PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (RULE GR: Leading questions not allowed.

132)
Exceptions

 cross examination;
The order in which an individual witness  Preliminary matters;
may be examined is as follows:  difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness
who is
1. Direct examination by the proponent –  ignorant, or
the examination-in-chief of a witness by  a child of tender years, or
the party presenting him on the facts  feeble mind, or
relevant to the issue.  a deaf-mute;
 unwilling or hostile witness; or
 witness is an adverse party or an
2. Cross-examination by the opponent – officer, director, or managing agent
Upon the termination of the direct of a public or private corporation or
examination, the witness may be cross- of a partnership or association
examined by the adverse party as to any which is an adverse party.
matters stated in the direct examination,
Misleading question – one which
or connected therewith, with sufficient
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to
fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
by the witness, or contrary to that which
and truthfulness and freedom from
he has previously stated.
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the
issue.
Misleading questions are never allowed.
No exceptions.
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent
– After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party’s
re-examined by the party calling him, to witness. – A witness may be impeached by
explain or supplement his answers given the party against whom he was called, by
during the cross-examination. On re-direct contradictory evidence, by evidence that
examination, questions on matters not his general reputation for truth, honesty,
dealt with during the cross-examination, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he
may be allowed by the court in its has made at other times statements
discretion. 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
4. Re-cross-examination by the opponent –
of the judgment, that he has been
Upon the conclusion of the re-direct
convicted of an offense.
examination, the adverse party may re-
cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his re-direct examination, and
also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion. GR: The party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.

Leading questions – a question which

suggests to the witness the answer which
the examining party desires
Exceptions: When party may impeach
his own witness (except evidence of bad
In any case, the grounds for the objections
character)
must be specified.

1. an unwilling or hostile witness; or

Grounds for objection – Hearsay,
2. a witness who is an adverse party or
argumentative, leading, misleading,
an officer, director, or managing
incompetent, irrelevant, best evidence
agent of a public or private
rule, parol evidence rule, question has no
corporation or of a partnership or
basis
association which is an adverse
party.

Grounds for declaring a witness When Evidence Considered Offered

unwilling or hostile
People v. Franco, 269 SCRA 211 (1997)
1. adverse interest The court shall consider no evidence, even
2. unjustified reluctance to testify, or an extra-judicial confession, which has
3. misled the party into calling him to not been formally offered. Mere fact that
the witness stand. evidence has been identified and marked
in the course of the examination of a
Consequences of being an unwilling,
witness, without the contents being
hostile, or adverse witness
recited in his testimony, does not mean
that it has been formally offered as
evidence. Identification of documentary
1. may be impeached by the
evidence is done in the course of the trial
proponent, except by evidence of
and is accompanied by the marking of the
bad character
evidence as an exhibit, while the formal
2. may also be impeached by the
offer of documentary evidence is done only
opponent
when the party rests its case.
3. may be cross-examined by the
opponent, only on the subject
matter of his direct examination
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA, 195
4. proponent may ask leading
SCRA 567 (1991) Where the genuineness
questions
and due execution of documents of an
instrument attached to a complaint are
deemed admitted by failure to specifically
Sec. 36. Objection to evidence offered
deny it under oath, such instruments are
orally must be made immediately after the
considered as evidence although they were
offer is made.
not formally offered.

Objection to a question propounded in the

Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such
course of the oral examination of a witness
documents. — When an action or defense
shall be made as soon as the grounds
is founded upon a written instrument,
therefor shall become reasonably
copied in or attached to the corresponding
apparent.
pleading as provided in the preceding
section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be
An offer of evidence in writing shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
objected to within three (3) days after party, under oath, specifically denies
notice of the offer unless a different period them, and sets forth what he claims to be
is allowed by the court. the facts; but the requirement of an oath
does not apply when the adverse party 5. the nature of the facts to which they
does not appear to be a party to the testify
instrument or when compliance with an 6. the probability or improbability of
order for an inspection of the original their testimony
instrument is refused. 7. their interest or want of interest
8. their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear
When objection should be made upon the trial.
9. number of witnesses, though the
People v. Java, 227 SCRA 668 (1993) preponderance is not necessarily
Objection to testimony on the ground of with the greater number.
lack of a formal offer of the testimony
should be done when the witness was A cause of action on the ground of
called to testify. reformation of instrument must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.

Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 186

SCRA 385 (1990) Objection to In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
documentary evidence must be made at to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
the time it is formally offered (i.e. when the beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
party rests its case) as an exhibit and not reasonable doubt does not mean such a
before. Objection prior to that time (e.g. degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
identification of the evidence) is error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
premature. Mere identification and certainty only is required, or that degree of
marking is not equivalent to a formal offer proof which produces conviction in an
of the evidence. A party may decide to not unprejudiced mind.
offer evidence already identified and
marked.
A defense of self-defense must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.

In cases filed before administrative or

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
EVIDENCE (RULE 133) deemed established if it is supported by
substantial evidence

In civil cases, the party having the burden

of proof must establish his case by a Substantial evidence – that amount of
preponderance of evidence. In determining relevant evidence which a reasonable
where the preponderance or superior mind might accept as adequate to justify a
weight of evidence on the issues involved conclusion
lies, the court may consider

Generally, the motive of the accused is

1. all the facts and circumstances of immaterial in a criminal case, not being
the case an essential element of the crime,
2. the witnesses’ manner of testifying hence, it does not need to be proved.
3. their intelligence
4. their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are Exceptions:
testifying
1. when there is no eyewitness and the
suspicion is likely to fall on a considerable
number of persons;

2. when there is doubt as to whether the

accused is or is not the person who
committed the offense;

3. when it is necessary to determine the

sanity of the accused or the voluntariness
of the act, the specific nature of the crime
committed, or whether the shooting was
intentional or accidental;

4. when the accused interposes self-

defense or defense of stranger.