PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

GOOD EVENING Sir and good evening classmates. We will be reporting RULE 132
Presentation of evidence. Tonight we will be discussing what evidence are to be presented, how
are they presented in court, what is the order of examination of witnesses, what are the means
to prove such documents presented as evidence, and how and when do we offer evidence in
court.

AS per INTRODUCTION, Rule 132 of the RULES OF EVIDENCE, governs the manner by
which Testimonial and Documentary evidence are to be presented in Court.
There are principles in presenting evidence by the parties.
 
1st, HOW DO YOU WIN OR LOSE A CASE? Well, a case is won or lost depending upon how
effective was the presentation of evidence, particularly as to what evidence were presented and
how they were presented

2nd principle would be, that the Parties should be allowed a certain latitude in the presentation of
their evidence; otherwise they might be so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be
defeated or appear to be defeated. Hence, the court should not limit the evidence to be
presented.

3rd principle would be, that the parties should be allowed to maintain their own way or style of
presenting evidence when these can be done without injury to the speedy disposition of the
case and to the best interest in administrating justice.

Another principle would be that the court should liberally receive all evidence offered in the trial
to render its decision with all the possibly relevant proof in the record and to assure the
appellate court to have a good judgment and to obviate remanding the case for re-trial or
reception of evidence
 
Section 1. Provides the manner of presenting testimonial evidence
HOW DO PRESENT THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS?
1st, By presenting the witness personally in open court.
Meaning, the witness must appear in person so that the court and the opponent may observe
him and hear his testimony. His personal presence cannot be substituted by the submission of
written statements or audio testimony. Also, there is also no secret testimony and it must always
be in the presence of the adverse party, except when the presentation is allowed to be ex parte,
or testimony through interrogatories or depositions in advance of trial before a hearing officer
but upon prior approval of the court and with proper notice to the adverse party. In regard to a
CHILD WITNESSES: the witness may testify inside a room but the child must be visible and can
be heard through the medium of facilities appropriate for the purpose, such as a mirror. Child is
inside a room with the interviewer.
 
QUESTION:  May the witness testify wearing masks to preserve his identity? 
 
2nd, Witness must be examined under oath or affirmation
 
Meaning, the witness answers questions as may be asked by the proponent, the opponent and
by the court, I will discuss what is a proponent in section 4.
 
What is an Oath? It is an outward pledge by the witness that his testimony is made under an
immediate sense of responsibility to a Supreme Being. An appeal by a person to the almighty
one that he will tell the truth, or what he declares; and an imprecation of Divine punishment or
vengeance shall be given upon him, if what he says is false.

What is Affirmation? It is a solemn and formal declaration that the witness will be truthful, a
declaration without oath.
 
What is the purpose of an oath or affirmation? (i) to affect the conscience of the witness and
compel him to speak the truth and (ii) because of this, he is open to punishment for perjury. But
it is not essential that he knows what or how he will punished. 

However, the right to have witness sworn may be waived, IF A PARTY FAILS TO OBEJCT TO
THE TAKING OF THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY.
 
Hence, If the opponent believes the witness is not aware of his obligation and responsibility to
tell the truth and consequences of telling a lie, the party may ask for  leave to conduct a VOIRE
DIRE examination ( PP. vs. Alma Bisda, July 17, 2003)

VOIRE DIRE EXAMINATION/COMPETENCY EXAMINATION – is a preliminary examination

conducted by trial judge where witness is duly sworn to answer as to his competency.

Incompetency: Absolute and Relative disqualification.

If opponent failed to object the competency of a witness, it is considered a waiver and once the
evidence is admitted in court, the same shall stay in the records and be judged to its merits.
Now, Judge has no power to disregard it solely for the reason that it could have been excluded
had it been objected. Also, the judge cannot strike it out of records. (Marella v. Reyes G.R. No.
4389)
And this is the effect of lack oath.

What is the effect of lack of oath? In other words, if the opponent fails to object, then the
testimony may be given weight as the party would be estopped or, the party may move to
disallow the witness from testifying, or move to strike the testimony after he found the lack of
oath. However, the proponent, on the other hand, may ask that the witness be placed under
oath. 
 
What is the form of testimony? Given in the last sentence of section 1.
In general, the examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be given orally in
open court and under oath or affirmation.

GENERAL RULE: answers are given orally in open court.

