OPINION RULE AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Opinion Rule

• An ordinary witness, like you and me, cannot make an opinion

• General Rule: A witness can only testify on matters that he has perceived, and perceiving, he could
make known his perception to another
• An ordinary witness cannot be called to the stand just to give an opinion - this is in violation of the
rule on qualification of a witness
• However, the law allows in certain instances the testimony of an expert, such as where special
knowledge, skill, experience, and training is required or possessed by that individual who will give
their opinion on the matter
• 2020 Amendments: The word “education” was inserted - formal education; person sitting
on the stand was able to finish a certain degree (graduate school, college) that would give
him the competence, or qualify him as an expert witness
• But mere college or graduate school education will not suffice
• Must be coupled with experience
• Example: Not all doctors of medicine may be asked to sit on the witness stand. One has to
have experience, know-how, and knowledge in that field as sufficient basis for the court to
determine if the person can give a reliable opinion.
• This is why in the past, education was not included. In fact, even without education
indicated in the opinion of an expert, it will not exclude a doctor, engineer, architect,
psychologist, etc. to sit on the stand.
• What is important is that for these experts, at the very minimum, it is required that they
have a collegiate or graduate school education - only a springboard for them to develop a
certain skill, expertise, experience, and training, and this will make them competent or
qualify them as an expert witness.
• Example: Not a college graduate but could be an expert - auto mechanic, chef (but today,
practically all major universities have a course on this, so this requires one to finish a
course, but it does not automatically mean that after that, the chef could sit on the stand),
nutritionist, real estate worker, appraiser (but this requires a short-term course)
• So a formal education is not necessarily required, for as long as it is seen that you have
special skill, knowledge, expertise, experience, and training, then you could be a witness
• But again: There are certain skills that would require a minimum education (e.g., ballistics
expert)
• Is it enough to tell the court, “Your Honor, I have an expert witness. May I be allowed to
bring him to the stand?”
• No. While you could bring a witness to the stand, every expert witness will have to be
qualified as such. There are two ways based on Sir’s experience (these are not provided in
the Rules):
1. Bring in court the expert’s resumé. If the other party is willing to stipulate on the
expertise of your witness, there will no longer be a need to go through the long
process of qualifying your witness.
• Example: When Sir brought in his witness for nullity of marriage to prove
psychological incapacity, the other party knew the witness personally, and they

Marticio (A2020)
 even had a chat . The judge waved at the witness, and Sir knew that he would
have no difficulty qualifying the witness as an expert. True enough, when the
case was called, the judge asked Sir what he intended to do. Sir requested that
the opposing counsel stipulate with him that his witness was indeed an expert
witness. The other party agreed to the stipulation, i.e., admitted that the
witness was an expert witness.
2. The second way is going through the process of qualifying the witness. Sir will ask
the witness to sit on the stand. The witness will raise their right hand. The personal
circumstances of the witness will have to be stated to the clerk, who has sworn them.
Before proceeding to ask a question, Sir will make an offer of testimonial evidence,
which is now made clearer in the Rules (although it was already in Rule 132 before).
The offer only tells the court and the other party the reason why he is bringing him to
the stand, but does not in any way qualify Sir’s expert as a witness. After the witness
is sworn to, personal circumstances asked, and an offer made, Sir will now ask
questions as to where they graduated from, what course, what trainings undertaken,
seminars attended, post-graduate education, how long in the profession, awards and
citations, etc.
• Other party has opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Some counsels, if
they want to delay the qualification of the witness, will question each and
every qualification, sometimes even requiring TSNs and certificates referred to
in the resumé from years ago to be brought court.
• Here is where the wisdom of the judge will have to come in. They should not
allow the lawyer to just ask any question. The minimum that the judge would
allow the opposing counsel to do is to test if indeed, the person is qualified as
an expert witness.
• After questioning of the other party, the court will make a ruling.
• Once the court makes a ruling that this witness is indeed an expert witness,
Sir could start asking his questions.
• What is the subject matter of a testimony of an expert witness?
1. Can they testify on matters based on their personal knowledge?
• Yes. Example: Medico-legal officer who conducted an autopsy of the victim to try to
identify the cause of death
• Coupled with expertise, aside from their perception, they may be asked of questions
as to such expertise (e.g., W/N this type of wound / injury will result in death or
other complications)
2. An expert may be asked of matters hypothetically presented. Based on a hypothetical set of
facts upon which the expert had no knowledge of, the latter, based on their knowledge,
experience, education, and training, will make an opinion. That opinion will form part of the
records of the case, and has the intention of aiding the court in its better understanding of
the facts of the case or the matter in controversy.
• Can the court call upon its own expert?
• No, this is not allowed in our jurisdiction. In the US, it is, where the judge / court could call
upon a witness to be able to aid or guide it on the subject matter or the controversy.
• In the Philippines, an expert is only presented by a party, qualified in court, and allowed by
the court to testify.

