1.What do you mean by “impeachment
of a witness”? In what ways may a witness be impeached by a party against whom
he was called?
2.What is the purpose and extent of re-direct
examination? Are questions on matters not dealt with during the cross
examination be allowed during re-direct examination?
Re-direct examination; its
purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to
explain or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On
re-direct-examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion. (12)
3. After a witness is examined by both sides, can the witness be
recalled ? Explain.
After the examination of a witness by
both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of
the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require.
4. If a witness made a statement in writing
which is inconsistent, how can he be impeached on said matter? If it is a
testimony, will your answer be the same?
Sec. 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
5. What do you mean by the
“ancient document rule”? What are the requisites?
Sec. 21.When evidence of
authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which
it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations
or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be
given.
6. Under what situations are leading questions allowed? How about
misleading questions?
Sec. 10.Leading and misleading
questions. — A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed,
except:chanrobles
virtua law library
(a)On cross
examination;
(b)On
preliminary matters;
(c)When there
is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who
is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(d)Of an
unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e)Of a
witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
A misleading question is one which
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
which he has previously stated. It is not allowed
7. Is
evidence of good character of a witness admissible as evidence in Court? Is
there an exception to this rule? If there is, state it.
Sec.
14.Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good
character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
8.How do you prove the due execution and authenticity of a private
document? What about other private documents?
Answer:
Sec. 20.Proof of private document. — Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
(a)By anyone
who saw the document executed or written; orchanrobles virtua law library
(b)By
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any
other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to
be.
9. How do you prove a foreign marriage?
Answer:
a. the existence of
the foreign law on marriage as a question of fact;
b. the alleged
foreign marriage by convincing evidence.
10. Normer Velasco was convicted by the RTC of murder. The conviction was based on the
testimony of the lone eyewitness to the incident, Leonardo Lucaban. After
Lucaban gave his testimony, the judge recalled him to the witness stand.
Velasco avers that the recall of Lucaban had no basis and was made with grave
abuse of discretion.
Is the act of the
judge in recalling the witness to the witness stand upon his own order valid?
Explain.
ANSWER:
Yes. People v. Velasco, 307 SCRA 684, May 28, 1999.(p258)
11. To prove New York law and
jurisprudence on damages, defendants presented the affidavit of Alyssa Walden,
a New York
attorney. The affidavit discussed various court decisions copies of which were
attached to the affidavit. Is it sufficient as proof of foreign law?
ANSWER:
No. Under Sec. 24 of Rule 132 of the rules of evidence, the record of the
public document of sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by: (a) an
official publication thereof (b) or a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of such. (Manufacturers Hanover
Trust v. Guerrero, 397 SCRA 709, Feb. 19, 2003).
12.The deed of assignment that was introduced as an ancient
document was in the custody of plaintiff and not in the folder of the Bureau of
Lands for the lot in question. Can the deed of assignment be considered to have
been “produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine”
as to qualify as an ancient document?
ANSWER:
Yes. (see Cleofas v. St. Peter Memorial Park Inc. 324 SCRA 223, Feb. 1, 2000)
13.Petitioner Dy intervened in an action over the ownership of two
lots. To prove his claim that they were previously sold to him by his own
father, he presented two receipts and a deed of sale from his father.
Considering that said receipts are private documents, how should their genuineness
be established?
Answer: In proving that due execution and genuineness of private
documents, it is not sufficient that the witness state in general manner that
the person whose signature appears thereon was the one who executed the
document. The testimony of an eyewitness authenticating a private document must
be positive, categorically stating that the document was actually executed by
the person whose name is subscribed thereto. In this case, the details
surrounding the execution of the documentary evidence were not even
narrated.(Dy v. CA, 204 SCRA 878) Dec. 17, 1991.
14. One of the documents identified in court during the murder
trial was an Investigation Report prepared by the Regional Inspector General.
The prosecution, however, marked and offered oly as evidence a portion
consisting of an entry in the police blotter of Mayorga, Leyte.