Exceptions:
1. If the question calls for a different form or mode of answer ( such as demonstration; bodily
movements or demonstrable actions)
2. Depositions
3. Witness is incapacitated to speak out (deaf-mute)
4. When testimonies of witnesses may be given in affidavits under the Rule on Summary
Proceedings.
What is the purpose? To enable the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the witness’
manner of testifying their intelligence and their appearance.

Also, the testimony must not be in a narrative form, why? Because the witness should testify
straight to the point in issue, and therefore it prevents the witness from testifying and narrating
facts which are irrelevant in the case. And with this, this will give the opponent an opportunity to
raise an objection. 
 
One-day examination of witness rule – a witness has to be fully examined in 1 day only, shall be
strictly adhered to subject to the courts direction during trial on whether or not to extend the
direct and/or cross-examination fir justifiable reasons. Then on last hearing day allotted for each
party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last
witness and the opposing party is require to immediately interpose his objection thereto.
Thereafter, the Judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. But the judge
has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing (sec 35)

Sec. 2.  The Proceedings must be recorded.

 
We should all keep in mind that the Courts of the Philippines are courts of record. Anything not
recorded is deemed not to have transpired or taken-up and will not be considered in the
resolution of the case.

Under section 2 it provides the matters to be recorded which includes,

 
1. Questions by the proponent, opponent and the court, which are propounded to the witness
2. The answers of the witness to the questions
3. Manifestations, arguments, and statements of counsel
4. Statements of the court to the counsel
5. Instructions or statements of the court to the court personnel
6. Demonstrable actions, movements, gestures or observations asked to be described and
recorded, and
7. Observations during the conduct of ocular inspections 
8. Simply, the entire proceedings. HOWEVER, there are matters that should not be recorded:
[Off-the-records statements]
These are statements which were ordered or requested to be stricken from the record such as
those which are improper, irrelevant or objectionable. Example: hearsay direct testimony.
HOW is this recorded? By means of shorthand, stenotype or by other means of recording found
suitable by the court.

What is a transcript of record?

TRANSCRIPT of the record of the proceedings is made by the official stenographer, stenotypist
or recorder, and certified by him or her – this is DEEMED PRIMA FACIE a CORRECT
STATEMENT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS!
 
Sec. 3.  Rights and Obligations of Witnesses

 What is the obligation of a witness?

The obligation of a witness is to answer questions which are asked of him, although his or her
answer may tend to establish a claim against him.

What does this mean? “although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him”
It refers to a cause of action for a civil claim and should not be confused with the right of self-
incrimination (only invoked in case of criminal liability)

Furthermore, a witness cannot choose which questions to answer.

Also, refusal of a witness to answer is punishable under contempt of rule 71.
Is this absolute? NO.
A witness may refuse to answer to a question because he or she has a right to be protected
against tactics from the opponent which are intended to “brow beat, badger, insult, intimidate, or
harass him”.

Wha are the rights of a witness?

1. He has the right to be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from
harsh and insulting demeanor;
- whether or not a question is proper or improper depends upon the purpose for which it is
asked and the circumstances at the time.

2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;

- He has the right not to be detained longer that is necessary.

3. Not to be examined EXCEPT only as to matters pertinent to the issue;

- meaning, witness be subject to examination only to the matters relevant to the fact in
issue.

4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him or her to a penalty for an offense
UNLESS otherwise provided by law; or
- meaning those questions which are self-incriminatory. Generally, witness should not be
compelled to give an answer which will tend to subject him to penalty. No person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself (Art 3 Sec 17 Consti); rule only covers testimonial
compulsion and production by him of incriminating documents and articles. Reason: to
prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect, testimony
that may convict him and to avoid a person subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself
for his own protection.
Compulsion: present only if a witness has asserted a right to refuse to disclose self
incriminating infos. Not include right to remain silent.
- EXCEPT in the following cases (wherein it is required to answer such question and not
bound to such privilege:
 where the accused is testifying as a witness in his own behalf, as to questions  relating
only to the offense upon which  he is testifying;
 where the witness was granted immunity  from prosecution  as when he is under the
Witness Protection Program or was discharged to be used a s a state witness, or he is a
government witness in Anti-Graft Cases. Immunities:

5. NOT to give an answer which will tend to degrade his or her reputation, UNLESS it be to the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But the
witness must answer to the fact of his or her previous final conviction.
- meaning, those questions which are self-degrading can be validly refused to be answered,
unless it is to discredit the witness by impeaching his moral character (then it is required for
the witness to answer such question) Impeachment shall be further discuss by my fellow
classmate.
 NOW we move on to section 4.
Section 4 specifically provides the order of examination of an individual witness.
As per introduction to this section.
 
