Rule 131 Q: What is an oath?
A: An appeal to God to witness the truth of what he
Sec. 3 Disputable Presumptions
The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
by other evidence:
e. That the evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
m. That official duty has been regularly performed
p. That private transactions have been fair and
regular
v. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received
in the regular course of the mail
Rule 132
(Sir) Rule 132 is trial technique; it deals with the rules and
the procedure for hearings.
A. Examination of Witnesses
Sec. 1 Examination to be done in open court
The examination of witness presented in a trial or hearing
shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the
answers of the witness shall be given orally.
Q: How is the examination of a witness done?
A: The examination of a witness shall be done in open
court, and under oath or affirmation
Q: When is a court considered open?
A: A court formally opened and engaged in the
transaction of judicial affairs, to which all persons who
conduct themselves in an orderly manner are admitted
Q: Is arraignment part of the trial?
A: Technically arraignment is not part of the trial,
because when we speak of trial it presupposes the
presentation of evidence but, for our purposes under
Section 1, arraignment is part of the trial
Q: Who is considered to be a witness?
A: A witness is someone who testify before a judicial
tribunal, quasi-judicial, administrative proceeding under
oath or affirmation before an open court.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
declares, and an impreciation of Divine punishment or
vengeance upon him if what he says is false.
Q: Oath vs. Affirmation
A: An oath is when the witness places his hands before
a Bible and an Affirmation is when there is no Bible used.
Q: Is the CA allowed to accept evidence and hear the
testimonies of the witnesses?
A: Upon its discretion
Q: What do you mean by discretion?
A: The power given to the courts or Judges to decide
questions during trial where no particular law is
applicable and controlled by personal judgment.
Q: Is the CTA allowed to accept evidence and hear the
testimonies of the witnesses?
A: Yes (i.e. Manny Pacquiao’s tax evasion case)
Note: Any case involving the question of taxes levied upon
by the BIR and BOC, and the amount is 1M and above
cannot be taken by ordinary courts, they are under the
jurisdiction of the CTA.
Q: How should answers/testimonies be given?
A:
GR: It is usually given orally in open court
XPN:
1. If the question calls for a different mode of
answer (i.e. demonstration)
2. When the testimonies of witnesses may be given
in affidavits under the Rules on Summary
Procedure (civil cases)
3. Depositions
Q: Why open court?
A: To enable the court to judge the credibility of the
witness by his manner of testifying, demeanor, their
intelligence and their appearance.
Q: Why should the testimony be given under oath or
affirmation?
A: Because once a witness tells a lie, he will be charged
with perjury or false testimony under civil and/or
criminal cases
Q: The rule says testimonies should be given orally; can
the answers of testimonies of witnesses be in the form
found in a question and answer, like those made before
or executed before police officers or affidavits?
A:
GR: Affidavits cannot take place the testimonies of
witnesses
XPN:
1. In cases governed by the rules of Summary
Procedure
2. Where the fact obtaining the affidavit is in issue
3. As an admission by the adverse party
4. To impeach a witness on stand
5. When the allows Judicial Affidavits
6. As part of Res Gestae
7. As an admission or declaration against interest
8. As part of the testimony of the witness
9. When the adverse party waives its objection on
its admissibility
10. When the court takes Judicial Notice thereof
Q: If the answer of the witness is not responsive to the
question, what are you going to do?
A: Ask the court to Strike Out the answer on the ground
that you are not given time to object because the
witness’ answer it not responsive
Q: What if the answer is given so quick that you are not
able to immediately object, what are you going to do?
A: Ask the court to Strike Out the answer on the ground
that you are not given time to object because the witness
answered so quick
Sec. 2 Proceedings to be recorded
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the
questions propounded to a witness and his answers
thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case,
shall be recorded by means of shorthand or stenotype or
by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
Q: Can the lawyer say, “off the record”?
A: Technically this is not allowed because of Section 2
provided that it has reference to the case.
Sec. 3 Rights and Obligations of a Witness
A witness must answer questions, although his answer
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is
the right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him
to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by
law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation, unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a
fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But
a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Q: What are the rights and obligations of a witness?
A:
a. Rights
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at
issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed.
b. Obligations
1. A witness must answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against
him, provided that it is not violative of his right
against self-incrimination.
2. A witness must answer to the fact of his previous
final conviction for an offense.
Q: What is this right against self-incrimination?
A: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself (Section 17, Article 3, 1987 Constitution)
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination self-executing?
A: No, it should be invoked.