When the trial court decided the case against the accused, however, it took
into consideration the entire documents consisting of no less than five (5)
pages. Is the Court correct in appreciating the whole document?
ANSWER:
No. The trial court should not have taken the rest into account in the
formulation of its conclusions, but only the portion offered in evidence,
pursuant to Sec. 17, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. (Pp. v. Kempis, 221 SCRA
628, May 10, 1993)
15.When a party invokes the statute of frauds as a defense but
cross-examined the witnesses of the adverse party on the alleged oral contract,
what is the effect of said cross-examination?
ANSWER:
The cross examination on the contract is deemed a waiver of the defense under
the statute of frauds. The oral testimony becomes competent and admissible.
(Limketkai Sons Milling v. CA, 250 SCRA 523, Dec. 1, 1995)
16.After the prosecution testified, the accused moved for
deferment of her cross-examination. Before the scheduled date of her
cross-examination, the witness died. Must her testimony on direct examination
be expunged from the records?
ANSWER:
No. Where death prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no
responsibility of any sort can be ascribed to the plaintiff or witness, it
seems a harsh measure to strike out all that has obtained in the direct
examination. Besides being mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is
the essence of the right to cross-examine. Accused lost such opportunity when
they sought the deferment of their cross-examination of the witness, and they
only have themselves to blame in forever losing that right by reason of her
demise.(Pp. v. Narca, 275 SCRA 696, July 21, 1997)
17.Among the witnesses in the kidnapping for ransom case was the
victim who was 6 years old when she testified. After their conviction, accused
claimed that the prosecution failed to establish that the child understood the
nature of an oath and the need to tell the truth when she testified. Should the
testimony be excluded?
Answer:
No. Sec. 1, Rule 132 provides that the examination of the child witness shall
be under oath or affirmation. In this case, the 6 year old child took an oath
before she testified. There was no objection on the part of the accused to her
competence; he did not bother requesting the court fro leave to question the
child on this subject. It was too late to raise the issue then. (People v.
Bisda, 406 SCRA 454, July 16, 2003)
18.To prove that she was the natural child of a certain Vicente
Puerta, who was lawfully married to Genoveva Puerta, and a certain Gloria
Austra, Carmelita Puerta presented pictures,school records, and judicial
admissions of Vicente Puerta. The adverse party, for her part, presented
witnesses that Gloria Austrial cohabited as husband and wife with a certain
Juanito Austral.
Considering the
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife
have entered into a lawful contract of marriage, should Carmelita be considered
as the legitimate child of Gloria and Juanito in line with Art. 255 of the
Civil Code that children born during the existence of the marriage are presumed
legitimate?
Answer:
No. The presumption is merely disputable and may be refuted with evidence to
the contrary. (De la Puerta v. CA, 181 SCRA 861, Feb. 6, 1990)
19.Macagaling was charged with illegally possessing an unlicensed
firearm.The prosecution did not obtain a certification from the Firearms and
Explosive Office that he had no license.Under Sec. 2, Rule 131 of the 1964
Rules on Evidence, however, it was provided that: In criminal cases the burden
of proof as to the offense lies on the prosecution. A negative fact alleged by
the prosecution need not be proved unless it is an essential ingredient of the
offense charged. Under the revised rules however, the second sentence was
deleted.
With the omission,
must the prosecution still prove that the accused had not license to possess
the firearm?
Answer:
Yes. Despite the amendment, there is no reason t believe that such requirement
for proof of a negative element of the offense changed has been dispensed with,
since it is specifically provided in Sec. 1 Rule 131 of the New Rules of
Evidence that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on
the facts in issue is necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount
of evidence required by law. (Pp. v. Macagaling, 237 SCRA 299, Oct. 3, 1994).
20. When the alleged forged document has been lost or destroyed
can forgery be proved with the use of a photocopy as basis for comparison?
Answer:
No. Basic is the rule in evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original
document itself except in the instances mentioned in Sec. 3, Rule 130. Mere
photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence
rule.(Heirs of Gregorio v. CA, 300 SCRA
565, Dec. 29, 1998)
