! #o! o! a(ainst, no un#avo!able in#e!ence ma" be d!a'n.
DESCEND+NT +S INCO)PETENT WITNESS Rule 13> Sec. 2> ; c < “Objection, Your Honor, on the round that the witness may not be com"elled to testify aainst his "arents or ascendants.” licable *nl" F!iminal Fase %his objection can be used onl" in a c!iminal case 'he!e the a!ent o! ascendant is cha!(ed o# an o-ense. ctuall", the descendant is not dis+uali0ed to become a 'itness a(ainst his a!ents o! ascendants. ut i# he does not li)e to testi#" a(ainst his a!ents o! ascendants, he cannot be comelled to do so. %he la' 'ants to !ese!ve the close !elationshi amon( membe!s o# the same #amil" 9hen a descendant is !esented as a !osecution 'itness, the de#ense counsel should see to it that the descendant is in#o!med o# his !ivile(e not to (ive testimon" a(ainst his a!ents o! ascendants. %his is to insu!e that he )no's that he can !e#use to testi#" i# he 'ants to. *# cou!se, the descendant is #!ee to testi#" in #avo! o# his a!ents o! ascendants, 'hethe! in a c!iminal o! civil case.
PRIVILE$ED CO))UNIC+TION 8 7USB+ND +ND WI%E Rule 13> Sec. 21 ;a< 4Objection* 6o!" 7ono"* on the '"o!n that it is a ,"ivile'e comm!nication bet.een h!sban an .i(e=>
%his !ule is di-e!ent #!om that !ohibitin( the souses #!om ta)in( the 'itness stand and testi#"in( eithe! #o! o! a(ainst each othe!. )atte"s Cove"e 9hat is !ohibited he!e is the int!oduction o# an" communication 'hich one souse ma" have made to the othe! du!in( the ma!!ia(e. Such communication ma" be an" )ind o# o!al o! '!itten statement made o! (iven in con0dence. t ma" include an act, li)e the ehibition o# a sec!et disease o! h"sical de#ect, 'hich ma" be conside!ed as silent communication. ut a thi!d e!son 'ho ove!hea!d the communication 'hile bein( made b" the souses is #!ee to disclose it to the cou!t.
PRIVILE$ED CO))UNIC+TION 8 DOCTOR +ND P+TIENT Rule 13> Sec. 21 ; c < 4Objection* 6o!" 7ono"* on the '"o!n that it is a ,"ivile'e comm!nication bet.een octo" an ,atient= n ailment can be t!eated e-ectivel" onl" i# the!e is #ull and comlete in#o!mation about it. %he docto! the!e#o!e, should be made to #eel #!ee to as) an" +uestions and the atient to (ive an" ans'e! about the disease. %his is achieved b" )eein( all the in#o!mation st!ictl" con0dential. )atte"s Cove"e Civil Cases Onl# n civil cases, the!e#o!e, the docto! 'ithout the consent o# the atient, cannot testi#" on n" statement made to him b" his atient@ n" in#o!mation 'hich he ma" have ac+ui!ed b" eaminin( o! obse!vin( the atient and i# such disclosu!e 'ould blac)en the cha!acte! o# the atient@ and n" medical oinion o! !esc!ition 'hich he ma" have (iven the atient. So that the !ivile(e 'ill not be de#eated, the atient cannot be comelled to testi#" on the same matte!s. When ,"ivile'e
%o be !ivile(ed, the communication must have been made b" the atient in a con0dential manne! 'hile see)in( medical advice o! t!eatment. lso, the in#o!mation must have been ac+ui!ed b" the docto! 'hile attendin( to the atient eithe! #o! cu!in( o! !eventin( the illness. When Not P"ivile'e Statements o# the atient 'hich a!e not necessa!" #o! his t!eatment, li)e, as to 'ho inju!ed him o! 'h" he 'as assaulted, a!e not included in the !ivile(e. /entists, ha!macists and nu!ses 'ho ove!hea!d the con0dential in#o!mation a!e #!ee to disclose it, i# the" do not act as a(ents o# the docto!. *the!'ise, the" too a!e !ohibited. %his !ivile(e can be claimed in civil cases onl". t cannot be invo)ed in a c!iminal case because the !ivile(e cannot be used as a shield in the !osecution o# c!imes.
PRIVILE$ED CO))UNIC+TION 8 PRIEST +ND PENITENT Rule 130 Sec. 21 (d “Objection, Your Honor, on the round that it is a "rivileed communication between "riest and "enitent.” Wh# P"ivile'e Fon#essions a!e meant to be sec!et. Ban" eole 'ill hesitate to con#ess i# the !iest o! ministe! can be #o!ced to disclose con#essions. ence, 'ithout the consent o# the e!son ma)in( the con#ession, the !iest o! ministe! cannot testi#" on an"thin( said to him b" the enitent and on an" !el", advice o! enance 'hich he ma" have (iven. %he enitent in tu!n cannot be #o!ced to tell 'hat he has said du!in( his con#ession. Re3!isites %o be !ivile(ed, it is necessa!" that the con#ession be conducted in the cou!se o# disciline enjoined b" the chu!ch to 'hich both !iest and enitent belon(. Statements made b" a e!son 'hile me!el" see)in( the si!itual advice o!
assistance o# a !iest o! ministe! a!e not included in the !ivile(e. s in the case o# the othe! !ivile(ed communications, thi!d e!sons 'ho ove!hea!d the con#ession a!e not !ohibited #!om testi#"in( about them.
USE O% )E)OR+NDU) TO +ID )E)OR6 Rule 132 Sec. 1> “Your Honor, I re!uest that the witness be allowed to refer to his memorandum to refresh his memory.” “I have no objection, Your Honor, but may I e$amine the notes the witness is consultin.” Re3!i"ements e#o!e a 'itness can be allo'ed to !e#e! to a memo!andum, these t'o ;2< !e+ui!ements must be met %hat the 'itness cannot #ull" o! comletel" !emembe! the #acts 'ithout the aid o# the memo!andum due to lase o# time@ and %hat the 'itness 'as the one 'ho '!ote the memo!andum o! o!de!ed it to be '!itten at the time the #acts occu!!ed o! 'hile the" 'e!e still !e#!esh in his memo!". %he memo!andum 'hich can be used to stimulate oneIs memo!" ma" be an" )ind o# note, ae!, adavit o! document. t ma" even be a boo) ent!". # a memo!andum is allo'ed to be used, it is but #ai! that the oosin( side is (iven an oo!tunit" to insect and use it #o! c!osseamination u!oses. Best Evience Unnecessa"# Since it is the !ecollection o# the 'itness that is conside!ed evidence and not the memo!andum, the memo!andum need not satis#" the best evidence the !ule. me!e co" o# the memo!andum, not necessa!il" the o!i(inal, ma" be used b" a 'itness in !e#!eshin( his memo!". I)PE+C7)ENT O% OWN WITNESS Rule 132 Sec. 7 “Objection, Your Honor, on the round that the evidence tends to
im"each o""osin counsel*s own witness.” “Your Honor, may I be allowed to im"each my own witness by showin that he had made "rior inconsistent statement+” Wh# Disc"eitin' Not +llo.e # a a!t" is allo'ed to disc!edit his o'n 'itness, a dan(e!ous situation is c!eated 'he!eb" the a!t" could dest!o" the 'itness i# he so)e a(ainst him and ma)e him a (ood one i# he testi0es #avo!abl". Bo!eove!, 'hen a a!t" !esents a 'itness, he is suosed to have investi(ated him #o! t!uth and honest". ence, he cannot subse+uentl" imeach o! +uestion the c!edibilit" o# his 'itness b" sho'in( that he is a lia! o! a bad e!son. When +llo.e *nl" 'hen a a!t" can sho' that he 'as misled b" a 'itness into callin( him to testi#" can imeachment be allo'ed at the cou!tIs disc!etion. t 'ould be un#ai! i# a a!t" 'e!e to lose his case just because the 'itness on 'hom he deended had decided to chan(e his mind and bet!a" him. %hus, a 'itness 'ho assu!ed a a!t" be#o!e (oin( to cou!t that he sa' the si(nin( o# a document and then 'hile testi#"in( denied havin( seen it, su!!isin( the a!t" 'ho called him, ma" be imeached. 7o. Im,eachment is Done n such case, the 'itness ma" be imeached b" sho'in( that he has made a !io! statement inconsistent 'ith his !esent testimon". 4ote that even in this eamle, imeachment cannot be made th!ou(h evidence o# bad cha!acte! o! !eutation tendin( to sho' that the 'itness lac)s c!edibilit". nothe! !emed" o# a a!t" 'hose 'itness has testi0ed a(ainst him is to !esent othe! 'itnesses 'ho 'ill cont!adict and co!!ect the testimon" o# the t!eache!ous 'itness, even i# in the !ocess the c!edibilit" o# the latte! is indi!ectl" attac)ed. %he !ule allo's the !esentation o# cont!adicto!" evidence.
