tips 2

1. When is the right time to object to a testimony of a witness? What should you do as counsel, when your witness has begun to answer an improper question? What is the reason for this procedure?

Objection to the testimony of a witness should be made as soon as the question is asked and before the answer is given. If the witness has begun to answer an improper question, he should be stopped immediately and the objection made. This is so because testimonial evidence is considered offered right after being given.4

2. When is the proper time to object to documentary evidence? How do you offer a documentary evidence?

Documents, on the other hand, should be objected to at the time they are being offered, not when they are merely being identified by a witness or marked as exhibits by counsel.6 Document have to be identified so that their authenticity can be established.

The offer to documentary evidence is made after the witnesses have testified and just before a party rests his case. And the offer is made by disclosing the purpose for which a document is being presented.

3. When is evidence relevant? Are there hard and fast rules that govern the relevancy of evidence? How is relevance determined by the court?

Since questions of relevancy are addressed to reason, logic, common sense and experience, there are no hard and fast rules governing them. Their determination is usually left to the sound discretion of the court.

4. Are ordinary witnesses permitted to express their opinions during trial? State the rule and exceptions if there are any.

However, there are certain matters regarding which an ordinary witness may be permitted to express an opinion in order to expedite the taking of testimony. Thus, an ordinary witness may testify on:

            (a) Physical dimension or measurement – size, weight; shape, Height;

            (b) Color – dark, light, shade;

            (c) Physical orientation – speed, motion, time, direction, visibility;

            (d) Personality – emotion, anger, happiness, and sadness;

            (e) Demeanor or person reaction – calm, upset, scared, frustrated;

            (f) Identity of personal background – age, sex, nationality, language;

            (g) Intoxication – drunk, sober;

            (i ) Genuineness of handwriting.

5. When is a witness considered an expert? Can he be allowed to express his opinions on a certain matter? If so, what is it that you must establish about him? Can this matter be stipulated?

A witness is considered an expert because of his special skill, knowledge or experience in some field of science, art, trade, profession or calling. Because he is supposed to draw conclusions from facts, his skill and knowledge must be such as to enlighten the court on matters it does not ordinary understand. Indeed, an expert is called more for his opinion on a given set of facts than for his recollection of events.2

            Before an expert can express his opinion, his qualifications must first be established. His education, special study, work and experience in the particular field he is going to testify have to be known. Of course, considerable time may be saved if the parties can stipulate on an expert’s qualifications.

6.What is the limitation of matters to be proved in a (1) civil case and (2) in a criminal case? If this rule is violated how will you object during trial?

 “Objection, Your Honor, on the ground that it is not alleged or pleaded”

            Only matters that are in dispute – in issue – require proof and can be proven.

            And those in issue, in civil cases, are only those that are defined in and limited by the pleadings: the complaint, answer and reply. The pleadings serve to inform the parties and the court of what is being disputed and what is going to be proved.

           

            Therefore, evidence that is being presented to prove an issue, which is not alleged in the pleadings, is not admissible.1 Apart from being irrelevant; it should be excluded because it unfairly surprises the party against whom it is being adduced.

            In criminal cases, no evidence may be admitted which do not tend to prove a fact alleged in the information. This in to prevent an accused from being convicted of an offense of which he has not been informed.2

7. What is a leading question? Are they allowed during direct examination? State the rule and the exception concerning this principle.

On direct examination, when the leading question refers to the fact in issue or is electing the main point a witness wants to prove, the question is prohibited. But when the query is direct to preliminary matters – those that will bring the witness to testify at once on a fact in issue, thereby saving time, the leading question may be allowed. Examples are: “As medico-legal officer, did you examine the cadaver of the deceased?”; “And you wrote down your finding in your report?”; “And this is your report, isn’t it”.    

            Leading questions may also be asked:

            (a) in cross-examination, but not when the witness is friendly to the cross-exami-

                  nation

            (b) to assist a witness who is ignorant, young, or mentally and physically handi-

                 capped in expressing himself;

            (c) to examine an adverse party;

            (d) to examine an uncooperative and prejudiced or hostile witness; and

            (e) to identity persons, things or exhibits.2

8.Is a witness allowed to narrate when he testifies in Court? Why? Is there an exception to the rule regarding this matter? Give a question that calls for a witness to state a narration of facts.

 In a narration, the witness is free to say almost anytime he likes even if it is not connected or relevant to the issue. The other danger is that the witness usually finds it easy to inject his opinion and perception of the case in asked to narrate in his own way.

            An example is: “Tell us in your own words, what happed?”

9.What are hypothetical questions? Are they allowed in Court? Why? State an exception to this rule.

 Hypothetical question usually begin with words like “if”, “suppose”, assuming” or ‘isn’t it possible”.

            They are not allowed for the same reasons that questions that assume facts not in evidence are not allowed.

            Moreover, a hypothetical question usually calls for an opinion which if given by an ordinary witness has no weight or probative value.

            Only an expert, who is permitted to express an opinion, may be asked hypothetical questions which should be based on facts that the evidence tends to prov.1 

  

10.When your witness is asked by the opposing counsel with governmental matters which involve the security of the state, what will you do? How do you object to said questions?

 It is essential that governmental matters or activities that bear on or involve the security of the state be kept secret. For this reason, a public officer or employee cannot be completed to testify on any communication made to him or acquire by him in official confidence, if to disclose such communication will injure public interest.1