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination applicable to a
corporation?
A: No, it cannot be invoked be a corporation but only by
an individual person.
Q: Is the right against self-incrimination applicable in
civil, criminal and administrative cases?
A: Yes.

Q: Does the right against self-incrimination involve only
testimonial compulsion?
A: No. It involves production of incriminating
documentary evidence
Q: What is the difference between the right against self-
incrimination of an ordinary witness and the right
against self-incrimination of a witness who is at the
same time an accused?
A:
a. Ordinary Witness – you can invoke the right only
when the incriminating question is asked, it is akin
to a partial disqualification
b. Accused Witness – you can invoke the right at the
first instance, you can automatically refuse to obey
the subpoena to testify, it is akin to absolute
disqualification
Q: X is charged with falsification, he was called to the
witness stand by his counsel. On cross-examination, the
counsel of the adverse party asked him, “Mr. X, are you
the author of this falsification?” The accused said no.
The Counsel of the Adverse Party then asked X to write
in a piece of paper. X’s counsel objected, right against
self-incrimination. Rule on the Objection.
A: Overruled. Although the act of asking the witness to
give samples of his signature is violative of his right
against self-incrimination, when he denied authorship of
the falsified document, he in effect waived his right
against self-incrimination.
Q: In the above question, what if the fiscal did not ask
him to produce sample signatures but on rebuttal, the
fiscal is now asking X, as an adverse witness to produce
sample signature. Can X now invoke his right against
self-incrimination, although in cross-examination, he
already denied authorship of the falsified document?
A: Yes. Waiver of the right against self-incrimination
invoked during the cross-examination does not mean its
waiver during rebuttal stage.
Sec. 4 Order in the examination of an individual
witness
The order in which the individual witness may be
examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: At what stage does the order of examination take
place?
A: At the trial stage, during the presentation of evidence.
Q: The prosecution has three witnesses – 1, 2, and 3.
Can the fiscal ask the judge that the direct examination
of ALL three witnesses be done first before the cross, re-
direct and re-cross of each?
A: As a rule, technically speaking, that is not allowed. But
the court, on the principle that it has the power to
control its proceedings, may allow such. That is purely
discretionary.
Sec. 5 Direct examination
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant
to the issue.
Q: What is direct examination?
A: Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant
to the issue. (Sec. 5)
Q: When is a fact relevant to the issue?
A: When it is material and probative
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To prove the elements of the crime
Q: Can the courts delegate the reception of evidence to
its Clerk of Court?
A: Yes, provided that:
a. The Clerk of Court is a lawyer; and
b. The case is a Special Proceeding Case
Sec. 6 Cross-examination; its purpose and extent
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as
to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue.
Q: What is a cross-examination?
A: Sec. 6
Q: What is the purpose of the cross-examination?
A: To test the witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue; to break
the credibility of the witness.
Q: What is the scope of the cross-examination?
A: Matters stated in the direct examination, or those
connected therewith
Q: Can the cross-examiner ask the witness on a fact not
stated during the direct nor connected therewith?
A: Yes, under the ROC, the cross-examination is to elicit
facts bearing upon the issue – the fact must be material
and relevant, although it was not asked during the direct
examination nor connected therewith.
Q: What is the basis of the right to cross-examine the
witness?
A: (Sec. 14(2), Art. 3, 1987 Constitution) The right to
meet the witness face to face involves the right to cross-
examine the witness.
Q: Pp vs. X. X was charged with murder. His defense was
that in July 31, 2012, he is in the US. X is now on the
witness stand. X’s lawyer now asks him, “Where were
you on July 31, 2012?” Is that question objectionable?
A: No. It is a correct direct examination question.
Q: In the above problem, what if my question was,
“What happened during July 31, 2012,” is the question
objectionable?
A: Yes. The question calls for a narration.
Q: Is the actual cross-examination necessary, or a mere
opportunity?
A: It is a mere opportunity
Q: Can a lawyer of the accused cross-examine the
witness of his co-accused?
A: Yes. As long as there is already a showing of adverse
interest upon the testimony of the witness – they are
now opponents.
Q: Are leading questions allowed in cross-
examinations?
A: Yes, they are allowed in cross and re-cross BUT not in
direct and re-direct.
Note: Misleading questions are not allowed in direct,
cross, re-direct and re-cross examination.
Q: May a judge asks clarificatory questions to a witness?
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
A: Yes, but not searching questions (as if you are already
the fiscal)
Q: What if the judge asks searching questions, what
should the lawyer of the accused do?