INCONSISTENT ST+TE)ENT5L+6IN$ O% PREDIC+TE OR %OUND+TION
Rule 132 Sec. 16 “Objection, your Honor, because the correct "redicate or foundation has not been laid to show "rior inconsistent statement.” # a 'itness is to be imeached b" sho'in( that he had made a statement ea!lie! that is cont!a!" to 'hat he is no' sa"in(, the co!!ect #oundation to disc!edit him must 0!st be established. Im,eachin' O"al Statement # the !io! inconsistent statement is o!al and made out o# cou!t, the !ocedu!e is to as) the 'itness 'hethe! he has made the statement, 'he!e and 'hen he made it and to 'hom. *nl" 'hen the 'itness denies o! does not !emembe! havin( made the statement can cont!a!" evidence be !esented. %his means that an" e!son 'ho hea!d the statement ma" be !esented to !ove it. o'eve!, i# the 'itness admits ma)in( the statement, he should be (iven an oo!tunit" to elain the disc!eanc", i# an" Im,eachin' W"itten Statement # the !io! inconsistent statement is in '!itin(, it is enou(h that the lette!, adavit o! si(ned statement is sho'n to the 'itness so he can !ead o! insect it. n this case, detailed +uestionin(, as in o!al statement, is not necessa!". *n the othe! hand, i# the 'itness admits ma)in( the inconsistent statement, the c!oss eamine! (ains an admission and he should ma)e the '!itin( his ehibit and a!t o# his documenta!" evidence. Im,eachin' Co!"t Testimon# n case the !io! inconsistent statement 'as made 'hile the 'itness 'as testi#"in( in cou!t, the o!tion o# the t!ansc!it containin( it must be sho'n o! !ead to the 'itness be#o!e an" +uestionin( can be(in. Since the statement is in an ocial t!ansc!it, the!e is no need to as) in detail the ci!cumstances unde! 'hich the statement 'as made. t is sucient to as) the 'itness i# he made the statement att!ibuted to him.
E?ect o( %ail!"e To Im,each *n aeal, it is !athe! late #o! a a!t" to ta)e advanta(e o# a !io! inconsistent statement i# the 'itness 'ho made it 'as not imeached on that (!ound du!in( the t!ial. # a !io! inconsistent statement is o-e!ed in evidence to imeach a 'itness but the #oundation #o! imeachment has not been laid, that is, the 'itness has not been con#!onted 'ith his ea!lie! statement and (iven a chance to elain an" aa!ent inconsistenc", the o-e! should be objected to. ailu!e to object constitutes a 'aive!.
I)PE+C7)ENT O% +DVERSE P+RT6&S WITNESS Rule 132 Sec. 15 “Your Honor, the evidence is admissible for im"eachment "ur"oses to show .. 7o. to Im,each +ve"se Pa"t#&s Witness *neIs o'n 'itness ma" be imeached b" cont!adicto!" evidence o! b" !io! inconsistent statement. ut an adve!se a!t"Is 'itness can be imeached b" Evidence that in the communit" 'he!e he !esides, his (ene!al !eutation #o! t!uth, honest" o! ve!acit" is bad. e!e it is the bad !eutation that must be !oved, not the a!ticula! instances o# immo!al o! '!on(#ul acts, no! im!oe! o! unla'#ul conduct that the 'itness mi(ht have committed. !io! inconsistent statement ;lease see discussion on la"in( o# !edicate o! #oundation<@ Evidence o# !io! conviction o# an o-ense 'hich ma" be !oved b" elicitin( and admission #!om the 'itness o! b" a !eco!d o# his conviction@ and Font!adicto!" evidence, 'hich ma" consist o# the testimon" o# anothe! 'itness, sho'in( that 'hat the 'itness bein( imeached said is not t!ue o! is di-e!ent 'hat occu!!ed. When to Im,each meachment o# an adve!se a!t"Is 'itness usuall" occu!s du!in( c!oss eamination o! du!in( the othe!
a!t"Is tu!n to !esent evidence. /u!in( c!osseamination imeachment is accomlished also b" involvin( the 'itness in cont!adictions@ sho'in( the imossibilit" o! im!obabilit" o# the 'itnessI ve!sion o# the incident@ sho'in( the bias, inte!est o! hostile #eelin( and attitude o# the 'itness@ and !ovin( acts o! conduct inconsistent 'ith his testimon".
C7+R+CTER EVIDENCE Rule 13> Secs. 6 & 7 “Objection, Your Honor, this is an attem"t to introduce character evidence that is inadmissible because ..” Cha"acte" o( +cc!se n c!iminal cases, the !osecution cannot !ove the bad mo!al cha!acte! o# an accused. a!t #!om bein( !esumed innocent, the accused is entitled to be jud(ed on the basis o# 'hat he did and not on 'hat othe! eole thin) o! sa" about his cha!acte!. ut once an accused elects to !ove his (ood cha!acte! to sho' that he could not have committed the c!ime, he oens the doo! #o! the !osecution to !esent cont!a!" evidence. # an accused does not decide to ut his cha!acte! in issue, that is, does not !esent evidence o# (od cha!acte!, no un#avo!able in#e!ence ma" be d!a'n, ho'eve!. Relevant Cha"acte" %he cha!acte! that an accused ma" !ove must be !elate to the t!aits, cha!acte!istics o! elements o# the o-ense cha!(ed. ence, evidence !ovin( honest" is admissible in a case o# the#t o! esta#a, but not in homicide o! assault. Cha"acte" o( a Victim %he cha!acte! o# a victim o! o-ended e!son ma" be !oved i# it 'ill hel in dete!minin( the !obabilit" o! im!obabilit" o# committin( the c!ime. %hus, the !osecution ma" !ove the chastit", 'hile the de#ense ma" !ove the unchastit", o# a victim o# violent !ae to 0nd out 'hethe! o! not consent 'as #!eel" (iven. ut in
mu!de!, !oo# o# cha!acte! is not allo'ed. Cha"acte" In Civil Cases n civil cases, cha!acte! evidence is allo'ed onl" i# the mo!al cha!acte! o# a a!t" is in issue. %he !ule is that a business t!ansaction must be jud(ed b" its o'n ci!cumstances and not b" the cha!acte! o! !eutation o# the a!ties. n eamle o# a civil case 'he!e cha!acte! is in issue is an action #o! b!each o# !omise o# ma!!ia(e, 'he!e the #ailu!e to ma!!" is justi0ed b" the de#endant on (!ound that he discove!ed the lainti- no lon(e! a vi!(in, bein( a 'oman o# unchaste cha!acte!. 9hethe! in a civil o! c!iminal case, cha!acte! evidence is limited to the (ene!al !eutation a e!son has in the communit" 'he!e he lives, has !esided and is best )no'n. t does not !e#e! to seci0c acts o! conduct 'hich i# allo'ed, 'ould !aise man" collate!al issues that ma" undul" !olon( the t!ial.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE Rule 13> Sec. 2 “Objection, Your Honor, this is not the best evidence to "rove the contents of the writin.” When R!le +,,licable %he best evidence !ule siml" means that i# a a!t" 'ants to !ove the contents o# a '!itin( = 'hat the document sa"s = he must !esent to the cou!t the o!i(inal o# the '!itin(, i# available. %he!e#o!e, 'hat is stated in the document cannot be !oven b" a me!e co" o# the '!itin( o! b" the o!al !ecollection o# a 'itness, unless the eistence and non!oduction o# the o!i(inal document a!e accounted #o!. %he o!i(inal is conside!ed !e#e!!ed evidence, !e#e!!ed to a me!e co" o# the '!itin(. Secona"# Evience* %o!nation Re3!i"e 9hen the o!i(inal '!itin( is not available #o! one !eason o! anothe!, the net best o! second best evidence to !ove its contents is a co" o# the '!itin(, the testimon" o# someone 'ho
