Is repetitive (or has already been asked and answered).

a. A witness was asked where he was at exactly 9:00 m on February 14, 2016 which
was the day and time the victim was murdered.
A. I was sleeping at our house.
Q. So, Mr. Witness, during that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. witness, at exactly 9:00 pm on that particular day, you were already sleeping
in your house?
Objection! Repetitive.
Is beyond the scope.
In the direct examination of the witness, he was asked if he was present when the
crime was committed by the accused.
A. No.
Q. Mr. witness, are you aware that the victim is one of your secret admirers?
A. I do not know.
Q. are you also aware that the victim was the one giving you flowers and chocolates
every Monday?
Objection! Beyond the scope.
Assume facts not in evidence.
In rape case, the witness was asked whether or not he know the owner the NIKE
shoes that was recovered from the crime scene.
A No.
Q. Are you aware that your friend BB owns a pair of said shoes which is identical to
that recovered from the crime scene?
A. Yes, I am aware.
Q. And did you know that your friend BB was missing since the crime was occurred?
Objection! Assumes fact not in evidence.
Is confusing (or ambiguous or vague or unintelligible).
In a case of murder, the witness was asked if he was at the place where the crime
was committed.
A Yes
Q. Are you aware that the victim was murdered in the restaurant or beer house?
A. At the beer house.
Q. So, it was your first time to enter into the restaurant or beer house?
Objection! Confusing.
Calls for speculation.
In a case of collection of sum, the witness was asked if he knows the exact amount
loaned by the accused.
A No.
Q. Will you agree that the accused can barrow Five Hundred Thousand Pesos or One
Million to the complainant and the complainant may grant it?
A. I do not know.

Q. Can you tell us or guess the amount that barrowed by the accused as to
hundreds or thousands even if its not the exact amount?
Objection! Calls for speculation.
Is compound.
In a case of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injury, the witness
was asked if he was able to determine the impact of the collision.
A Yes.
Q. Did you determine the point of impact (of a collision) from conversations with the
other witnesses, or from physical marks, such as debris in the road?"
A. Debris in the road.
Q. Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses and
from physical marks, such as debris in the road?
"Objection! Compound question.
Is improper characterization (character evidence).
In a prosecution for rape, the accused presented evidence proving that the victim is
a prostitute.
In a criminal case, the prosecution presented evidence as to the bad character of
the accused.
In a prosecution for homicide, evidence was presented as to the character of the
deceased which is irrelevant as a general rule.
Mistakes evidence (or misquotes the witness).
In a rape case, the victim was asked whether the accused forced himself.
Q. Did the accused forced himself to you?
A. Yes,he forced himself to me.
Q. So, you are saying that you consented to the sexual intercourse?
Misquoted!
Is cumulative.
?????
Constitute an improper impeachment.
Evidence that the reputation of the accused for truth and necessity is bad is not
admissible to impeach the accused in a criminal case who does not take the witness
stand on his own behalf.
Evidence of particular wrongful acts. In a trial for murder, the accused cannot be
asked on cross examination whether at the time the crime was committed, he was
living with a woman who is not his wife.
The prosecution calls Mr. B TO TESTIFY AGAINST Mr. A in a rape case, during the late
part of the trial, Mr. A became a hostile witness, the prosecution is not allowed to
impeach him by evidence of his bad character.