What is an “Examination” in this context? Examination is to find out facts from the witness or to
test his memory, truthfulness or credibility by directing him to answer appropriate questions.  

Now what is a proponent?

Proponent - the party who owns or who called the witness to testify in his favor.
Opponent- the party against whom the witness was called.

Friendly Witness- one who is expected to give testimony favorable to the party who called for
him.
Hostile Witness, one whose testimony is not favorable to the cause of the party who called him
as a witness.
Party witness and accused-witness refer to the plaintiff, defendant or the accused, testifying as
witness for themselves, as opposed to ordinary witnesses
 
B. ORDER OF EXAMINATION
 
Direct examination by the proponent
Cross-examination by the opponent
Re-direct examination by the proponent
Re-cross examination by the opponent
 Although an order is specifically provided in the Rules of Evidence in examining a witness,The
order is OPTIONAL. Meaning, the parties are not required to avail of ALL the examination
provided under the rules. This will be further discussed by my fellow classmate.

Also, this order of examination will be further discussed in the following sections.

C. ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

[is discussed in the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO FABRE y
VICENTE, G.R. No. 146697. July 23, 2002]
 
Presentation of Evidence in Chief by the Plaintiff
Presentation of Evidence in Chief by the Defendant
Presentation of Rebuttal Evidence by the Plaintiff
Presentation of Sur rebuttal Evidence by the Defendant
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO FABRE y VICENTE, G.R. No. 146697. July
23, 2002
FACTS: Leonardo Fabre was charged with rape before Regional Trial Court, Br. VI, of
Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, because of raping his own daughter Marilou Fabre. Accused
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of
Marilou, that of Adela Fabre, her mother and the wife of the accused, and that of Dr. Reinerio
Jalalon, the doctor who examined Marilou, along with the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr.
Jalalon, the sworn statement of Adela, and the criminal complaint signed by both Marilou and
Adela. The defense, during its turn in the presentation of evidence, countered with the testimony
of the accused himself. It also called Adela Fabre back to the witness stand. The trial court gave
credence to the evidence given by the prosecution, particularly to the narration of the young
complainant, expressing a quote from an observation once made by this Tribunal in one of its
decision that even when consumed with revenge, it (would) take a certain amount of
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which (could) put her own father
for the rest of his remaining life in jail and drag herself and the rest of her family to a lifetime of
shame. RTC Convicted the accused. The case was elevated to SC on automatic review. The
accused averred that THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO
ACCUSED APPELLANTS DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL. His defense argues, rather
desperately, that the testimony of appellant should acquire added strength for the failure of the
prosecution to conduct cross-examination on him and to present any rebuttal evidence. The
cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the witness is called.
The purpose of cross-examination is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness
made on direct examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may deem any further
examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence theretofore adduced or
thereafter to be adduced or on what would be believed is the perception of the court thereon.
Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a witness on direct
examination merely because he is not cross-examined by the other party.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of the accused is tenable.

RULING: No. The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against whom the
witness is called. The purpose of crossexamination is to test the truth or accuracy of the
statements of a witness made on direct examination. The party against whom the witness
testifies may deem any further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any other evidence
theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on what would be believed is the perception
of the court thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to the testimony of a
witness on direct examination merely because he is not crossexamined by the other party. The
alibi of appellant itself would not appear to be deserving of serious consideration. His account
that at the time of the alleged rape he was working at a coconut plantation, just about one
kilometer away from the place of the crime, hardly would amount to much. Nor would the
testimony of Adela Fabre, his wife, merit any better regard. At first, she testified that on the day
of the rape incident, she had left their house at four o'clock in the afternoon. Later, however, she
changed her story by saying that she had left the house in the morning and returned only at ten
o'clock that same morning, staying home the whole day thereafter. In any event, in order that
alibi might prosper, it would not be enough for an accused to prove that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed; he would have to demonstrate likewise that he could not have
been physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. Clearly, in the instant case, it was not at all impossible nor even improbable for
appellant to have been at the crime scene. Upon the other hand, the evidently candid and
straightforward testimony of Marilou should be more than enough to rebut the claim of
innocence made by appellant.

Now we start with Section 5. Direct Examination.

What is a direct examination?

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue.