has !ead o! )no's about it, o! anothe! document !ecitin( its contents. s noted else'he!e, ho'eve!, it is necessa!" to la" the !oe! #oundation be#o!e seconda!" evidence is int!oduced. %he due eecution, delive!" and !eason #o! non!oduction o# the o!i(inal '!itin( must 0!st be established. *bse!ve that a “co"$ ma" become the “o!i(inal$ in ce!tain cases. ca!bon co", leavin( no blan)s to be 0lled u, si(ned b" the e!son 'ho eecuted the o!i(inal document is conside!ed a “dulicate o!i(inal.$
P+ROLE EVIDENCE RULE Rule 130, Sec. ! “Objection, Your Honor, because it violates the "arol evidence rule.” “Your Honor, this is inadmissible "arol evidence.” When to Invo9e *#ten, la'"e!s commit the mista)e o# invo)in( the a!ol evidence !ule 'hen 'hat the" have in mind is the best evidence !ule. n !ovin( the contents o# a '!itin( = 'hat the document sa"s = the best evidence !ule is the one involved. ut 'hen a a!t" contends that 'hat the document sa"s is not 'hat 'as a(!eed uon b" the a!ties, it is a!ol evidence !ule that should be invo)ed. When +,,licable %he a!ol evidence !ule is alicable onl" 'hen the document o! '!itin( contains an a(!eement o! is a 'ill. %hus, evidence is not allo'ed that 'ill chan(e o! va!" the a(!eement in a deed o! '!itten cont!act. ut the !ule cannot be invo)ed 'hen a a!t" t!ies to elain that he has not been aid the mone" #o! 'hich he issued a !eceit. n this eamle, the !eceit is conside!ed not an a(!eement but me!el" a unilate!al admission o# a a!t". What is Deeme Emboie Jnde! the !ule, evidence o# 'hat the a!ties said be#o!e o! at the time the a(!eement 'as made cannot be !esented to alte!, cont!adict, diminish o! enla!(e the a(!eement. %he '!itin( is deemed to have embodied all the
intentions o# the a!ties, that it should be !esected as the 0nal and comlete e!ession o# thei! a(!eement.
E2ce,tions o'eve!, the !ule has ecetions and is not alicable in the #ollo'in( cases 'he!e o!al evidence is admissible ;a< 9hen 'hat aea!s in the document is not a valid and bindin( a(!eement eithe! because o# ;aa< 'ant o# conside!ation@ ;bb< 'ant o# valid consent due to lac) o# caacit", #!aud o! du!ess@ ;cc< ille(alit" o# subject matte!@ and ;dd< ille(alit" o# conside!ation. ;b<9he!e both a!ties committed a mista)e o# #act in e!essin( thei! a(!eement in the '!itin(, i# leaded as an issue. o! instance, the a!ties committed a mista)e in desc!ibin( the !oe!t" bein( sold in a document o# sale o! in statin( that the !ice 'as to be aid in dolla!s 'hen thei! a(!eement 'as in esos. Such mista)es can be co!!ected in an action #o! !e#o!mation o# cont!act@ ;c< 9he!e the document o! '!itin( does not e!#ectl" e!ess the a(!eement o# the a!ties as 'he!e the la'"e! 'ho !ea!ed the document #ailed to use accu!ate lan(ua(e to desc!ibe the a(!eement@ and@ ;d< 9he!e the '!itin( does not e!ess the t!ue intent and a(!eement o# the a!ties, i# leaded as an issue. e!e, the document on its #ace e!#ectl" e!esses an a(!eement but it haens not to be the t!ue and actual a(!eement o# the a!ties. %hus, o!al evidence ma" be !esented to !ove that a '!itten inst!ument, u!o!tin( to t!ans#e! absolute title to !oe!t" is in t!uth and in #act eecuted b" the a!ties #o! the u!ose o# secu!in( the a"ment o# a loan.
7E+RS+6 EVIDENCE Rule 13>, Sec. 3> “Objection, Your Honor, the !uestion calls for hearsay evidence.” “Your Honor, I move that the testimony be stric%en o& the record for bein hearsay.” De1nition
ea!sa" evidence is evidence, eithe! o!al o! '!itten, that t!ies to !ove a #act the eistence o# 'hich is based on 'hat someone else has said and not on 'hat the e!son testi#"in( has seen o! hea!d himsel#. t is not based on the e!sonal )no'led(e o! obse!vation o# the e!son testi#"in(. Wh# Not +mitte ea!sa" evidence is conside!ed un!eliable. %he e!son 'ho made the statement, 'hich is bein( !eeated o! !ecalled b" a 'itness in cou!t, cannot be +uestioned about his since!it", 'illin(ness no! abilit" to tell the t!uth. e cannot be c!osseamined about his oo!tunit" to obse!ve the event, abilit" to !ecall 'hat he has seen o! hea!d, and to communicate his obse!vations. ea!sa" evidence is admissible i# not objected to, althou(h cou!ts, as a !ule, do not (ive it much 'ei(ht conside!in( its natu!e. W"itten 7ea"sa# -$am"les of written hearsay evidence are: ;a< medical ce!ti0cate issued b" a docto! 'ho has not called to testi#"@ ;b< n adavit o# an accused imlicatin( anothe! in the commission o# an o-ense 'he!e the accused is not laced on the 'itness stand@ ;c< !eo!t o# a ce!ti0ed ublic accountant 'hich 'as submitted b" a commissione! 'ho 'as onl" as)ed to eamine the !eco!d o# a case in the custod" o# the ntiJsu!" oa!d@ ;d< %he mani#est o# a steamshi coman" sho'in( that onl" t'o out o# th!ee cases shied b" the lainti- had been !eceived and a lette! #!om the consi(nee statin( that the ca!(o in +uestion had not been !eceived 'he!e neithe! the e!son 'ho !ea!ed the mani#est o! the consi(nee 'e!e made to testi#"@ and ;e< 4e'sae! cliin(s, a lette! and a tele(!am to sho' the cause o# death o# an insu!ed in an action on a li#e insu!ance olice. Ve"bal 7ea"sa# -$am"les of verbal hearsay evidence are: ;a< %he testimon" o# a mothe! that the alle(ed #athe! o# he! son !ead to he! a
document 'he!ein he ac)no'led(ed he! son as his@ ;b< %o sho' his innocence, the testimon" o# an accused that a thi!d e!son had con#essed to the c!ime@ and ;c< %estimon" b" a 'itness to a hi(h'a" accident that the d!ive! told him that the automobile belon(ed to the de#endant. 4ot all hea!sa" evidence is inadmissible. Some can be admitted deendin( on the u!ose #o! 'hich the" a!e bein( o-e!ed. +sse"tive P!",ose 9hen a statement is !esented #o! the u!ose o# !ovin( the t!uth o# the #acts asse!ted the!ein, it is hea!sa" and inadmissible. ut 'hen the statement is !esented to !ove somethin( else, 'ithout !e#e!ence to its t!uth, it is not hea!sa" and admissible. n this case, the statement is deemed nonasse!tive o# the t!uth. o! instance, a 'itness in a slande! case testi0ed that he hea!d Huana sa" that ed!o 'as a thie#. # the testimon" is o-e!ed to !ove that ed!o is a thie#, it 'ill not be admitted #o! bein( hea!sa". ut i# the testimon" is !esented to !ove that Huana utte!ed those 'o!ds, !e(a!dless o# 'hethe! he! statement is t!ue o! not, the testimon" is admissible. n the latte! eamle, the statement o# Huana that ed!o 'as a thie# is also called b" some autho!ities as an indeendentl" !elevant statement, that is, a statement !elevant to the case, !e(a!dless o! indeendentl" o# its t!uth. Non5+sse"tive P!",oses Hearsay evidence can, therefore, be admitted if o&ered for the followin non(assertive "ur"oses: ;a< %o !ove that the statement 'as made, as in the eamle o# the libel case (iven above@ ;b< %o sho' the #eelin(s o! state o# mind o# the decla!ant, li)e his mental condition, motive, #ea!, a!ehension, (ood o! bad #aith. n eamle o# this is a statement o# a e!son that he is the )in( o# the 'o!ld, 'hich is o-e!ed to !ove his insanit", not o# cou!se, to