Marticio (A2020)
• Can an ordinary witness like you and me give an opinion on certain matters?
• Yes. This contemplates the following:
1. An ordinary witness may give their opinion on the identity of the person on which they
have adequate knowledge. To be able to identify a person (e.g., one who committed
a crime; one with whom the witness had fought with; one who was sitting beside the
witness in a convention, restaurant, park, or any public place), all that the law
requires of an ordinary witness is for the witness to have adequate knowledge of the
person’s identity. It does NOT require that the witness know the latter’s name, age,
residence, or even personal background.
• Example: You are in a bar. There was a fight between your group and another
group. All of you are apprehended, and actions were instituted for tumultuous
affray. You may identify the persons if you have adequate knowledge.
• Inside the courtroom, a witness who sits on the stand, and has personal
knowledge and can identify the accused in the case (e.g., one who assaulted
them, committed murder or homicide, raped the victim), the lawyer may ask
the witness to look around, identify, and point to the perpetrator. The clerk
will ask the latter to stand up and state their name and personal
circumstances. The clerk will tell the judge that that person standing is
<name>, and is wearing this and that—for purposes of the record. This is
based on adequate knowledge.
2. An ordinary witness may give their opinion on a handwriting with which they are
sufficiently familiar with. The usual line of questioning when a document is being
identified would be:
• Prefatory question: “Mr. Witness, you made mention that there was a deed of
absolute sale executed between X and Y. If presented with a copy of the deed,
will you be able to identify the same?” “Yes, Your Honor.”
• “I’m presenting to you a document that appears to be a deed of absolute sale.
Can you go over it, and please tell us if this is the document that you are
referring to?” “Yes, it is.”
• “May I request you, Mr. Witness, to turn to the last page of the deed, that
document. There appears, if you would note, in the middle right-hand corner
a signature on top of the typewritten name, Y. Santos. Whose signature is
that?” “That is the signature of my boss.”
• “Why did you know that that is the signature of your boss?” “Because I am
familiar with this signature”
• “And why are you familiar with this signature?” “I am in charge of all his
documents and in custody of the same.”
• If you want to cut short the presentation of the witness, all you need to
ask is, assuming he knows, “Why do you know that that is the signature
of your boss?” “Because I saw him sign.” You do not even need to go
through the process of asking him questions about familiarity because
when he witnessed the signing, that is perception and does not require
an opinion. Therefore, sufficient familiarity is not required.

Marticio (A2020)
 • Sufficient familiarity as required for purposes of giving an opinion on
handwriting is only necessary if he were not able to witness the signing
of the document.
3. Another subject that could be subject of an opinion of witness is mental sanity of a
person. This is something that the witness is sufficiently acquainted with. Again, it is
not required that the witness knows the name, residence, background, age, or
academic degree of the person. All that is required is that because of the former’s
perception, maybe in the past or in a number of instances, they are now ready to give
an opinion as to the latter’s mental sanity because you are sufficiently acquainted
with it.
• Example: In a certain community, you have been seeing this girl around who
is always topless. You would think that she is not in her right mind, perhaps
insane, because if she were not, she obviously would not have been walking
topless. You can form an opinion as to the mental sanity of the girl because
you are sufficiently acquainted with it.
• What do you mean by “acquainted?” It means to make familiar. It does not
necessarily mean that there is a personal relationship. But because you are
familiar with the person, you are acquainted with them in a personal manner.
It cannot be just “sabi-sabi.” Personally, you have seen and observed, and are
familiar with them, and therefore you may can an opinion as to their mental
sanity.
4. An ordinary person may give an opinion on behavior (galit na galit!), emotions (crying),
conditions (looks weak or frail), or appearance (tallness). One may say that a person is
sobbing while another may say they are merely whimpering. It is a perception that
leads one to an opinion. This also applies to perceiving height, as in the example,
which is subjective.
• 2020 Amendments on appreciation of the testimony of an expert witness
• It is for the court to ascertain or give sufficient weight to an expert witness’ testimony.
• But the amendment says: “In any case where the opinion of an expert witness is received in
evidence, the court has a wide latitude of discretion in determining the weight of such opinion
x x x” With or without this provision, it has already been practiced. There is reasonable
discretion.
• “x x x and for the purpose, may consider the following:
1. Whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data - for an expert to give an
opinion (e.g., pricing of a condo unit along Roxas Blvd. on a per sq.m. basis),
it should not be merely taken from thin air
2. Whether it is the product of reliable principles or methods - methodology will go
into statistics, medicine, or science that will require certain methods or
protocols
3. Whether the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts
of the case - not only are they aware of the facts of the case, and the principles
and methods, but they should have relied on such principles and methods, and
applied the sam reliably to the facts
4. Such other factors as the court may deem helpful for its determination - catch-all
provision

