Examination of Witnesses: Rule 132 (Rules of Court)
Examination of Witnesses: Rule 132 (Rules of Court)
Examination of Witnesses: Rule 132 (Rules of Court)
A witness may testify only on those facts which he knows of his OWN KNOWLEDGEknowledge,
recollection, perception (5 senses), actions, state of mind, and operation of mind (opinions, etc.
but frowned upon)
Admission of the testimony of an expert witness is justified when (1) the subject under
examination requires that the court has the aid of knowledge or experience such as men not
especially skilled do not have xxx; (2) witness called as expert must possess the knowledge, skill,
or experience.
Q. Doctor, will you please state your full name to the Court? Q. What do you mean by forensic medicine and genetics?
A. Dr. Sheldon A. Hawkes A. Forensic medicine is that area in medical science which
Q. Where do you reside? focuses on determining the cause of death by examining a
A. xxx xxx corpse. Genetics is a disciple of biology and concerns the trait
Q. What is your profession? inheritance of offsprings, molecular structure, etc. of genes.
A. I am a licensed medical surgeon, but I currently work as Q. As a part of your work, Dr. Hawkes, have you had experience
medical examiner and DNA expert for the PNP/NBI. in determining the time and cause of death of a corpse?
Q. Are you duly licensed to practice as a surgeon, medical A. Yes.
examiner and DNA expert in the Philippines? Q. Tell us briefly of your experience along that line.
A. I am. A. xxx xxx
Q. How long have you practiced medicine, Dr. Hawkes? Q. Have you had occasion to test DNA before?
A. 20 years this coming December. A. I have.
Q. Of what medical school are you a graduate, doctor? Q. Tell us briefly of your experience.
A. UST. A. xxx xxx
Q. What other study or training did you have? Q. Doctor, do you know Will Novick, the deceased in this case?
A. I served one year as intern in the PGH. Then I took post A. Yes, I do.
graduate work in UST, Department of Pathology and Q. Did you attend to him on xxx date xxx for purposes of
Bacteriology; also graduate department Harvard University for determining the cause and time of his death?
Genetics, some more post graduate work in New York Post A. Yes I did.
Graduate for Forensic Pathology, and visited a number of clinics Q. What did you do on that occasion, if anything?
here and abroad. A. I made a thorough physical examination.
Q. Have you held a teaching position in any medical institution? Q. Will you tell us the method of examination and technique you
A. Yes. used?
Q. Tell us briefly, about that. A. xxx xxx
A. I taught forensic medicine in UST, genetics in UP.
OBJECTIONS
Objection to evidence offered orally must be immediately after the offer is made
Objection to question shall be made as soon as the grounds become reasonably apparent
Offer of evidence in writing objected to within 3 days after notice unless different period
allowed by court grounds must be SPECIFIED
Repetition of objection unnecessary when the question is of the same class (w/n overruled or
sustainedconsidered as continuing objection)
IF THE WITNESS HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION before the adverse party
can fully object and objection is meritorious, move to strike the answer off the record
(answers that are [1] incompetent; [2] irrelevant; or [3] improper may also be STRICKEN
OFF)
Ruling of court on objection must be given immediately after objections is made, unless
reasonable time is required, but must always be made during the trial (reason for sustaining or
overruling need not be stated, except if objection is on 2 or more grounds)
Excluded evidence may be tendered by having it attached or made part of the record; if oral,
state for the record the NAME and the PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITNESS
and the SUBSTANCE of the testimony
Grounds
o Ambiguous o Confession of co-defendant
o Answer is non-responsive inadmissible
o Answer exceeds scope of o Confrontation face-to-face denied
question/beyond the scope o Displaying evidence prior to its
o Argumentative introduction
o Assumes facts not in evidence o Expert testimony is not
o Badgering the witness admissible US v. Frye (Daubert
o Best Evidence Rule (original Factors)
document) o Expert testimony is not
o Chain of custody not properly competent
established o Failure to lay proper foundation
o Compound question (contains 2 for admission of
or more questions within a single testimony/exhibit/document
question) o Harassing/Badgering the witness
o Conclusion o Hearsay
o Confession involuntary or in o Illegal search/seizure
violation of rights o Immaterial
REMINDERS
After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be
recalled without leave of court
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by (1) evidence of his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad, or by
(2) 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
Except for (1) unwilling or hostile witness, or a (2) witness who is an adverse party or an
officer xxx of a corporation xxx which is an adverse party, the party producing a witness is
not allowed to impeach his credibility impeached by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his present testimony xxx he must be asked whether or not
he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them
Evidence of good character not admissible until such character is impeached
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 xxx 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 xxx
Whenever a writing is shown to an adverse party, it may be inspected by the adverse party
Evidence need not be introduced to prove fact (1) admitted by the adverse party; (2) judicially
noticed; or (3) legally presumed