CORRECTIONS: ZULUETA CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SALAMEYA??? (BASTA DI ZULUETA)
CARAPEN: dapat daw probative value of testimony of relatives; ma'am was referring to Buduhan
Arcilla vs. Teodoro was in the bar last Sunday
Presumptions: review
CONCLUSIVE: child born during wedlock is legitimate: even mother could not declare that the child is not legitimate, UNLESS impossibility of access between husband and wife
(but you don't have to resort to this presumption with DNA Evidence)
REFER TO THE DOCUMENTS:
*presumption: duly dated presumption
*sent…does not apply to electronic evidence, messages: it doesn't follow that when a person sent you a message, you have received it? NO.
CLARIFICATION
Sec7, last sentence
Re-direct: supplement or explain
BUT you go beyond this with the court's discretion.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? It's the call of the court?
Ma'am tells something about impartiality of the court. Court asks questions to determine facts, not to help another party.
Example
Collection suit: A vs. B
A presented IOU, testified…
Prove:
-execution
-receipt of B
-nonpayment and other damages and costs
B denied under oath
-never executed the IOU presented by A (FALSIFICATION): He made an IOU BUT FOR P1M NOT FOR P5M
-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: PRESCRIPTION
ON CROSS of A: subject matter would be the
*statements made on the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
*freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness
Freedom from interest or bias, or reverse
*elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue
…may include impeachment of witness…e.g. black witness in The Verdict
it the aim is to trap, the only limitations is:
*BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE WITNESS
*can't ask misleading questions: why not allowed: It is unfair! It would not contribute to the ferreting out of the truth
-you should build your case through the witness, not the counsel. Establish facts through your witness, not the lawyer.
-why bawal misleading: the witness must have made mistakes just because he was confused, not because he was not telling the truth. And the judge may also be confused!
WHEN YOU RE-DIRECT: limit to those taken up during the cross. But if you do not, it is subject to the discretion of the court
*sample cross
"portable safe"
"The technique of cross is to trap. If you don't know what the witness would say, don't cross" - VAA
*leading questions does not depend on WON the question is answerable by yes or no. It depends on WON the fact already was established.
*in Re-direct, can ask other matters you forgot to ask to ask the witness during her DIRECT EXAMINATION! But is should be explained to the court because you're wasting the court's time! Possible reasons: inadvertent negligence, full unavailability of the witness
When you rehabilitate a witness impeached during cross exam, how do you rehabilitate the credibility of the witness? (on GR, THI)
Present other witnesses to contradict the evidence presented to impeach the adverse party's witness
EVIDENCE IN CHIEF Direct Cross Re-direct Re-cross | DEFENSE EVIDenCE Direct Cross Re-direct Re-cross |
REBUTTAL Direct Cross Re-direct Re-cross | SURREBUTTAL Direct Cross Re-direct Re-cross |
Section 11: only refers to ADVERSE PARTY's WITNESS, not to the adverse party
- CE
- GR
BC: THI
- PIS
X: PWA
-can you use the same method to impeach the ADVERSE PARTY HIMSELF?
YES, but limited by Section 51
-plus take note if it involves a natural or juridical person
*THE ONLY MODE TO IMPEACH THE ONE WHO impeached your witness is through CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE (CE)!
-can one show the plaques, awards, etc….to establish good character?
VAA: YES
R130.47: testimony in a former proceeding
-former proceeding, same parties, same subject matter
-basta may chance to cross
Vs. RULE 23.4(c)
-can present the deponent as a witness for any purpose which was stated therein
-is this an exception to the hearsay rule
-conditions only when use the deposition for your benefit, not to attack another
Vs. RULE 132.11 (PIS)
If the PIS happens to be a deposition, even if it is in the present case, it can be used to impeach the deponent himself.
If under Rule 23.4, can use the deposition against the adverse party.
?What if the deponent is not a party, how can you say that it is an admission that can be used against a party?
If it is an exception to RIAA > co-conspirator, shared interest…
SECTION 12, R132
Last paragraph: limited conduct of cross, NO COURT DISCRETION so this is ABSOLUTe!!!! Only on matters touched upon the direct.
DI ba sabi sa cross, kahit ano pede itanong sa ADVERSE PARTY on the witness stand?
It would be unfair to establish a claim from the adverse party. Limited ang "cross" kuno kasi naging adverse party na yung kala mo witness mo. And during cross, you can ask leading questions so unfair na. mas madali to build your case!!!
-if the lawyer of the adverse party still ask questions aside from those covered during the direct:
GR: Not objectionable under the general rule: SECTION 6
X: if became a hostile witness, under last paragraph under SECTION 12
If you are cross examining a person regarding a contract whose original you didn't bring to court, can you do that or is it objectionable?
( You can ask anything on cross except those violating the bill of rights of the witness and misleading)
-is the photocopy misleading????
YES: It assumes the fact that the original document exists when it has not yet proven to exist
…next day, you bring the original…BER applies? NO. You are not presenting it!
-MISLEADING pa rin, should first offer the evidence for it to be part of the records…?
OFFER:
*on Witness: offer even before start of testimony…
*after everything, saka palang offer evidence
*When you confront somebody on cross, your only goal is to impeach the witness of the other party! You're not presenting your witness yet, kinocross mo nga eh!!!
(try reading P v. MOLO where there are examples of cross…)
No comments:
Post a Comment