Marticio (A2020)
Character Evidence

• There have been amendments to this, but they did not change the concept. Not much departure as
to civil and criminal character evidence. Some additions are:
• Restatement of what is duly recognized in practice that character evidence is not admissible
in proving action because the facts of the case are what will prove an action, not the
character (Sec. 54: “Evidence of a person’s character or trait is not admissible for the purpose
of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.”). Character alone cannot
be basis to prove an action.
• How should you then understand character evidence?
• Character evidence in criminal cases - the prosecution, in its initial presentation of
evidence, may not prove the bad character of an accused. The case is anchored on a
showing of how the crime was committed (i.e., elements of the crime). Go to the
facts and circumstances, and the evidence and testimony of the people who
perceived the commission of the crime.
• EXCEPT during rebuttal
• BUT the accused is allowed to present their good character at the first
instance, for as long as it is pertinent to the character or moral trait involved
in the offense charged. Otherwise, they cannot present themselves as a good
person.
• Example: BP 22 - the accused is a priest or lay leader, claiming to be a good
person and churchgoer, etc. This good character CANNOT be presented as part
of his defense in BP 22 cases because there is no character trait therein. The
fact of issuing a bogus check will make them liable. Character is immaterial.
• Example: Illegal possession of firearms - the accused is a lawyer - professor,
claiming to be a good and non-violent person who merely uses the firearm for
protection, considering the type of cases he handles. With the fact that he was
in possession of the firearm, he cannot present his good character.
• Example: Illegal possession of drugs - good character is also irrelevant or
inconsequential in a prosecution under this special law
• So does this mean that if it is a special law (mala prohibita), there is no
character trait? No, this is in accurate because there are special laws where
there is a character trait (e.g., honesty in plunder, RA 3019, etc.).
• In the provisions of the RPC, there are character traits.
• Examples: Violent character in murder; honesty in estafa; sexual perversity in
rape
• Once the accused presents his good character, during rebuttal, the
prosecution may be allowed by the court to present the bad character of the
accused
• The accused may also be given a sur-rebuttal
• Character of the offended party may be proven if it tends to establish, to a
reasonable degree, a probability of the offense charged
• Example: The victim was killed, but it was a “siga” in the community.
Presentation of this bad character may be of value to show that the accused
committed the crime in self-defense.

Marticio (A2020)
 • Character evidence in civil cases - no distinction as to the plaintiff or the
defendant. Moral character of the party is admissible when pertinent to the issue of
character in the case (e.g., forgery, deceit, fraud).
• Item (c) covers both civil and criminal cases. First sentence was just transposed
from the original Rule 132, Sec. 14 re: evidence of the good character of the
witness, which is NOT admissible until such is impeached. This is usually an attack
on the credibility of the witness during cross-examination. In that case, (1) it may be
cured during re-direct to be able to supplement or allow the witness to explain as to
their good character; or (2) another option is to do it at a later time, where you
would present a witness who will attest to the good character of the first witness.
• The last two paragraphs are the important substantial amendments. These provisions help us prove
evidence of trait of character of a person. Before, some would even object when a witness comes to
court for being hearsay or mere rumor. So how do you prove a trait of character of a person?
1. By testimony of reputation. Reputation is how people perceive you to be, so naturally, that is
NOT based on personal knowledge of a person. You will see two provisions in exceptions to
the hearsay rule that refer to reputation. By its very nature, reputation is hearsay except that
it is given a certain level of reliability, making it an exception.
• Example: “Yung pagkakaalam po namin diyan sa community, ‘yan si X ay mabuting
tao.” OR “Ang pagkakaalam po namin diyan ay basagulera.”
2. By testimony in the form of opinion
• Example: In proving dishonesty, “Sa pagkakaalam ko ho, dahil sa mga encounter ko sa
taong ‘yan, ay medyo maloko ho ‘yan. Sa pagkakaalam ko ho yan, tuwing sinusuklian
ho ako n’yan, kulang ng piso sa tatlong taong bumibili ako d’yan.”
• In cross-examining a witness when it comes to character, specific instances of conduct may
be subject of cross-examination.
• Example: “Sometime in 2017, bumili s’ya sa’yo. Could you give us the circumstances? Ano ba
‘yang pangyayaring ‘yan. Baka naman nagkamali lang.” (in relation to the kulang ng piso
example above)
• How do you prove the character when the same is an element of a charge, claim, or defense
(civil / criminal)?
• By proof may be made by specific instances of such person’s conduct (e.g., fraud in civil
cases)