Meaning,

What is the purpose of this direct examination?

To elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defense.

What is the importance of it?

This is the only opportunity for the proponent to elicit or to obtain from the witness all the facts
which are important and favorable to him. Imagine, the witness should be considered as a
sponge, heavy with facts. By the time the direct examination is over, all favorable facts should
have been squeezed from the witness. Hence, the examination must be clear, forceful,
comprehensive, and must efficiently present the facts of the case.

A. Procedural Requirement
 
Offer of Testimony- the proponent shall state the substance of the intended testimony of the
witness (an outline of the major points)  and the purpose of said testimony ( what the proponent
intends to prove by said testimony)
 
a). Importance of the Offer- (i) The direct examination may be objected to by the opponent (ii)
Matters not included in the offer may not be allowed to be testified on upon proper objection and
(iii) to shorten the proceedings as the opponent may admit or stipulate on the matters to be
testified on.
 
In cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the sworn statement of the witness must
have been submitted to the court before hand.

As I have said earlier in regard to a testimony in narrative form, that the reason for the rule
requiring that the testimony of a witness should be given as answer to questions, famed by
counsel and not in an uninterrupted narrative form, - is to enable the opponent to know
beforehand the nature of the testimony to be given and this, enable him in time to object and
prevent the interjection of irrelevant and inadmissible matter. EXCEPT WITNESS IS HIS OWN
COUNSEL, AND WHEN ALLOWED BY COURT.

How to have an effective direct examination?

 
1st, KEEP IT SIMPLE. A lawyer should avoid these two pitfalls:
 too little time on critical points;
 too much time on unimportant points
 Because of this, we will be losing the sense of direct examination which is directly
examining on only relevant matters in issue.

2nd, ORGANIZE LOGICALLY. Meaning, a lawyer should determine the key points and organize
them in a logical order. If possible, resort to a chronological presentation of testimony.
 
3rd, INTRODUCE THE WITNESS AND DEVELOP HIS BACKGROUND. Here, the lawyer
introduces the witness in the court, building up his witness.
 
4th, ALL LAWYER SHOULD USE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE INTRODUCTORY,
TRANSITION OR ORIENTING QUESTIONS. Contrary to improper and irrelevant questions.
General rule: in direct examination, repetitious question is not permissible if it merely tends to
repeat a matter which has been already gone now.
Exception: it is subject to the sound discretion of the trial court as when:
 if repetition is necessary for a clear understanding of essential facts and to impress the
importance of matters; and
 the answer to the 1st question was not complete or not responsive
 
5th, ELICIT or DRAW SCENE DESCRIPTION; and DRAW OUT GENERAL FLOWING
DESCRIPTION. Let your witness paint a picture. And have him narrate directly what he had
witnessed. SO that we will avoid excessive detail.
 
6th, USE PACE IN DESCRIBING ACTION. Here, a lawyer must control the speed of the
examination by eliciting testimony in small segments at the most advantageous rate. SLOW
DOWN THE ACTION.
 
7th, USE SIMPLE LANGUAGE. A lawyer should, as much as possible, choose simple words and
phrases. Why? Because word choice affects answers. Lawyers should avoid jargons, idioms
and technical words. BECAUSE WHAT MATTERS AND WHAT WILL BE REMEMBERED IS
NOT HOW BEAUTIFUL AND IMPRESSIVE THE LAWYER PHRASED HIS QUESTIONS BUT
WHAT THE WITNESS NARRATED. As I said earlier, it is important that the witness state facts
directly to the point in issue as directly examined by the lawyer and not have the witness
confused on such non-layman terms.
 
8th, HAVE THE WITNESS EXPLAIN. Give your witness the chance to explain his side as he is
the witness.
 
9th, USE NONLEADING OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS (which will be explained further by my
fellow classmate)
 
10th, USE EXHIBITS TO HIGHLIGHT AND SUMMARIZE. Here the lawyer can use exhibits to
pinpoint the most important parts in the examination that would lead the court to believe that his
or witness indeed is telling the truth. After examining, summarize what you have asked the
witness for the court to hear the totality of the examination.
 
11th, before you put the person in the witness stand, PRACTICE WITH THE WITNESS. There
are witnesses who are first time witnesses or attendees in a court. So that would be nerve-
wracking to them. The lawyer should have his or her witness an overview of the proceedings
and of course the questions on what he or she will answer and not to answer in court.

NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT REPORTER! Thank you Sir!