A: Invoke the case that provides that Judges are not
allowed to conduct searching questions (Valdes vs.
Aquiriza; 133 SCRA 150; GR 122749; J. Vitug); tell it
politely
Q: What if the judge is not asking searching questions
but is asking objectionable questions (leading,
misleading)?
A: Invoke the case of Lopez vs. Standard Oil (5 Phil 549)
Sec. 7 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.
Q: What is re-direct examination?
A: It is the examination after the cross examination
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To complete the testimony in the direct examination
Q: What is the scope of re-direct examination?
A: Only matters asked during the cross-examination
Q: if the matter is not asked during the cross-
examination, can you still ask such questions?
A: Yes, upon the judges’ discretion
Sec. 8 Re-cross-examination
Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.
Q: What is re-cross examination?
A: It is the examination after the re-direct examination
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To break down the elements and credibility of the
witness
Q: What is the scope of re-direct examination?
A: Only matters asked during the re-cross examination
Q: if the matter is not asked during the cross-
examination, can you still ask such questions?
A: Yes, upon the judges’ discretion
Q: After the prosecution presented its evidence, can
they present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidences?
A: Yes.
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.
Q: What is the rule in recalling a witness? What to do?
A: You should file a motion for leave of court
Q: What do you mean by leave of court?
A: Permission of the court
Q: What is the parameter that the judge will grant leave
of court?
A: It is upon the interest of justice
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:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty in 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.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: What is a leading question?
A: A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires
Q: What is a misleading question?
A: A question which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that which he
has previously stated.
Q: What should objections to objectionable questions
be raised?
A: When the objectionable grounds becomes apparent
Q: What are the buzz words in leading questions?
A: Was the, Did you, You did not, Have you not, Isn’t a
fact, As a matter of fact, The facts are, That is true, Isn’t,
Don’t you know, Do you mean to say, You don’t know of
course, By that answer of yours, Whether
Q: How will you counter argue that the objection of
leading should be overruled?
A: “Your honor that is not a leading question. The
question is merely suggestive of the subject matter and
not the answer.”
Q: What is a preliminary matter?
A: These are preliminary facts that are not relevant to the
issue
Q: When is a witness an unwilling or a hostile witness?
A: A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify,
or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand. (Sec 12 (2))
Q: What is an Adverse Witness?
A: The opposing party who become your witness
Q: Direct Examination on an ordinary witness. The
question is, “even though you knew you were at fault,
you still did not stop your vehicle.” Is this
objectionable?
A: Yes: (a) leading and (b) question calls for a conclusion.
Q: Direct examination question on a hostile witness.
The question is, “even though you knew you were at
fault, you still did not stop your vehicle.” Objection:
leading and question calls for a conclusion.
A: As to leading – it should be overruled since a hostile
witness may be asked leading questions. As to the
ground that the question calls for a conclusion – it should
be sustained.
Q: Direct examination question on a hostile witness.
The question is, “even though you knew you were
driving at the right side of the road, you still stopped
your vehicle.” Objection: leading and question calls for
a conclusion. Rule
A: The question is no longer objectionable since: (a) a
hostile witness can be asked leading questions and (b)
the question no longer calls for a conclusion; you are
merely stating a fact.
Q: “State whether the defendant passed through a red
light in the intersection” – is the question
objectionable?
A: Yes, on the ground of leading. – The question may be
rephrased as follows: “What was the color of the traffic
light when you passed through the intersection?”
Sec. 11 Impeachment of adverse party's witness
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom
he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or
integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his present,
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
Q: What is impeachment?
A: It is the destruction of the testimony of a witness
Q: What is the purpose of impeachment?
A: To prove to the court that the witness’ testimony is
unworthy of belief
Q: What are the 4 modes of impeachment?
A:
1. Contradictory Evidence
2. Evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad
3. Prior Inconsistent Statement
4. Record of Prior Conviction
Q: How are you going to impeach by contradictory
evidence?
A: To present evidence that will contradict prior evidence
presented by your adversary (indirect impeachment – if
A is telling the truth, B is telling a lie; and vice versa); it
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
requires the calling of another witness to contradict what
the other witness
Q: What do you mean by “general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad?”
A: It means that this witness has a bad reputation for lack
of veracity
Note: Evidence of General Immorality, Bad
Character, Particular Wrongful Act, and Particular
Crime is not allowed
Q: Can you impeach a witness under the second mode
on the ground of lack of morality (evidence of bad
character)?
