1.) All Kinds of Objections
) For being inadmissible under the Parol Evidence Rule
1.) Leading Question -When asked during direct
examination. A question which suggests an answer
which the examining party desires.
XPTNS:
- On cross-examinations
- On preliminary matters
- Unwilling or hostile witness
- Witness is an adverse party
- There is difficulty getting answers from a witness
who is ignorant, a child of tender years, or feeble-
minded
2.) Irrelevant/Improper/Objectionable
3.) Indefinite or Uncertain
4.) Argumentative – a leading question that also reflects
examiner’s interpretation of the facts
5.) Conclusionary – that which calls for an opinion or
conclusion that the witness is not qualified or permitted
to make
6.) Call for Hearsay Evidence
7.) Call for Illegal Answer
8.) Call for Self-Incriminating Testimony
9.) Misleading Question – that which cannot be answered
without making an admission. Assumes a true fact not
yet testified by the witness, or contrary to that which he
has previously stated.
10.) Tend to degrade the witness’ reputation
11.) Repetitious
12.) Call for Narration
13.) Compound- that which requires a single answer to more
than one question
14.) Assuming facts not in evidence- assumes that a disputed
fact is true although it has not yet been established in the
case
15.) Harassing/Embarassing
16.) Invades the field of confidential communication
17.) Question is vague
18.) Question calls for conclusion of law
19.) Question calls for conclusion of fact
20.) Objection to the question for the proper foundation has
not been laid
21.) Witness is incompetent
22.
23.) Attempts to elicit from the witness self-serving evidence
24.) Objection to the question for the document offered is
self-deserving
25.) Objection to question for it tends to elicit evidence which
is not the best evidence
26.) Objection to the question for it calls for Parol Evidence
of an alleged agreement under the Statues of Fraud
27.) Objection to the question for being improper in cross-
examination
28.) Improper in Re-Direct Examination
29.) Improper in Re-Cross
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 36)
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days
after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objection must be specified.
A question and answer which is otherwise objectionable or
inadmissible but which were not objected to shall become part of the record
of the case and may be used as a basis for the judgment or final order. Hence,
it is a good practice to allow an objection to stand and wait the court’s ruling
thereon since this practice will avoid the situation where a question and an
answer to it shall become part of the records even though they are in fact and
in law inadmissible. Hence, as counsel, by such practice, one will be able to
protect his client’s rights or interest in a judicious manner.
2.) Expert Witness Rule (What is an expert witness, qualifications,
weight of testimony)
Rule 130, Section 9. The opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training,
which he shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Expert is a person who is qualified, either by actual
experience or by careful study, as to enable him to form a definite
opinion of his own respecting any division of science, branch of art,
or department of trade, about which persons having no particular
 training or special duty are incapable of forming accurate opinions
or of deducing correct conclusions.
Expert Evidence is testimony of one possessing in regard to
a particular subject or department of human activity, knowledge
which is not usually acquired by other persons.
How Qualifications of an Expert Witness is Established –
While there is no exact standard in fixing the qualifications of an
expert witness, such a witness is deemed qualified if s/he possesses
special skill or knowledge respecting the matter involved so superior
to that of ordinary persons in general as to make his formation of a
judgment a fact of probative value. It is not necessary that he be
infallible or have the highest degree of skill or knowledge.
Basis of Expert Opinion – An expert witness may base his
opinion either on the first-hand knowledge of the facts or on the
basis of hypothetical questions where the facts are presented to him
hypothetically and on the assumption that they are true, formulates
his opinion on the hypothesis.
Expert Evidence Admissible Only if:
1.) The matter to be testified requires expertise
2.) The witness has been qualified as an expert
3.) Expert testimony must pertain to the matter in issue
Probative Value of Expert Testimony – The court is not bound by
the opinion of the expert. Expert opinion evidence is to be
considered or weighed by the court. Like any other testimony in the
light of its own general knowledge and experience upon the subject
of inquiry.
When Qualifying an Expert Witness may be dispensed with:
1.) The adverse counsel stipulates on the expert’s qualification;
2.) Court takes judicial notice of the witness’ expertise
Forms of Question on Direct Examination of Expert Witness
1.) Opinions based on facts known personally by the expert
2.) Opinions based on facts of which he has no personal knowledge
3.) Admissibility of Evidence (When do you make offer of evidence)
4.) Stages of Examination
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 4)
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 5)
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 6)
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 7)
(ROC, Rule 132, Section 8)
5.) Rules on legal maxims in Criminal cases (res inter alios acta,
exclusionary rule, res ipsa loquitur)
6.) Custodial Investigation
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION?
1. Right to remain silent and right to be informed of such right
1. Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice and to be informed of such right
(If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. The right to remain silent and to
counsel cannot be waived except: 1. In writing, and 2. In the
presence of counsel.)
2. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will
3. Right against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention. (Sec12, Art III, Constitution)
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF THE CONFESSION OR ADMISSION
WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOREGOING RIGHTS OF
THE PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the
foregoing rights of the person under custodial investigation
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec12[3], Art
III, Constitution)
7.) Inquest
8.) Preliminary Investigation
9.) Arraignment
10.) Impeachment of Witness
(ROC, Article 132, Section 11)
 Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by
evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense. (15)
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect
to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party
producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared
by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to
the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an
adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence
of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by
the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the
subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)
Witness Required By Law. (one of the exceptions to Section 12)
*Applicable only in civil cases. Criminal cases have privilege against self-
incrimination
Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times
and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he
made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the
statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any
