Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6K views

    Recalling A Witness

    Uploaded by

    Maureen Pátajo
    1) Recalling a witness is generally discretionary for the court, but a witness may be recalled if their examination was not concluded or if recall was expressly reserved with court approval. 2) When moving to recall a witness, the party must show concrete reasons beyond a general assertion of need, such as specific questions that were not asked or documents not presented. 3) In People vs. Rivera, the court found grave abuse of discretion when a witness was recalled based solely on the general claim that unspecified questions remained, without identifying what questions or showing the prior examination was inadequate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Recalling A Witness

    Uploaded by

    Maureen Pátajo
    6K views3 pages
    1) Recalling a witness is generally discretionary for the court, but a witness may be recalled if their examination was not concluded or if recall was expressly reserved with court approval. 2) When moving to recall a witness, the party must show concrete reasons beyond a general assertion of need, such as specific questions that were not asked or documents not presented. 3) In People vs. Rivera, the court found grave abuse of discretion when a witness was recalled based solely on the general claim that unspecified questions remained, without identifying what questions or showing the prior examination was inadequate.

    Original Description:

    research

    Original Title

    Recalling a Witness

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Recalling a witness is generally discretionary for the court, but a witness may be recalled if their examination was not concluded or if recall was expressly reserved with court approval. 2) When moving to recall a witness, the party must show concrete reasons beyond a general assertion of need, such as specific questions that were not asked or documents not presented. 3) In People vs. Rivera, the court found grave abuse of discretion when a witness was recalled based solely on the general claim that unspecified questions remained, without identifying what questions or showing the prior examination was inadequate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6K views3 pages

    Recalling A Witness

    Uploaded by

    Maureen Pátajo
    1) Recalling a witness is generally discretionary for the court, but a witness may be recalled if their examination was not concluded or if recall was expressly reserved with court approval. 2) When moving to recall a witness, the party must show concrete reasons beyond a general assertion of need, such as specific questions that were not asked or documents not presented. 3) In People vs. Rivera, the court found grave abuse of discretion when a witness was recalled based solely on the general claim that unspecified questions remained, without identifying what questions or showing the prior examination was inadequate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that recalling a witness is discretionary to the court but a witness can be recalled if the examination was not concluded or if recall was reserved. There must also be a satisfactory showing of concrete reasons to recall a witness.

    When moving to recall a witness, merely stating the need is not sufficient. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete and substantial reason for the recall such as not covering important points in cross-examination or not presenting vital documents.

    A witness can be recalled if the examination was not concluded yet or if recall was expressly reserved by a party with court approval.

    Recalling a witness

    Sec. 132, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states the rule on Recalling a
    Witness:
    Sec. 9 Recalling a witness After the examination of
    a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness
    cannot be recalled without leave of court. The court will
    grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of
    justice may require.
    Justice Regalado in his Civil Procedure Book discussed the rule on
    recalling a witness, to wit:
    Where all sides in the case have concluded
    their examination of the witness, his recall for futher
    examination is discretionary with the court as the interest
    of justice requires. However, where such examination has
    not been concluded, or if the recall of the witness was
    expressly reserved by a party with the approval of the court,
    then his recall is a matter of right.
    From this, it can be inferred that Recalling a witness is discretionary
    upon the court. However, you may recall the witness in the following instances:
    1. Examination has not been concluded;
    2. Recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party with the approval
    of the court.
    In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rivera et.al 1, the court
    discussed the requirements in recalling a witness. In this case, it was
    emphasized that when moving to recall a witness, mere generality of the need is
    not sufficient. What is essential is more than the bare assertion of the need to
    propound additional questions before the Court's discretion may rightfully be
    exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory showing of some
    1 G.R. No. 98376August 16, 1991

    concrete, substantial ground for the recall. The pertinent part of the decision in
    the case is as follows:
    The writ of certiorari prayed for will issue. The Trial
    Court

    acted

    with

    grave

    abuse

    of

    discretion

    in

    authorizing the recall of witness Benjamin Lee over the


    objections of the prosecution, and in later striking out
    said witness' testimony for want of further crossexamination.
    There is no doubt that a Trial Court has discretion to
    grant leave for the recall of a witness. This is clear from
    a reading of Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
    as amended,

    viz.:

    SEC. 9. Recalling witness. 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.
    But obviously that discretion may not be exercised in a
    vacuum, as it were, entirely, isolated from a particular
    set of attendant circumstances. The discretion to recall a
    witness is not properly invoked or exercisable by an
    applicant's mere general statement that there is a need
    to recall a witness "in the interest of justice," or "in order
    to afford a party full opportunity to present his case," or
    that, as here, "there seems to be many points and
    questions that should have been asked" in the earlier
    interrogation. To regard expressed generalities such as
    these as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would
    make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but
    ministerial. Something more than the bare assertion of
    the need to propound additional questions is essential

    before the Court's discretion may rightfully be exercised


    to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory
    showing of some concrete, substantial ground for the
    recall. There must be a satisfactory showing on the
    movant's part, for instance, that particularly identified
    material

    points

    examination,

    or

    were
    that

    not

    covered

    particularly

    in

    the

    described

    crossvital

    documents were not presented to the witness whose


    recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination was
    conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual
    absence thereof. Absent such particulars, to repeat,
    there would be no foundation for a trial court to
    authorize the recall of any witness.
    In the case at bar, the respondent Trial Court granted
    the defendant's motion for recall on nothing more than
    said movant's general claim that certain questions
    unspecified, it must be stressed had to be asked.
    In doing so, it acted without basis, exercised power
    whimsically or capriciously, and gravely abused its
    discretion.

    You might also like