A:
GR: No, this is not allowed
XPN:
1. If the person on the witness stand is the accused
himself and you ask him about his record of prior
conviction
2. If what you’re going to ask the COC of the Judge
who convicted him is about the person’s record
of prior conviction (the competent person)
Q: What is not allowed evidence of Bad Reputation vs.
Bad Character?
A: Bad Character
Q: Impeachment of the reputation of an ordinary
witness vs. Impeachment of the reputation of an
Accused Witness
A: For an Ordinary Witness, what is important is his
reputation at the time that he is called to testify. For an
Accused Witness, it is as to his reputation when he
committed the crime
Q: Two kinds of prior inconsistent statement?
A:
a. Oral
b. Written
Q: How do you impeach a witness on the ground of prior
inconsistent statement?
A:
a. Written Inconsistent Statement (S-R-A)
i. Show the sworn statement
ii. Read the statement
iii. Ask the witness of the contents of the
document – make him admit the contents of
the document (if he denies, charge him with
 perjury; if he admits, there is now an
inconsistent statement)
Note: If the witness refuses to answer, make
a manifestation of his refusal to answer
b. Oral Inconsistent Statement (M-C-U)
i. Ask the witness if he Made such statement
ii. Ask him about the Contents
iii. Understand – did the witness understand
about the inconsistency
Note: You cannot contradict by a prior inconsistent
statement if the issue is a collateral matter – you can
only contradict on issues that are material or
germane to the main case. You now object on the
ground of improper impeachment. But if the case is
perjury, any PIS showing dishonesty may be used
since in perjury, you are to prove the dishonesty of
the witness.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the plaintiff. Can the defendant, through Y,
present evidence that the reputation of W is bad?
A: Yes.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the plaintiff. Can the defendant, through Y,
present evidence that the bad character of W?
A: No.
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Recovery of Parcel of Land).
Plaintiff presented W who said that the real owner of
the land is the defendant (hostile witness). The court
declared W a hostile witness. Can Y present evidence of
the bad reputation of W? Can Y present evidence of the
bad character of W?
A: As to bad reputation, Yes; as to bad character, No.
Sec. 12 Party may not impeach his own witness
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing
a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or
his having misled the party into calling him to the witness
stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
character. He may also be impeached and cross-
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-
examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.
Q: Sec. 11 talks of Bad Reputation – Sec. 12 talks of Bad
Character. Is there a difference between their
applications?
A: None.
Q: Can a party impeach his own witness?
A: No.
Q: What is the effect on the party of the testimony of a
witness who was not declared hostile but testified
adversely on your claim?
A: It is binding on the party who presented that witness.
Q: When can one be considered an unwilling or a hostile
witness?
A: A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify,
or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand.
Q: Can a party call his opponent as his own witness?
A: Yes (because you can now ask leading questions)
Q: Plaintiff vs. Defendant (Damages arising on Vehicular
Accident). P presented W who is supposed to testify
that the P is not negligent on the accident BUT W went
against the P and said that D is not the one driving the
car; the lawyer of P did not declare W a hostile witness.
P presented another witness, Y, who testified that (1)
the real one driving the car is D, contrary to what W said
that D is not the one driving. Y said that (2) W has a bad
reputation, that he is a liar. Y went further and told the
judge that (3) prior to testifying, W whispered to him
that D is the one driving the car. All of Y’s testimony is
objected to, rule on the objection.
A: Sustained. A Party may not impeach his own witness.
Q: On the above problem, W was declared a hostile
witness; Rule on the objections.
A: Overruled. As an exception to Sec. 12, a party may
impeach his witness if such has become a hostile witness.
Q: In the above problems, what if Y is the witness of the
defendant; can he testify against the statements of W?
A: Yes (Sec. 11 – Impeachment of Adverse Party’s
Statement)
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.
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.
Q: What is the reason for the rule?
A: The law presumes every person to be reputedly
truthful until the evidence shall be produced to the
contrary
Q: Sec. 14, Rule 132 vs. Sec. 51, Rule 130
A:
a. Sec. 14, Rule 132 – the witness whose character
is involved is not a party to the case
b. Sec. 51, Rule 130 – the witness whose character
is involved is a party to the case
Q: P is claiming insurance proceeds for his burned
house. D does not want to pay on the ground that P’s
son deliberately burned the house. The Son testified
that he did not do such. P testified to prove the good
character of his son; D objected on the ground that P
can’t do such, Rule.