question is put to him concerning them. (16)
WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS?
To destroy or put in doubt the credibility of the witness or
his testimony. It is the process of showing that a witness is not
credible or that his testimony is not worthy of belief, i.e. casting
doubt as to the credibility of the witness or credibility of his
testimony. Note that credibility of the witness is different from
credibility of testimony
Rule on Impeachment of the witness of the adverse party:
Generally, the witness may be impeached during his cross-
examination or during the presentation of evidence by the party.
Thus the witness of the plaintiff may be impeached at the time he is
cross-examined by the defendant and/or during the presentation of
evidence in chief by the defendant. On the other hand, the witness of
the defendant may be impeached by the plaintiff during the cross
examination of said witness and/or during the presentation of
evidence during the rebuttal stage.
Specific Modes pursuant to section 11 and jurisprudence:
4. CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE -By presenting evidence or facts
which contradict the version of the witness, or that the witness’
testimony is wrong or untrue.
-purpose: not just to show an inconsistency but to prove outright that the
witness is mistaken or lying.
Example:
If the witness testified that the defendant’s car
entered the intersection when the stoplight wwas green in
his favour but a video recording showed otherwise.
2. REPUTATION EVIDENCE -By proving the bad general
reputation of the witness for truth or honesty or integrity.
a.) He cannot be impeached by the direct testimony of witnesses of the
adverse party as to particular instances of immoral acts, improper conduct,
or other evidence of misconduct.
b.). The person who is called by the adverse party to testify to the bad
general reputation of the witness of the opponent is called the “Impeaching
witness” who himself may also be impeached.
3. INCONSISTENT STATEMENT -By proof that the witness has made
at other times statements inconsistent with
his present testimony.
4. BIAS OR INTEREST -By introducing evidence of his bias or
interest, such as his relationship to a party,
or financial gain as well as of his motive or
intent.
5. SOCIAL CONNECTIONS -By showing his social connections,
occupations and manner of living in that he
voluntarily associates with those who are
engaged in disreputable activities, or if he is
addicted to disgraceful or vicious practices,
or follows an occupation which is loathsome
and vile, even if not criminal, as all these
affects his credibility.
6. CONVICTION -By proof of prior conviction: the moral
integrity of a person is placed in doubt by
reason of a conviction for violation of the
law, but not by the fact that there are
pending cases against him
7. IMPROBABILITY OF TESTIMONY -By showing the improbability of
his testimony or that it is not in accordance
with ordinary human experience
Example:
The claim of an accidental firing of a caliber gun is
not believable because the mechanism of the
gun which requires that pressure be applied
on the trigger for the gun to fire.
Tthe claim of four big able men having been
attacked and mauled by one person who is
who is much smaller in height and built.
8. DEFECTS -By showing defects in his observation, or
that he has a faulty or selective memory
9. INCONSISTENT ACTIONS -By showing that this actions or
conduct is inconsistent with his testimony.
Example:
A rape victim was shown to have been partying
with the alleged rapist after the rape
10. DISCREPANCIES -By engaging the witness in contradictions
and discrepancies as to the material facts
testified by him.
Rule on Impeachment of one’s own witness:
General Rule: It is not allowed pursuant to section 12. The
reason is that a party calling a witness is supposed to vouch for the
truthfulness of the witness and of his testimony, which he is
assumed to know before hand, and is therefore bound by whatever
the witness testifies to in court. A party is not permitted to let the
witness be believed as to facts favorable to him, but to impeach him
as to facts not favorable.
Exceptions: If the witness presented is any of the following:
a). An unwilling witness
b). He turns out to be a hostile witness or a treacherous
witness and the party was mislead into calling him as a
witness
c). An adverse party witness
Rule on Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement:
The procedure or Laying the Foundations is outlined by
section 13. To be effective the steps should follow the following
sequence:
a). Recommit: Confront the witness with his prior statements
narrating the circumstances of time, place,
persons or occasion, or by showing him the prior
written statement. Get the witness to affirm he made
the statements
b). Build-Up. Let the witness affirm he made the prior
statements freely, knowingly and that he stood by the
accuracy and truthfulness of said statements
c). Contrast: Confront the witness by the fact that his prior
statement contradicts or deviates or is materially
different from his present statement
d). Demand an explanation why he made a different
statement from his previous statements
Reason for the Procedure:
a). Fairness to the witness and avoid surprising him, so that
he may recollect the facts, and to give him the opportunity to
explain the reason, nature, circumstances, or meaning, of his
statements. Example: He might have been too emotional
then, or was improperly influenced, or wanted to avoid
embarrassment, and similar reasons.
b). To save time if he admits his prior statements
Exceptions when there is no need to lay the foundation:
a). In case of statements made by a deceased which
contradicts his dying declarations
 b). If the contradictory statements are testified to by another 13.) Attitude and Demeanor of a Lawyer in Court if Decision if
person as an admission Adverse to You

11.) Rights and Authorities of Presiding Judge in the course of trial
Right to ask clarificatory questions regarding an issue in the case.
However, if said questions are violative of the constitutional rights of
the accused or witness or tainted with grave abuse of discretion, then
the respective counsels may object thereto. The counsel objecting
must do so with respect and courtesy to the judge, bearing in mind
his status as an officer of the court.
A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound
clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract
the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by
one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory
questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to
destroy the theory of one party.
12.) Ruling of Presiding Judge when confronted with motions (How
are you going to rule)
(Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 11)
A lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to
the courts and judicial officers…
14.) Presentation of Witness Under Exclusion
Rule 132, Section 15.
15.) Lost and Destroyed Original Document
(Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 5)
When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated.

Indeed, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to adopt the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate
or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction to
determine a prima facie case.[19]

The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the
case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended
to the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order
the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already adduced before the court by
the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.