sho' its t!uth. nothe! eamle is the testimon" o# a 'itness that he hea!d the testato! sa" that he ca!ed mo!e #o! ete! than his othe! sons, 'hich ma" be o-e!ed to sho' the testato!Is #eelin(s and secial #ondness #o! ete!. Ai)e'ise, th!eats, !e(a!dless o# thei! t!uth, a!e admissible to sho' 'hich o# t'o a!ties is the a((!esso! and, also, to sho' the state o# mind o# the one 'ho claims to have acted in sel# de#ense. %he th!eats ma" be !oved b" an"one 'ho has hea!d them. lso, a statement o# account 'hich is o-e!ed not to !ove such account but onl" to sho' the (ood #aith o# the ossesso! is admissible. ;c< %o establish notice, )no'led(e, consciousness o! a'a!eness o# some #act o! the condition o# some #act. o! instance, to !ove that the d!ive! )ne' o# the de#ective condition o# his b!a)es, evidence that he stated be#o!e the accident that his b!a)es 'e!e de#ective is admissible. E2ce,tions* Reasons %o" %he ecetions to the hea!sa" !ule !e#e! to those statements 'hich althou(h made out o# cou!t and cannot be subjected to c!oss eamination a!e, neve!theless, admitted to establish thei! t!uth. %he" a!e admitted unde! the necessit" !ule so that the cou!t 'ill not be de!ived o# the use o# an evidence conside!ed imo!tant and necessa!" in decidin( a case. %he" a!e also admitted because o# the ci!cumstances unde! 'hich the hea!sa" decla!ations 'e!e made 'hich mo!e o! less (ua!antee o! assu!e the cou!t o# thei! t!ust'o!thiness. %he ci!cumstances se!ve as a substitute #o! c!osseamination, the lac) o# 'hich is the basis #o! eclusion unde! the hea!sa" !ule. The va"io!s e2ce,tions to the hea"sa# "!le* .hich shall be isc!sse inivi!all#* a"e as (ollo.s@ ;a< /"in( decla!ation@ ;b< /ecla!ation a(ainst inte!est, ecunia!" o! mo!al@ ;c< ct o! decla!ation about edi(!ee@
;d< amil" !eutation o! t!adition !e(a!din( edi(!ee@ ;e
SEL%5SERVIN$ EVIDENCE Rule 13>, Sec. 3> “Objection, Your Honor”, the evidence is self(servin.” De1nition Sel#se!vin( evidence is evidence made out o# cou!t at one time. t is an et!ajudicial decla!ation, o!al o! '!itten, conside!ed #avo!able to the inte!est o# the decla!ant. Wh# Not +missible t is not admissible as !oo# o# the #acts asse!ted the!ein !ima!il" because o# its hea!sa" cha!acte!. %he lac) o# oo!tunit" to c!osseamine the e!son 'ho made the decla!ation !ende!s its objectionable. nothe! !eason is that its int!oduction 'ould oen the doo! to de#!aud and e!ju!". %he testimon" o# an inte!ested a!t", eithe! as lainti-, de#endant, comlainant o! accused, no matte! ho' #avo!able to his inte!est, is not conside!ed sel#se!vin( because it can be subjected to c!osseamination. n e$am"le / %he mothe! o# a de#endant hea!d he! son sa" to a !osecution 'itness “9h" did "ou tell all those lies:$ %he mothe! 'as (oin( to !eeat in cou!t 'hat he! son said 'hich, o# cou!se, 'as #avo!able to him. %he sonIs outo#cou!t statement is not onl" sel#se!vin( but also hea!sa". nother e$am"le / %he de#endant 'as cha!(ed 'ith d!ivin( unde! the inKuence o# li+uo!. 9hen his 'i#e
a!!ived at the hosital seve!al hou!s late!, she as)ed the de#endant 'ho 'as d!ivin(. %he de#endant !elied that his comanion did. %his outo# cou!t statement o# the de#endant, 'hich 'as #avo!able to him, is sel# se!vin( hea!sa", i# na!!ated b" the 'i#e in cou!t.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 D6IN$ DECL+R+TION Rule 13>, Sec. 31 “Your Honor, the evidence is admissible as a dyin declaration.” Wh# +mitte d"in( decla!ation is admitted because o# the belie# that a e!son 'ho is about to #ace his Ba)e! can be eected to tell the t!uth. ecause the decla!ant cannot be c!osseamined, a d"in( decla!ation should be !eceived 'ith caution and the !ules (ove!nin( its admission should be #ollo'ed st!ictl". Re3!isites ;a< %he decla!ation has been made unde! a consciousness o# imendin( death. %he belie# that death 'as #ai!l" imminent ma" be !oved not onl" b" the se!iousness o# the 'ounds but also b" statements utte!ed b" the deceased. %he #ollo'in( have been held sucient !oo# o# a sense o# imendin( death “ am su!e to die$, “ cannot live and 'ant to ma)e a d"in( decla!ation$, and “ believe, have no hoe$. Ai)e'ise, !e+uestin( the !esence o# a !iest in o!de! that the decla!ant mi(ht !eceive the last !ites o# the chu!ch ma" be sho'n as evidence o# a belie# in imendin( death@ /eath, ho'eve!, need not immediatel" #ollo' the decla!ation. t is enou(h that the decla!ant believed that death 'as at hand@ ;b< %he decla!ation is used not in a civil case but in a c!iminal case 'he!e the death o# the decla!ant is the subject o# in+ui!". 9he!e the accused is on t!ial #o! the mu!de! o# one e!son, the d"in( decla!ation o#
anothe! e!son 'ho 'as )illed in the same incident cannot be admitted@ ;c< %he decla!ation is to !ove onl" the #acts and ci!cumstances !oducin( and attendin( the death o# the decla!ant. %o the etent that it !e#e!s to ast t!ansactions li)e !evious th!eats, o! to 'hat occu!!ed th!ee hou!s be#o!e the mu!de!, o! to ast +ua!!els, it is not admissible@ and ;<# the d"in( decla!ation has been !educed to '!itin(, the o!i(inal o# the '!itten decla!ation must be !oduced. Seconda!" evidence is allo'ed onl" a#te! the non!oduction o# the o!i(inal has been elained. 7o. to Dis,"ove d"in( decla!ation is not inviolable. t ma" be disc!edited b" sho'in( that the !eutation o# the deceased #o! t!uth and ve!acit" is bad@ that the deceased did not believe in Cod o! in a #utu!e state o# !e'a!ds and unishment@ that it is inconsistent 'ith a !evious statement made b" the deceased@ that it is inc!edible in itsel#@ o!, that it is cont!adicted b" the testimon" o# disinte!ested 'itnesses.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 DECL+R+TION +$+INST INTEREST Rule 13>, Sec. 32 “Your Honor, the evidence may be received as a statement aainst interest.” Wh# +mitte /ecla!ations a(ainst inte!est a!e admissible, even thou(h hea!sa", because o# the belie# that a e!son shall not ma)e a #alse statement i# that 'ill be a(ainst his ecunia!" o! mo!al inte!est. Jnli)e an admission 'hich is made b" a a!t" to a case, a decla!ation a(ainst inte!est is made b" a thi!d e!son, one 'ho is not di!ectl" involved in the case, li)e a !edecesso!ininte!est. Re3!i"ements@ ;a< t is made b" a e!son 'ho is dead, outside the hiliines o! unable to testi#". %he unavailabilit" to testi#" should be due to se!ious causes, e.(., the e!son is h"sicall" incaable o! mentall" incometent. n one #o!ei(n