A: Sustained. There is yet an impeachment of P’s Sons
Character.
Q: In the above problem, what if D testified that P’s Son
has a bad reputation? Can P now prove to the Judge his
son’s good character?
A: Yes. The Sons reputation is now being impeached.
Sec. 15 Exclusion and separation of witnesses
On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the
court any witness not at the time under examination, so
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one another
until all shall have been examined.
Q: What is the reason for the rule?
A: To avoid influencing the testimony of the witness
Q: Is there a difference between exclusion from other
witness from exclusion from the public?
A: If there is somebody testifying in the witness stand,
the next possible witness can be excluded and separated
from the public.
Q: P vs. D. The plaintiff’s witness are X, Y and P (plaintiff
himself). X is now testifying, the counsel for the
defendant moved to exclude Y and P on the ground that
they are the next witnesses, can they be both sent out
of the court?
A: Only Y may be excluded and not P (the plaintiff) due
to his Constitutional right to be present at every stages
of the proceeding and the right to hear the accusations
against him because the Constitution is supreme over
the Rules of Court.
Sec. 16 When witness may refer to memorandum
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the
same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case
the writing or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses,
cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or
record correctly stated the transaction when made; but
such evidence must be received with caution.
Q: What are the 2 parts of Section 16?
A:
1. Present Recollection Revived – A witness may be
allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact,
by anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any
other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; in here, the evidence is the
 testimony – the writing being a mere memory
aid
Note: The evidence is still testimonial in
character. The memorandum will not be
considered as documentary evidence
2. Past Recollection Recorded – A witness may
testify from such writing or record, though he
retain no recollection of the particular facts, if
he is able to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction when made; in
here, the evidence is the writing itself, having
been attested to as correct by the witness
Note: Since there is a complete loss of
recollection or memory on the part of the
witness, then it is the memorandum itself that
will serve as evidence. It will now be considered
as documentary evidence.
Q: What is admissible between the two parts?
A: Only the Past Recollection Recorded
Q: Why is it that Present Recollection inadmissible and
the past recollection recorded admissible?
A: In the Present Recollection Recorded, the character of
the evidence is still testimonial – the memorandum or
notes is inadmissible because that memorandum cannot
corroborate the testimony of the witness who prepared
that memorandum. In the Past Recollection Revived, it is
admissible since in here, it is the memorandum itself
which serves as evidence – it is now considered as
documentary evidence.
Q: With respect to the time frame when the
memorandum was made, what is the difference?
A: In Present Recollection Revived, the note is made at
the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
thereafter, or at any other time. On the other hand, the
Past Recollection Recorded, the time frame is
immaterial.
Sec. 17 When part of transaction, writing or record
given in evidence, the remainder, the remainder
admissible
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of
the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
Q: Does the word “part” include 2 separate documents
but forming one document, but not in a series of
pagination?
A: Yes, it is a part of the whole or totality of the pages,
transaction, declaration, etc.
Sec. 18 Right to inspect writing shown to witness
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
inspected by the adverse party.
Q: Relate Sec. 8, Rule 130 (Party who calls for Document
not bound to offer it) to Sec. 18, Rule 132 (Right to
inspect writing shown to witness)
A: Whenever a writing is shown before the court, the
adverse party may examine that writing. But the person
who called for the production of that document is not
obliged to present it in evidence.
Q: What is the purpose?
A: To be able to inspect if it is genuine.
B. Authentication and Proof of Documents
Sec. 19 Classes of Documents
For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private.
Q: What is a document?
A: A document is any deed, instrument, or any duly
authorized paper by which something is proved,
evidenced or set forth.
Q: What do you mean by documentary evidence?
A: It consists of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.
Q: What are the classes of documents?
A: Public and Private Documents
Q: Under the RPC, how many classes of documents are
there? What are they?
A:
1. Official
2. Public
3. Commercial
4. Private
Q: What is the importance of distinguishing public from
private documents?
A: For the purpose of their presentation in evidence
Q: What are Public Documents?
A: Any document issued by an officer made in
accordance with law; Documents issued with the
solemnities required by law
Q: What are the classes of Public documents?
A:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to the entered
therein.
Q: Is a last will and testament a public document?
A: No, because under the law on Succession, wills, even
though notarized, their due execution and authenticity
should still be proved by the 3 witnesses
Q: What do you mean by due execution?
A: Nothing more than that the instrument is not
spurious, counterfeit or of a different import on its face
from the one executed
Q: What are private documents?
A: Any deed or instrument, by which something is
proved, evidenced or set forth.
