WHY IS IT ALLOWED?

IN
THE
CIVIL
SERVICE
COMMISSION IF THE MORAL
CHARACTER IS NOT THE ISSUE
IN THE CASE, the specific acts
cannot be used to prove the
moral character because the
accused would be prejudiced as
he would not be prepared to
meet the specific acts intending
to prove the moral character.
Second: since the acts are not
the very issue to the case, it
would only clutter the issue/
records of the case because the
case is only about the particular
act so it would cause confusion.
Third: because of the confusion,
it would result in the undue
delay of the disposition of the
case. That is why it is not
admissible. So only evidence of
general reputation of the person
concerned.
BUT
IF
THE
MORAL
CHARACTER IS THE VERY
FACT IN ISSUE there cannot be
any prejudice because he is
presumed to meet the issue.
And since it is the very issue in
the case it will not clutter the
case and would not result in the
undue delay because everything
would be limited to that act
alone.
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Depends on
evidence:

the

kind

of

Testimonial

present
witness
Document / object present
the object or document
Section 1 rule 132. A witness
is required to testify orally.
Except if the witness is
incapacitated to speak or
the
question
requires
another mode of answer or
requires
the
use
of
affidavits.
Direct, cross, re-direct, re-cross,
should be done orally but with
the enactment of the judicial
affidavit rule, direct examination

should
be
done
through
affidavits, cross-examination, redirect, and re-cross are done
orally.
So when you present a witness
with a judicial affidavit, instead
of asking him direct examination
questions, just ask him to
identify the affidavit and that
will take the place of direct
examination. In the process of
asking questions, there are
questions which are not allowed,
the rules mention 2 types of
objectionable
questions,
:1)
Leading 2) Misleading
Leadinga
question
that
suggests to the witness the
answer
desired
by
the
examining party.
The effect is that the examining
counsel is the one answering
the question, not the witness.
This is not allowed in direct
examination because of the
relationship
between
the
proponent and the witness.
Theyre supposed to be on the
same side, on the same team
and the likelihood that the
witness will just confirm the
question of the counsel.
Instances when it is allowed:
1. In cross-examination- it is
encouraged because you
will lead the witness into a
trap. Rather than asking
open-ended
questions
which will give the witness
an opportunity to explain.
How do you avoid leading
questions? The best way is to
ask open-ended questions :
what, how, when, who.
2. Concerning
preliminary
matters as long as it
does not go into the gist of
the testimony of the
witness.
3. Direct examination of a
hostile witness it is
encouraged because it is

as if you are conducting

cross- examination.
What
makes
hostile?

witness

Witness should be declared

by the court as hostile
witness,
you
have
to
establish
the
hostile
character of the witness.
How?
By showing the witness
adverse
interest,
or
by
showing that the witness has
mislead you into calling him
as witness and has turned
against
you
before
the
presentation
of
your
evidence, and by showing
unreasonable reluctance to
testify.
4. If the witness is the
adverse party
Adverse party witness the
adverse party. You are the
plaintiff,
you
call
the
defendant as your witness.
Does not need declaration by
the court, being the adverse
party, it is presumed that he
is hostile. No need to prove
the 3 mentioned for hostile
witness.

The rule is that the proponent

may not impeach is own
witness, if you present your
witness you are deemed to
have vouched the honesty
and credibility of the witness
and you assure the court that
your witness is honest. The
rule prohibits the proponent
from discrediting his own
witness, you cannot prove
that he is a liar, or a person
without integrity. EXCEPTION
IS
WHEN
HE
IS
A
HOSTILE/ADVERSE
PARTY
WITNESS but they cannot
be impeached on the
ground
of
bad
moral
character. They can be
impeached in any other
modes except of evidence
of bad moral character /
reputation
for
truth,
honesty, integrity is bad.
ORDER OF EXAMINATION
1. DIRECT EXAMINATION
examination propounded by
a party who calls the witness
to the stand. Coverage is on
matters relevant to the case
or the so called evidence-inchief. If you are the plaintiff
you prove your cause of
action.
2. CROSS-EXAMINATION

Hostile witness requires

declaration of the court.

2 PURPOSES

Both are the proponents

witnesses, you conduct the
direct examination and even
if
you
employ
leading
questions that is still allowed
in
direct
examination
because the witness is not on
the side of the proponent.

1. Destructive purpose if
you intend to demolish or
destroy the testimony of
the witness.
2. Constructive purpose
you use the testimony of
the
witness
to
your
advantage.

They may be cross-examined

by the adverse party that
happens to be his own
counsel. The only LIMITATION
IS
IN
THE
CROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD BE
ONLY LIMITED IN MATTERS
CONTAINED
IN
THE
EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF.