case, a decla!ant 'ho 'as !esent in cou!t but 'ho !e#used to testi#" because o# #ea! #o! his and his #amil"Is sa#et" 'as conside!ed unavailable@ ;b< %he decla!ation is not sel#se!vin(. t is a(ainst the ecunia!" o! mo!al inte!est o# the decla!ant. %he 0nancial inte!est must be actual and substantial@ %"ical eamles a!e statements li)e “ am indebted to Huan de la F!uG$@ “ am o'ne! o# onl" one hal# o# the !oe!t" !e(iste!ed in m" name$@ o!, “ have al!ead" sold the land to ed!o even thou(h it is still !e(iste!ed in m" name.$ /ecla!ation a(ainst enal inte!est acco!din( to 9i(mo!e ma" be conside!ed as decla!ations a(ainst mo!al inte!est@ and ;c< %he decla!ant )ne' the #acts and had no motive to mis!e!esent o! #alsi#" them. %he decla!ation ma" be o!al o! '!itten. t ma" aea! in deeds, accounts, memo!anda, !eceits, etc. nd it need not be made in the !e(ula! cou!se o# business o! be contemo!aneous 'ith the act !eco!ded.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 PEDI$REE ;%+)IL6 7ISTOR6< Rule 13>, Sec. 33 “Your Honor, the evidence is admissible as a matter of "ediree.” Cove"a'e Batte!s o# #amil" histo!" = li)e the !elationshi, a(e, date and lace o# bi!th, ma!!ia(e o! death o# a #amil" membe! = ma" be !oved b" the o!al o! '!itten decla!ation o# a e!son. %he decla!ation ma" be #ound in a #amil" bible, deed, lette!, 'ill o! othe! t"es o# #amil" !eco!d. Re3!i"ements n o!de! that such decla!ation ma" be admitted it is necessa!" that ;a< %he decla!ant is dead, outside the count!" o! othe!'ise unavailable@
;b<e is a membe! o# the #amil" eithe! b" bi!th o! ma!!ia(e 'hich must be !oved b" indeendent evidence@ and ;c< %he decla!ation is made be#o!e the cont!ove!s" at a time 'hen the decla!ant has no motive to lie. /ecla!ations about edi(!ee a!e admitted out o# necessit" and because eole a!e not !one to lie about thei! #amil" histo!".
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 %+)IL6 REPUT+TION Rule 13>, Sec. 3 “Your Honor, the evidence may be admitted as a matter of family re"utation.” P"oo( B# Livin' %amil# )embe" e!e, a livin( #amil" membe! can testi#" about the edi(!ee o! linea(e o# a !elative based on #amil" !eutation o! t!adition that eisted be#o!e the cont!ove!s". %he 'itness need not !ove his !elationshi b" indeendent evidence@ he can !el" on his o'n testimon". Jnde! section 33, edi(!ee is !oven b" 'hat 'as said b" a !elative 'ho is al!ead" dead o! unavailable.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 CO))ON REPUT+TION Rule 13>, Sec. 35 “Your Honor, the evidence is admissible as a matter of common re"utation.” What Can Be P"ove Fommon !eutation is a means o# !ovin( ;a< acts o# ublic o! (ene!al inte!est that a!e mo!e than 3> "ea!s old@ ;b
n eamle o# a matte! o# ublic o! (ene!al inte!est a!e the bounda!ies o# to'ns and !ovinces and the ublic cha!acte! and location o# !oads. ounda!ies o# !ivate lands cannot be !oved b" !eutation ecet 'hen the" a-ect man" eole so as to become a matte! o# (ene!al inte!est to them. t no instance can title to !ivate lands be !oven b" common !eutation. %he mo!al cha!acte! o# a e!son ma" be established b" common !eutation eistin( be#o!e the cont!ove!s" and !evailin( in the lace 'he!e the e!son is 'ell )no'n. Cood cha!acte! ma" be imlied #!om the testimon" o# a 'itness 'ho neve! hea!d an"thin( bad bein( said about a e!son.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 RES $EST+E Rule 13>, Sec. 36 “Your Honor, the statement is admissible as "art of the res estae.” Res (estae ma" eithe! be a sontaneous eclamation o! a ve!bal act. S,ontaneo!s E2clamation sontaneous eclamation is one caused b" the st!ess and ecitement o# some sta!tlin( ete!nal event. %he test o# its admissibilit" is 'hethe! the statement has been utte!ed sontaneousl" so that the decla!ant has had no time to deceive o! #ab!icate a sto!". %he!e#o!e, the lase o# time bet'een the event and the utte!ance is imo!tant in dete!minin( 'hethe! the decla!ant had time to !eKect@ thin) and delibe!ate about the event. /eendin( on the ci!cumstances, +uestions add!essed to the decla!ant, such as “'hat haened$, “'hatIs the matte!$, ma" o! ma" not indicate sontaneit". n ans'e! to such +uestions ma" be conside!ed na!!ative instead o# instinctive in natu!e. %he e!son 'ho made the sontaneous statement need not be a a!ticiant in the sta!tlin( event. e
ma" be a b"stande! o! obse!ve! and the statement ma" be !e!oduced in cou!t b" a 'itness 'ho hea!d it. statement that #ails to +uali#" as a d"in( decla!ation, because it 'as not made unde! a consciousness o# an imendin( death, ma" be admitted as a!t o# !es (estae. Ve"bal +ct *n the othe! hand, a ve!bal act is a statement o! decla!ation 'hich accomanies an act and tends to elain o! desc!ibe the meanin(, cha!acte! o! natu!e o# the act. o! eamle, i# ed!o hands mone" to Huan 'ithout sa"in( an"thin(, the act itsel# is ambi(uous and no one can #o! 'hat u!ose the mone" has been (iven. ut i# at the time the mone" is handed, ed!o sa"s that it is #o! sa#e)eein(, the cha!acte! o! u!ose o# the act is elained b" the accoman"in( statement, 'hich is the ve!bal act. %he decla!ation o# ed!o, as late! on !ecounted b" a 'itness, 'ill be admitted as an ecetion to the hea!sa" !ule because it is conside!ed a a!t o# the t!ansaction, de!ivin( c!edit #!om the act itsel#. To be amissible as ve"bal act* the statement m!st ;a< accoman" an act, that is, be contemo!aneous 'ith the conduct@ ;b< the act is mate!ial to the issue@ ;c< the act is dumb, ambi(uous o! e+uivocal@ and ;d< the statement elains o! (ives a le(al meanin( to the act.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 BOO- ENTRIES Rule 13>, Sec. 37 “Your Honor, the evidence is admissible as a boo% entry in the reular course of business.” Cove"a'e %his ecetion to the hea!sa" !ule is called “business ent!ies$ !ule. %his desc!ition is at to be misleadin(, ho'eve!, because the ecetion is not limited to ent!ies in boo)s o# accounts )et b" me!chants. Even ent!ies made b" la'"e!s, h"sicians and othe!s en(a(ed in a di-e!ent callin( o! !o#ession a!e included. Re3!isites