Q: How would you compare a public document from a
private document?
A:
1. As to authenticity
a. Public – no need to present proof of its due
execution and authenticity, before it may be
received in evidence
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
b. Private – you need to prove its due
execution and authenticity, before it may be
received in evidence
2. As to persons bound
a. Public – evidence even against 3rd persons,
of the fact which gave rise to its due
execution and to the date of the document
b. Private – binds only the parties who
executed it or their
Q: Is an SPA executed abroad acknowledged before a
notary public abroad admissible in evidence as public
documents in our courts?
A: Yes (Sec. 19 (a))
Note: Any foreign document to be admissible in our
courts must have a “red ribbon”
Q: What is the evidentiary value of public documents?
A: It must be sustained in the absence of strong,
complete proof of its nullity or falsity. It means that mere
presentation thereof is prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated.
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; or
(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.
Note: Sec. 21-23 are the rules on the authentication and
proof of private documents
Q: How do you prove the due execution and
authenticity of a private document?
A:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
Q: How are you going to prove or establish the
genuineness of the signature of the maker? (Sec. 22)
A:
a. By anyone who saw
 b. Testimony of a witness purporting to show that the
signature is the signature of the maker
c. By the comparison of the handwriting of the
witness by the court
d. By Expert Witness
Q: What are the self-authenticating documents?
A:
1. Public Documents
2. Ancient Documents (Sec. 21, Rule 132)
3. Notarized Documents
4. Documents whose authenticity has been admitted
under the Rules on Actionable Documents (Rule 8,
Section 8) – if you fail to verify your answer,
anything attached to the document is deemed
admitted
5. Reply to the Letter Rule – confirmation made the
counsel that demand letter has been received
Q: How will you temporarily have a photocopied
document temporarily marked?
A: You say, “Your Honor, may I move that this document
be temporarily marked.” Then the next hearing, you now
ask the court to transfer the mark to the original
document.
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.
Q: Do ancient documents cover public documents? How
about Private Documents?
A: Private Documents
Q: What is an Ancient Document?
A: Documents which have been in existence for 30 years
or more.
Q: What is the reason why an ancient document need
not be proved of its due execution and authenticity?
A: Because of the difficulty of getting witnesses to testify
as to the due execution of the document.
Sec. 22 How genuineness of handwriting proved
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge
of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting
the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge.
Sec. 23 Public documents as evidence
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of
the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date
of the latter.
Q: Between a public document and a bare allegation,
which shall prevail?
A: Public Document
Sec. 24 Proof of official record
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may
be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of
the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be
made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
Q: Does Section 24 cover both local and foreign official
records?
A: Yes.
Q: How can you prove official records?
A:
a. Local Official Records
1. By Official Copy
2. By Official Publication
3. By Certified True Copy
b. Foreign Official Records
 1. By Official Copy substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
2. By Official Publication or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
3. By Certified True Copy attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
Q: How do you prove Certified True Copies; having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
requirements?
A: Sec. 26 Irremovability of public record
a. Local Official Records
1. Attestation Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible
2. Authentication in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which
3. Documentary Stamp (w/o such, it is it is kept, except upon order of a court where the
inadmissible in evidence); provided under inspection of the record is essential to the just
the NIRC determination of a pending case.
b. Foreign Official Records
1. Attestation – a statement that this is a Q: What is the reason behind the rule?
certified true copy A: To enable others to use the record
2. Certification – a statement that the original
copy is in the custody of a public officer Q: Are there exceptions to the rule?
3. Authentication – proof of due execution A:
1. Order of the Court (Rule 136, Section 26)
Note: Certification is used only for certified true 2. Rule 136, Section 14 (Taking of record from the
copies while Acknowledgment is for an Original; clerk’s office
although they are used interchangeably
Q: What if a public officer violates Section 26, is he
Q: How do you prove an Original Document? criminally liable?
A: A: Yes. Under Section 2, Chapter 5, RPC (Infidelity in the
a. Local Official Records custody of documents) – Articles 226, 227, 228
- No more need for any attestation,
acknowledgement, and authentication Sec. 27 Public record of a private document
b. Foreign Official Records
1. By an Acknowledgement – that the
An authorized public record of a private document may
document is duly executed before a public
be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
officer
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
2. By an Authentication – that the document is
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
sealed
Q: Is a public record of a private document proof of its
Q: Are the following public or private documents?
contents, due execution and authenticity; does the
1. Application for registration of a TIN in BIR –
private document acquire the status of a public
public (Sec. 19a)
document under Sec. 27?