Cross examination is not only

related to the direct, or matters
connected thereto, but it may
also cover ANYTHING BEARING
UPON THE ISSUE SO LONG AS IT
IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT IN
ISSUE EVEN IF IT IS NOT TAKEN
IN THE DIRECT.
So if a witness testifies that he
was
present
during
the

execution of the promissory

note, in the cross you can ask
about payment, or he was
present in signing the receipt,
matters that were not touched
during the direct. Because
payment is a matter which is
relevant to the issue of the case,
it may be allowed in cross,
precisely constructive purpose.
You test the bias, ill-will of the
witness and so on and so forth.
You remember the three: 1.
Observation,
memory,
transmission these are the
matters you can explore in the
cross.
RE-DIRECTcovers
matters
taken up during the cross the
purpose is
to
explain
or
supplement the answer. If as a
result of the cross some aspects
of the testimony were shaken
that needs to be explained,
thats the opportunity for you to
supplement the answer.
RE-CROSS
EXAMINATION

purpose is to demolish or to
elicit favorable admissions on
matters taken on the re-direct.
Exception is matters not taken
up at the discretion of the court.
AUTHENTICATION
AND
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
How do you prove documentary
evidence in court?

(Example
certificate)

is

birth

2. Private not
under
the
mentioned.

covered
above

Unlike in criminal law, there are

official
and
commercial
documents.
Authentication as applied in
documentary evidence proving
the
genuineness
and
due
execution of the document, In
object - process of proving that
the object is the very object
used in the controversy.
TN: Authentication applies only
if the document is private.
If you present a document under
section 19, you only present it
and prove its existence but not
authenticate it BECAUSE they
are presumed to be genuine and
authentic,
it
enjoys
the
presumption of regularity.
How do you prove a public
document?
It depends on the kind of public
document involved, whether it is
paragraph a, b or c. If it falls
under paragraph a (records of
official acts or written official
acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunal)
By:

Two documents
1. Public enumerated in
section 19 rule 132.
*Records of official acts or
written official acts of the
sovereign
authority,
official
bodies
and
tribunals whether of the
Philippines or of a foreign
country.
*Documents
acknowledged
notary public

before

*Public records kept in the

Philippines
of
private
documents required by
law to be entered therein.

1. official publication in our

jurisdiction
the
official
gazette.
2. Copy.
Why copy? Because maybe the
original may not be taken out of
its custody because public
records are not usually taken
out of its custody. In relation to
the BER, if it consists of public
documents, the certified true
copy is the secondary evidence.
Under section 24 in relation to
sec. 25, if that document falls
under paragraph a, if kept

outside the Philippines, there

are requirements:
1. If it is a copy it has to be
accompanied
by
an
attestation to be executed
by the legal custodian
containing a statement
that its a faithful copy of
the original.
2. If
kept
outside
the
Philippines,
must
be
accompanied
by
a
certification issued by the
consular office of the
Philippines in that country
with a statement that the
person who issued the
certification is the legal
custodian and authorized
to issue such certification.
Not all are needed to be
accompanied
with
a
certification,
the
only
requirement for a consular
certification
is
if
the
document
is
WRITTEN
OFFICIAL ACTS/ RECORDS
OF OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE
SOVEREIGN
AUTHORITY
(PARAGRAPH A), if kept in
the Philippines, no more
need for certification. =
Ruling in Heirs of absillia
v. teodora.
Heirs of medina case is
not consistent with the
express language of the
rules.
Supposed
the
public
document is a document
acknowledged
before
a
notary public? Just present
the
document,
the
certification signed by the
notary public is a prima facie
evidence
of
its
due
execution. And it has to be
identified by a witness.

If the public document is

under paragraph c (Public
records
kept
in
the
Philippines
of
private
documents required by law to
be entered therein) -2 ways
1. present the record itself
2. if not available, certified
copy.
WHAT ABOUT PRIVATE:
It may be admitted if its duly
authenticated, the proponent
needs
to
comply
with
authentication which means to
prove the genuineness and due
execution by presenting a
witness who is present during
the execution or familiar with
the handwriting/signature of the
party.
Exception to the requirement of
authentication:
1. Ancient documents a
document more than 30
years old produced from a
custody which is naturally
found as genuine and
unblemished
by
any
alteration / suspicion just
prove that it is 30 years
old, produced from a
custody which is naturally
found as genuine and that
it is unblemished by
suspicion or alteration.
(more
difficult
to
be
proved.)
2. When
the
private
document is offered not as
an authentic document.
if it is offered as a forgery,
you dont authenticate it.
The only requirement is
you have to identify as
such as the proponent
claims it to be. If it is a
forged, prove that it is
forged.