n ent!" can !ove !ima #acie the act, condition, event o! t!ansaction that it desc!ibes, even i# the e!son 'ho made it is al!ead" dead o! unavailable, !ovided ;a<ts custodian authenticates the ent!" b" testi#"in( on its identit" and the manne! it 'as !ea!ed. t is necessa!" that the ent!" 'as made 'hen the event o! t!ansaction 'as haenin(, had just haened o! !i(ht a#te!. ;b< %he ent!" 'as made b" someone 'hile ee!cisin( his !o#ession o! e!#o!min( his dut"@ and ;c< %he ent!" is not an isolated o! so!adic act but is one o# man" done !e(ula!l" in the o!dina!" cou!se o# business o! dut". n ent!" ma" be #ound in a boo) o# ma!!ia(e, !eo!t o# a ublic se!vice insecto! o! in a boo) o# accounts. t ma" ta)e the #o!m o# a sales sli invoice, unch ca!d, u!chase o!de! o! dail" lo(. balance sheet is not so conside!ed. 7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 O%%ICI+L RECORD Rule 13>, Sec. 38 “Your Honor, the document is admissible as an o'cial record.” 9hat is imo!tant he!e is that the ent!" o! !eco!d 'as made because the la' !e+ui!ed it to be made. n othe! 'o!ds, the ublic oce! o! !ivate individual 'as dut"bound to ma)e the ent!" o! !eco!d 'hile e!#o!min( his #unctions. +!thentication Neee lthou(h the e!son 'ho made the ent!" need not be !esented in cou!t, the ent!" must be authenticated. Fonside!ed ocial ent!ies o! !eco!ds )et b" a ublic oce! a!e ent!ies in the !e(ist!" o# bi!th, ma!!ia(es and death )et b" the local civil !e(ist!a!@ she!i-Is ce!ti0cate o# se!vice o# summons and !etu!n o# '!it o# eecution@ ce!ti0cate o# ac)no'led(ement o# a nota!" ublic@ and ce!ti0cate o# co!!ectness o# a cou!t steno(!ahe!. t is necessa!" that the e!son 'ho made the ent!" )ne' the #acts 'hich he !eco!ded. *the!'ise, the ent!" 'ill not be (iven an" !obative value and
'ill not be conside!ed !ima #acie evidence o# the act, condition o! event that it desc!ibes. Testimon# Neee %he!e a!e some ocial !eco!ds o! ent!ies that a!e not admitted 'ithout suo!tin( testimon". Eamles o# these a!e autos" !eo!t, batismal ce!ti0cate, olice blotte! and olice investi(ation !eo!t.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 CO))ERCI+L LISTS Rule 13>, Sec. 3? “Your Honor, the writin is admissible as a commercial lists.” 7o. P"oven %he ma!)et #o! stoc)s, machine!" and (oods at a a!ticula! e!iod o# time ma" be !oved b" !ice +uotations aea!in( in dail" ne'sae!s, t!ade jou!nals, o! !inted ci!cula!s and catalo(ues issued b" manu#actu!e!s and dist!ibuto!s. *the! ma!)et and economic data, li)e the demand and sul" o# (oods, the !ise and #all o# inKation !ate, (!o'th o! decline o# the (!oss national !oduct ma" be !oved b" tables and statistics ublished in t!ade o! comme!cial jou!nals o! as !e!inted in !eutable ne'sae!s. 9eathe! and navi(ational statistics can also be admitted unde! this !ule althou(h i# comiled b" a (ove!nment a(enc", the" a!e admissible also as ublic o! ocial !eco!ds. *ut o# necessit" and st!on( !obabilit" o# thei! t!ust'o!thiness, the autho!s o# the lists, +uotations and statistics need not be called to testi#".
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 LE+RNED TRE+TISES Rule 13>, Sec. > “Your Honor, the writin may be admitted as a learned treatise.” Com,etenc# o( +!tho" 9!itten 'o!ds ublished subject o# histo!", science admissible i# autho!ed b" lea!ned o! !eco(niGed as an the subject.
on an" o! a!t is someone ee!t in
Com,etenc# o( +!tho" # the cometence o# the ee!t is (ene!all" acceted, the cou!t ma" ta)e judicial notice o# that #act. # not, an ee!t in the subject ma" be called to sho' that the autho! o# the t!eatise is somebod" 'ell )no'n in his 0eld. Enc#clo,eias* Dictiona"ies !ticles in enc"cloedias ma" be admitted. /ictiona!ies, 'hile admissible, a!e admitted onl" #o! the u!ose o# sho'in( the o!dina!" meanin( o# 'o!ds.
7E+RS+6 E/CEPTION 8 %OR)ER TESTI)ON6 Rule 13>, Sec. 1 “Your Honor, it may be admitted as former testimony.” %estimon" (iven in a #o!me! case can be used #o! t'o u!oses. i!st, to imeach the 'itness 'ho (ave the #o!me! testimon" and late! on testi0ed in anothe! case. Secondl", to !ove a #act in issue, 'hen the 'itness in his #o!me! testimon" made a dama(in( admission !ovin( the disuted #act. Im,eachment o( Witness # the u!ose is to imeach, b" sho'in( that the 'itness had made a !io! inconsistent statement, the !e+ui!ements o# this !ule need not be obse!ved. t is enou(h that the !edicate o! #oundation #o! it is laid. P"ovin' a %act in Iss!e # the u!ose is to !ove a #act in issue, it is necessa!" to sho' that ;a< %he 'itness 'ho !eviousl" testi0ed is not available eithe! because he is dead, outside the hiliines o! unable to testi#" due to h"sical o! mental illness. Be!e !e#usal to testi#" is not a valid (!ound@ ;b<e (ave his testimon" in a #o!me! case involvin( the same a!ties and about the same matte!s@ and ;c<e 'as c!osseamined o! could have been c!osseamined b" the oosin( a!t". %he best evidence to !ove #o!me! testimon" is, o# cou!se, the t!ansc!it ce!ti0ed t!ue and co!!ect b" the steno(!ahe! 'ho too) it. %he jud(eIs notes, not bein( an ocial a!t o# the !eco!d and not havin( been made
unde! the sanction o# an oath, a!e not evidence o# 'hat a 'itness has said.
EVIDENCE O% CONDUCT 8 SI)IL+R +CTS Rule 13>, Sec. 8 “Objection, Your Honor, it is not admissible as evidence of similar act.” “Your Honor, the evidence may be admitted to "rove s"eci#c intent, "lan, etc.” Evidence that one did o! #ailed to do a a!ticula! thin( at one time is not admissible to sho' that he did o! #ailed to do a simila! thin( at anothe! time. P!",ose* Test %hus, !evious conviction #o! a c!ime cannot be used to !ove the commission o# anothe! c!ime b" the same e!son. nd the #act that an act could have been done cannot be conside!ed !oo# that it 'as done o! vice ve!sa. %his !ule o# !es inte! alios acta is not absolute, ho'eve!. # the u!ose is not to sho' that a e!son is the autho! o# an act on the basis o# 'hat he did in the a!t, evidence o# !evious conduct ma" beadmitted. ndeed, it is allo'ed to !ove seci0c intent o! )no'led(e, identit", lan, s"stem, scheme, customs o! usa(e. o! eamle, evidence that the accused attemted to set 0!e to a house one 'ee) be#o!e it actuall" bu!ned is admissible to !ove intent to commit a!son. dmissible also is evidence that the accused had been !eviousl" bu"in( (oods 'ith counte!#eit mone" to sho' that he had )no'led(e o# the mone"Is ille(alit". %o !ove a lan o! scheme, evidence is admissible to sho' that in eto!tin( mone", the accused had used the same th!eatenin( method be#o!e. lso, to !ove identit", evidence ma" be int!oduced to sho' that the accused 'o!e the same clothes 'hen he assaulted the nei(hbo! o# the victim in a !evious incident.