2. Sealed Original Stock Certificate – private (a
A: No, the writings remain private – it will only acquire
private individual caused the seal)
the character of a public document BUT it remains to be
3. Certification of the Clerk of Court – public
private documents which due execution, contents and
4. Receipt of the Treasurer’s Office – public
authenticity must be prove.
5. Un-Notarized Sealed Title of a Land – public
6. Certification from Biñan, Laguna – public
Sec. 28 Proof of lack of record
7. Articles of Incorporation – public (issued by the
SEC)
A written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
Sec. 25 What attestation of copy must state
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
that the records of his office contain no such record or
entry.
Note: A classic example of this is the NDI – No Derogatory
Record
Sec. 29 How judicial record impeached
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a)
want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b)
collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party
offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
Q: How are judicial records impeached?
A: By evidence of:
(a) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer
(b) Collusion between the parties
(c) Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings.
Sec. 30 Proof of notarial documents
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.
Q: Why are documents notarized by the Notary Public
given the statues of a public document?
A: Because Notary Publics, as officers of the law, are
given a certain degree of respect and a certain degree of
confidence
Sec. 31 Alteration in document, how to explain
The party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the
alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties
affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning
or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the
document shall not be admissible in evidence.
Q: What to do when your adversary presented an
altered document?
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
A: Make a manifestation to the Judge saying that the
document is altered so that when you object, the court
will remember that the document is an altered one
Note: An altered document cannot be cured
Q: If you are the presenter of the altered document,
what are you supposed to do in order for it to be
admissible in evidence?
A: He may show that:
1. The alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or
2. The alteration was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or
3. The alteration was properly or innocently made,
or
4. The alteration did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument.
Sec. 32 Seal
There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed
private documents insofar as their admissibility as
evidence is concerned.
Q: Do you still need to prove the due execution and
authenticity of a Sealed Private Document?
A: Yes, for it still remains a Private Document
Q; How do you prove the due execution and
authenticity of a Private Document?
A: By asking these two questions:
1. What is your evidence? ( a general question to
prove due execution and authenticity of a
Private Document)
2. Whose signature is this? (Proving due execution)
How did you know whose signature this is?
(Proving Authenticity)
Sec. 33 Documentary evidence in an unofficial
language
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be
admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption
of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to
have such translation prepared before trial.
Q: What if X killed Y. X admitted guilt in a Cebuano
dialect, is his admission admissible in evidence?
A: Yes, since these local dialects are considered as You cannot ask questions, if you did not state the
auxiliary official languages – they are no longer needed purpose of the testimony – thus, if you are an
to be translated. (Pp v. Tomaquin; 435 SCRA 23) adversary, you can object
After the last witness underwent the q&a, the
Q: What if X killed Y. X admitted guilt in a Russian lawyer now shall make a formal offer of evidence
language, is his admission admissible in evidence? within 3 days from the statement of the last
A: No, foreign languages must be translated. witness – which shall consist of the different
documentary exhibits (from this time, the other
C. Offer and Objection party may now object)

Sec. 34 Offer of evidence Q: If the document, which was attached to the

complaint but not identified nor marked but formally
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been offered; is it admissible or inadmissible?
formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is A: Admissible
offered must be specified.
Q: If the document is not attached to the complaint but
Sec. 35 When to make offer was identified and marked but not formally offered;
admissible or inadmissible?
A: Inadmissible
As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must
be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Q: If the document is attached to the complaint,
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered
identified, marked and lost but formally offered;
after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
admissible or inadmissible?
Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court
A: Inadmissible, since a lost document cannot be offered
to be done in writing.
REGALADO: (sir do not agree)
Q: When should you make an offer?
GR: Evidence not formally offered is inadmissible
A:
XPN: Though not formally offered, as long as it is
a. Documentary and Object evidence – the offer
marked and identified as borne by the stenographic
must be made after the party’s presentation of
notes, it is admissible
the testimonial evidence
b. Testimonial Evidence – the offer shall be made
Q: Should the offer be specific?
at the time the witness is called to testify
A: Because of the doctrine of the Multiple Admissibility
of Evidence
Q: Why should evidence be formally offered; purpose?
A: No evidence shall be considered unless formally
Q: Can a party withdraw his evidence?
offered in court.
A: No.
Q: What are the types of Evidence?