JUDICI+L NOTICE 0ule 123, 4ec. 1
“Your Honor, I re!uest the court to ta%e judicial notice of the fact that. . . . . “ 9hen the cou!t ta)es judicial notice o# a #act, evidence is disensed 'ith. %he!e#o!e, ta)in( judicial notice o# a #act, evidence is disensed 'ith. %he!e#o!e, ta)in( judicial notice is a sho!tcut in establishin( #acts that a!e 'ell )no'n and do not admit o# an" cont!adiction. When J!icial Notice Ta9en 5enerally, judicial notice is ta%en of the followin: ;a< Batte!s o# common and (ene!al )no'led(e in the communit" li)e ;aa< the olitical histo!" and (eo(!ahical #acts about the hiliines and the 'o!ld@ ;bb< majo! histo!ical events he!e and ab!oad@ and ;cc< the un+uestioned la's o# natu!e. 6atters that can easily be ascertained and veri#ed from boo%s, encyclo"edias, o'cial re"orts and documents and other authoritative sources li%e: ;aa
E2am,le o( E2amination o( a Witness PROCEEDIN$S
CLER- O% COURT@;Fallin( the Fase< F!iminal Fase 4o.3?5733S, eole o# the hiliines ve!sus /onald NaldeG " Sta. na #o! Niolation o# . . 6. %ISC+L ENCISO@Cood mo!nin( Mou! ono! #o! the (ove!nment. 9e a!e !ead" Mou! ono! lease. +TT6> S6 JUCO@o! the accused Mou! ono!. COURT@lease call "ou! 'itness iscal. %ISC+L ENCISO@Ba" 'e call on to the 'itness stand *2 enjamin lanco Mou! ono!. COURT@lease ta)e the 'itness stand. COURT INTERPRETER@lease !emain standin(, !aise "ou! !i(ht hand, do "ou s'ea! to tell the t!uth, the 'hole t!uth and nothin( but the t!uth be#o!e this cou!t: WITNESS@ do. COURT INTERPRETER@lease state "ou! name, a(e and othe! e!sonal ci!cumstances. WITNESS@ am *2 enjamin lanco, "ea!s old, Ba!!ied, !esidin( at 53> Man(co St., Ca(alan(in, %ondo, Banila, olice *ce!. COURT INTERPRETER@ Mou! 'itness iscal Enciso. %ISC+L ENCISO@9e a!e o-e!in( the testimon" o# the 'itness to !ove to this ono!able Fou!t that he is a bona0de membe! o# the hiliine 4ational olice@ 'ho on Hune 7, 2>12 at > B a!!ested the accused in this case 'ith S*3 Robeliobelle!a@ he 'ill testi#" on the incident that led them to a!!est the accused@ he 'ill testi#" on the !ecove!" o# the )ni#e #!om the accused@ he 'ill testi#" that he, to(ethe! 'ith S*3 Ro(elio belle!a eecuted an davit o# !ehension and he 'ill testi#" on some othe! matte!s that 'ill suo!t the in#o!mation in this case. COURT@n" comment o! objection to the o-e! o# testimon", tt". S"Huco: +TT6> S6 JUCO@Subject to c!oss eamination Mou! ono!. COURT@lease !oceed, iscal. %ISC+L ENCISO@e#o!e !oceed 'ith m" di!ect eamination Mou! ono! lease ma" !e+uest #o! some stiulations #o! admission Mou! ono! lease: COURT@!oceed iscal. %ISC+L ENCISO@i!st stiulation Mou! ono! lease is that the intended 'itness is a bona0de membe! o# the
hiliine 4ational olice assi(ned at olice Station 3: +TT6> S6 JUCO@dmitted Mou! ono!. %ISC+L ENCISO@ %hat on Hune 7, 2>12 at a!ound >B, he, to(ethe! 'ith S*3 Ro(elio belle!a, 'as at the vicinit" o# SB San AaGa!o, Banila, conductin( at!ol: +TT6> S6 JUCO@dmitted Mou! ono!. %ISC+L ENCISO@Ba" no' !oceed 'ith m" di!ect eamination Mou! ono! lease: COURT@lease !oceed iscal. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA DIRECT E/+)IN+TION O% PO BENJ+)IN BL+NCO CONDUCTED B6 %ISC+L REN+TO > ENCISO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA %ISC+L ENCISO@ L. B!. 9itness 'hile conductin( a at!ol 'ith S*3 Ro(elio belle!a on Hune 7, 2>12, on o! about >B 'ithin the vicinit" o# SB San AaGa!o, manila, 'as the!e an" unto'a!d incident that haened: . Mes si!. L. nd 'hat 'as it B!. 9itness: . 9hile 'e 'e!e on at!ol, 'e sa' a commotion si!. L. nd 'hat is that commotion all about, i# "ou can still !ecall: . sa' a man and 'oman na(hahata)an n( ba(. L. 9e!e t he!e an" othe! e!sons aside #!om the man and the 'oman at that time: . 4one si!. L. o' #a! 'e!e "ou #!om those e!sons 'hen "ou sa' them: . bout 1> mete!s si!. L. B!. 9itness tell us the li(htin( condition at the lace 'he!e "ou sa' those e!sons at that time: .%he!e is a li(ht comin( #!om ou! mobile ca! si!. L. Jon seein( the commotion, 'hat did "ou do B!. 9itness: . 9e immediatel" !oceeded at the scene si!. L. 9ho a!e "ou !e#e!!in( 'hen "ou said “'e$ B!. 9itness: . B" a!tne!, S*3 Ro(elio belle!a si!.
L. 9e!e "ou able to !each the lace 'he!e the commotion is haenin( at that time B!. 9itness: . Mes si!. L. Jon !eachin( the lace, 'hat haened B!. 9itness: . e !an a'a" #!om us 'hen he noticed ou! mobile ca!. L. %ell us the (ende! o# the e!son 'ho is !unnin( a'a" #!om "ou B!. 9itness: . Bale e!son si!. L. nd in 'hat di!ection B!. 9itness: . e 'as !unnin( to'a!ds RiGal venue si!. L. 9hat !elationshi does that e!son have #!om the e!son 'hom "ou sa' involved in the commotion 'ith a #emale e!son at that time: . Si"ao"un()umuha n( ba(. L. Jon seein( that e!son 'ho 'as !unnin(, is the same e!son involved in the commotion, 'hat did "ou do: . B" a!tne! immediatel" chased the susect and then, , onboa!d the mobile ca!, assisted the (i!l, the victim. L. 9e!e "ou able to )no' 'hat haened 'hen "ou! a!tne! chased the e!son 'ho 'as !unnin( at that time: . Mes si!. L. 9hat haened B!. 9itness: . 9e )no' that it 'as a holdu because he (ot the ba( si!. L. !om 'hom is the ba( !ecove!ed: . !om the susect si!. L. nd then 'hat haened net: . B" a!tne! sea!ched the bod" o# the susect si!. L. 9hile "ou! a!tne! 'as sea!chin( the bod" o# the susect, 'he!e 'e!e "ou laced at that time: . 0!st a!)ed the mobile ca! and #ollo'ed m" a!tne! si!. L. 9hen "ou! a!tne! 'as sea!chin( the e!son, ho' #a! 'e!e "ou #!om "ou! a!tne!: . bout 1> #eet si!. L. 9e!e "ou able to )no' #!om that distance, 'hat haened du!in( the sea!ch o# "ou! a!tne!: . Mes si!. L. 9hat haened B!. 9itness: . e !ecove!ed a ba( containin( je'el!ies, 'atch and a bladed 'eaon si!.
L. 9e!e "ou able to )no' #!om 'hat a!ticula! a!t o# the bod" is that bladed 'eaon !ecove!ed #!om the susect B!. 9itness: . !om his 'aistline si!. L. o' 'e!e "ou able to sa" that othe! than the ba( and je'el!ies, a bladed 'eaon 'as also !ecove!ed b" "ou! a!tne! B!. 9itness: . sa' it si!. L. 9hat )ind o# bladed 'eaon is that i# "ou can still !ecall B!. 9itness: . # could !ecall, it is a balison( si!. L. Jon !ecove!" o# that bladed 'eaon, 'e!e "ou able to )no' 'hat "ou! a!tne! did 'ith that bladed 'eaon: . Mes si! he (ot it #!om the susect. L. #te! that, 'hat did "ou! a!tne! do 'ith that bladed 'eaon i# "ou )no': . e held it si!. L. 9hat else did "ou do 'hen "ou! a!tne! 'as able to !ecove! these thin(s: . assisted m" a!tne! (oin( to the mobile ca!. L. #te! !eachin( "ou! mobile ca!, 'hat haened net: . 9e !esented the susect to the victim si!. L. 9hat haened net B!. 9itness: . cco!din( to the victim, he is the e!son 'ho !obbed he! si!. L. #te! that 'hat haened net i# the!e 'as an": . 9e !oceeded to ou! oce si!. L. 9hat a!ticula! oce B!. 9itness: . olice Station 3 si!. L. 9ho 'e!e 'ith "ou 'hen "ou !eached the olice station 3: . B" a!tne! S*3 belle!a and m" Fommande! inchie# si!. L. o' about the susect: . %he susect and the victim 'e!e 'ith us si!. L. o' about the ba( and je'el!ies and the bladed 'eaon 'hich acco!din( to "ou 'e!e !ecove!ed #!om the susect at that time: . 9e b!ou(ht it si!. L. Mou said that "ou 'e!e able to !each the olice station 3 'ith the susect, victim and the !ecove!ed
items, 'e!e "ou able to )no' 'hat haened to the )ni#e B!. 9itness: . 9e !esented it to the investi(ato! and he ma!)ed it 'ith the initials o# /onald NaldeG si!. L. 9ho in a!ticula! !esented the )ni#e to the nvesti(ato!: . S*3 Ro(elio belle!a si!. L. 9he!e 'e!e "ou 'hen he !esented the )ni#e to the nvesti(ato! B!. 9itness: . 'as also the!e si!. L. nd a#te! that, 'hat haened net inside that olice station B!. 9itness: . 9e !ea!ed ou! adavit si!. L. s that adavit !educed into '!itin( B!. 9itness: . Mes si!. L. nd 'hat did "ou do 'ith the adavit B!. 9itness: . 9e aed ou! si(natu!es in the adavit si!. L. # that adavit 'ill be sho'n to "ou can "ou still !eco(niGe it: . Mes si!. L. am sho'in( to "ou an davit o# !ehension attached in the !eco!d o# this case, )indl" tell us the !elation o# this document to the adavit 'hich "ou just mentioned B!. 9itness: . %his is ou! adavit si!. L. %he!e aea!s a name *2 enjamin lanco 'ith si(natu!e ove! the name o# that e!son, )indl" tell us 'ho is this e!son and 'hose si(natu!e aea!s ove! the name o# that e!son: . %his is m" name and m" si(natu!e si!. L. /o "ou a!m and con0!m the ve!acit" and t!uth#ulness o# this adavit unde! "ou! !esent oath B!. 9itness: . Mes si!. L. 4o' B!. 9itness, the!e also aea!s a name S*3 Ro(elio belle!a 'ith si(natu!e ove! the name o# that e!son, )indl" tell us 'ho is this e!son and 'hose si(natu!e aea!s ove! the name o# that e!son: . %his is the name o# m" a!tne! and this is his si(natu!e si!. L. o' 'e!e "ou able to )no' that this is the si(natu!e o# S*3 belle!a: . 9e a!e both !esent 'hen 'e si(ned that adavit si!. L. #te! this adavit 'as !ea!ed and "ou si(ned this adavit, 'hat haened net B!. 9itness:
. %he a ccomanied the s usect and the victim to the hosital #o! medical eamination si!. L. nd a #te! t hat ' hat h aened net: . 9e 'ent bac) to ou! oce and tu!n ove! the susect to the nvesti(ato! #o! !oe! disosition o# the case si!. L. 9hat did "ou do net B!. 9itness: . 4othin( mo!e si!. %ISC+L ENCISO@4o #u!the! +uestions Mou! ono! lease. COURT@F!oss: +TT6> S6 JUCO@9ith the )ind e!mission o# the ono!able Fou!t: COURT@lease !oceed tt". S"Huco.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA CROSS E/+)IN+TION O% PO BENJ+)IN BL+NCO CONDUCTED B6 +TT6> )+R6 +N$ELINE S6 JUCO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA +TT6> S6 JUCO@ L. B!. 9itness, ho' lon( have "ou been assi(ned at olice station 3: . Si ;6< "ea!s maIam. L. !om Hune 7, 2>12 u to this date, can "ou !ecall ho' man" la' violato!s 'e!e "ou able to a!ehend B!. 9itness: . bout 56 maIam. L. 9hat is the la' that 'as violated b" the e!sons "ou 'e!e able to a!ehend: . *nl" Fit" *!dinances maIam. L. Mou said a'hile a(o that "ou 'e!e on a at!ol 'hen "ou chanced uon a commotion 'he!ein "ou said a man and a 'oman 'e!e na(hahata)an n( ba( aside #!om the li(ht comin( #!om "ou! mobile that "ou a!e d!ivin( B!. 9itness, 'hat othe! sou!ce o# li(ht o# the a!ea 'he!ein "ou sa' a commotion: . Ai(ht comin( #!om the ost maIam. L. /u!in( that time 'hen "ou #ocused the li(ht o# the mobile that "ou 'e!e d!ivin( to those t'o e!sons, 'e!e "ou able to clea!l" see the #ace o# the man 'ho 'as alle(edl" ullin( the ba( #!om a 'oman: . t that distance, not "et maIam. L. Fan "ou !ecall B!. 9itness, 'hat is the colo! o# the ba( bein( ulled b" the man: . /a!) colo! maIam am not su!e i# it is blac) o! b!o'n. L. B!. 9itness "ou said a'hile a(o that "ou assisted the 'oman 'hile S*3 belle!a #ollo'ed that man 'ho !an a'a", is that co!!ect B!. 9itness: . Mes maIam. L. 4o' B!. 9itness, ho' #a! 'e!e "ou #!om "ou! a!tne!, S*3 belle!a 'hen he 'as able to a!!est a man 'hom "ou alle(ed as the one 'ho 'as ullin( the ba( #!om a 'oman: . bout 2> #eet maIam. L. !e "ou still boa!din( the mobile 'hen "ou sa' them: . 4o maIam.
L. o' #a! 'e!e "ou B!. 9itness 'hen S*3 belle!a conducted the sea!ch to the man he 'as able to a!ehend B!. 9itness: . am not su!e but 'as about 1> #eet a'a" maIam. L. /id "ou actuall" see B!. 9itness 'hen S*3 belle!a actuall" !ecove!ed the #an )ni#e #!om the accused: . Mes si!. L. nd 'hat 'as the li(htin( condition at that time 'hen S*3 belle!a 'as able to !ecove! a )ni#e #!om the accused: . t 'as 'ellli(hted maIam. L. B!. 9itness a !e "ou a'a!e o# the identit" o# the e!son that "ou a!!ested: . Mes maIam. L. nd 'hat is the name o# that e!son B!. 9itness: . /onald NaldeG maIam. L. 9hen si(nin( this davit o# !ehension B!. 9itness did "ou not !ead the contents o# this adavit !io! to si(nin( B!. 9itness . !ead it maIam. L. /id "ou not notice that this davit o# !ehension does not state the name o# the accused that "ou 'e!e able to a!ehend on Hune 7, 2>12 B!. 9itness: . Mes maIam. L. 9hen did "ou notice that the!e 'as no name o# the accused stated in "ou! davit o# !ehension B!. 9itness: . *nl" 'hen !ead m" adavit si!. L. ut !io! to the si(nin( a#te! "ou have a!!ested the accused B!. 9itness, did "ou not eamine this adavit: . 4ot an"mo!e maIam because 'as so ti!ed, an((abi )ami inuma(ana )ami saa((a'ani"an. L. 9ho is the e!son 'ho !ea!ed this davit o# !ehension B!. 9itness: . *u! nvesti(ato!, *3 Ni!(ilio4inon maIam. L. 9e!e "ou !esent 'hen the bladed 'eaon 'as tu!ned ove! b" S*3 belle!a to the nvesti(ato!: . Mes maIam. L. 9hen this bladed 'eaon 'as ma!)ed as /NS2 'he!e 'e!e "ou B!. 9itness: . 'as also inside the !oom maIam.
+TT6> S6 JUCO@4o #u!the! +uestions Mou! ono!. COURT@Redi!ect: %ISC+L ENCISO@ Mes Mou! ono!.