Q: Identification of Evidence vs. Formal Offer of
A:
Evidence
1. Testimonial
A: Identification of Evidence is made during the course of
2. Object/Real
the trial while formal offer of evidence is made after the
3. Documentary
party’s presentation of testimonial evidence
Q: Before asking the witness on stand, what should the
lawyer state first? Sec. 36 Objection
A: The purpose of the testimony – after this, you can now
ask the witness Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
Note: Objection to a question propounded in the course of
the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon
as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent.
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
 An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
Q: What should the party do if he wants the evidence of
the adverse party not be accepted by the court?
A: Object
Q: Give me 10 kinds of Objection
A:
1. Question is Ambiguous
2. Question is Argumentative
3. Question is violative of the BER
4. Question is Compound
5. Question calls for Conclusion
6. Question is too General
7. Question is Hypothetical
8. Question is Leading
9. Question is Misleading
10. Question Misquotes a witness
Q: What happened on July 13, 2001? – is it this
objectionable?
A: Yes.
1. Leading
2. Misleading
3. Narrative
Note: In order to obviate the objection, add “if any”
after the question, the objection can no longer be
sustained
Q: When to make an objection?
A:
a. Oral Testimony – after the offer of the evidence
is made (also after the purpose was stated)
b. In Writing (Documentary Evidence) – within 3
days after the formal offer
c. Question Propounded in the course of the oral
examination – when the objectionable portion
becomes apparent (during the trial stage)
Sec. 37 When repetition of objection unnecessary
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of
the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat
the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad
record his continuing objection to such class of questions.
(Continuing Objection)
Q: What is your remedy for same kinds of question
propounded to your witness?
A: Objection, the question is repetitive; and if such was
still done, now ask the court to make a record of your
continuing objection
Q: What if, when you objected first, the objection was
overruled. And then on the second time, your objection
was sustained. Can you move for a record of your
continuing objection?
A: Yes, Sec. 37 said “whether such objection was
sustained or overruled”
Sec. 38 Ruling
The ruling of the court must be given immediately
after the objection is made, unless the court desires to
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the
trial and at such time as will give the party against whom
it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented
by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on
two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on
one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds
relied upon.
Q: If the objection was based on 2 or more grounds,
must the judge state his basis of his ruling, if he will
overrule all the objections?
A: No.
Q: If the objection was based on 2 or more grounds,
must the judge state his basis of his ruling, if he will
sustain one of the 2 or more objections?
A: Yes.
Sec. 39 Striking out answer
Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the
striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.

Q: What to do when the answer was made so quickly?
A: Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
Q: What are the other grounds for you to move for a
motion to strike out?
A: If the answer is otherwise improper, irrelevant or
immaterial.
Sec. 40 Tender of excluded evidence
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to
or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is
oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
Q: What is offer of proof, tender of excluded evidence,
or proffer of evidence?
A: This is the offer of evidence excluded by the trial court
for the consideration by the appellate court (Sec. 40)
b. Her personal circumstances are the following:
x x x (also state the purpose of the testimony)
c. And that if I were to be allowed to continue with
my questioning, I will be able to prove the
following x x x and that will be the supposed
testimony of my witness.
Q: What is the purpose of the above?
A: It will be recorded already – then the Judge will be able
to read it when making hi decision
Q: What if the objection against you was sustained by
the Judge so that you were not able to present your
witness’ written or object or real evidence; what is your
remedy?
A: The offeror may have the same attached to or made
part of the record; how:
Make a manifestation in writing that you will be
making a proffer of evidence to have the document
for part of the whole record of the case
Q: What if the value of the proffer of evidence?
A: So that the appellate court may be able to read the
records of excluded evidence

Q: What is offer of evidence?

A: Offer of evidence for the consideration of the trial
court – this is the one that may be objected to within 3
days (Sec. 34)

Q: What are the kinds of evidence?

A:
1. Object/Real – you object during the Formal Offer
(3 days after the offer)
2. Testimonial/Oral – you object during the course
of the examination
Q: What are the 3 ways to object?
A:
1. Object on the Purpose
2. Objection during the Formal Offer
3. Objection during the course of the examination

Q: What if the objection against you was sustained by

the Judge so that you were not able to present your
witness’ oral or testimonial evidence; what is your
remedy?
A: Say, “Your honor, may I be allowed to make a proffer
of evidence” (or tender of excluded evidence or offer of
proof). Then present such:
a. The name of my witness is Ms. X
Ampuan, Kevin John DL.
2014-0230
*based on the lectures of Atty. Lionell Macababbad