Marticio (A2020)
RULE 132: EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Study Rule 132 in three parts:

1. Examination of witnesses, and the conduct of proceedings in court (Secs. 1 - 18)
2. Authentication of documents (Recall: Documentary evidence - the rules on original document,
secondary evidence, parole evidence are separate and distinct from authentication. A document
may be presented as an original in court, but the court will nevertheless W/N what was purported
to be an original is indeed an original, i.e., the same will have to be authenticated in court) (Secs.
19 - 33)
3. Offer of evidence - the point in time where the parties, whether plaintiff, defendant or third-party
complainant have completed the presentation of evidence, and there is an offer of exhibits. There is
likewise an offer of testimonial evidence, but that is different; you make an offer of testimonial
evidence before you ask a question of a witness. This is part of the amendment to make it clear.
(Secs. 34 - 40)

Part 1: Conduct of Proceedings in Court (Secs. 1 - 18)

• General Rule: Anything that happens in court (e.g., examination of witnesses) shall be done in
open court
• Exception: Unless the reception evidence (Rule 30) has been delegated to the clerk of court, in
cases of ex parte proceedings, when the parties so stipulate, or when there is presentation of
evidence ex parte in default cases. This may be done in the chamber court of the judge, office of
the clerk of court, etc.
• There are also instances when a commissioner has been appointed by the court, and based
on the order of reference, the commissioner was given the duty to receive facts or
information, to issue a subpoena tuces tecum and ad testificandum. For this reason, the
commissioner can hear the testimony or narration of a witness.
• These proceedings in court should all be recorded by a stenographer or a stenotypist, or any
recorded. They should certify as to the correctness of their recording. What is contained in the
transcript of stenographic notes shall be deemed as a prima facie correct statement of the
proceedings.
• You can contest it, though. When the TSNs are distributed to the parties, they should examine it
carefully for errors, for inaccuracies, or for not fully capturing what the witness narrates or
testified on.
• In criminal cases, the TSNs, together with the records, on appeal, will have to be elevated to the
next-level court.
• How is recording done?
• Shorthand. There are also instances when a typewriter is used, and there is a way to
decipher what is being recorded.
• Anything that the judge says, what is argued in open court, examination of the witness—
everything is record in court.
• But in practice, what is really and most importantly recorded is the examination of witnesses. But
when it comes to the hearing of motions or the judge’s statements, although the intention is for
them to be recorded, it is very rare that they are actually reproduced.

Marticio (A2020)
• Sir has had experiences when he wanted to question what was argued in open court, but there was
no recording.
• But in light of the 2020 Amendments to Rule 15, there is now motions in open court,
which the court will have to resolve immediately. All of the arguments in open court will
have to be recorded.

The Rights and Obligations of a Witness

• The questions that the witness will have to answer, the types of questions that they will have to be
protected from
• Can the witness be asked a question that would lay a civil a claim against him?
• No. They may not say, “Your Honor, I may be held pecuniarily liable if I answer the
question.” The court cannot prevent the lawyer from asking that question, and the witness
will have to answer that question.
• How about if it will give rise to a penalty for an offense, a.k.a. a question that is
incriminatory, and for that reason, a criminal action may be instituted against him?
• No, they cannot be required to answer that type of question because that will be in violation
of their right against self-incrimination.
• The witness will also have to be protected from insulting demeanor. Some lawyers are “pasikat,”
and, in their conduct, use insulting words or demeanor. A lawyer must be respectful, and not use
harsh words or demeanor toward the witness—he cannot throw the records at them, shout at
them, or even badger a witness.
• The witness cannot go through being asked irrelevant questions, or improper or insulting ones
(e.g., “Coming from a very poor family, could you please tell us how your life was?” Just ask what has
been their life, in grade school or in their teens. You do not need to rub “being very poor” in.).
• A witness cannot be detained for a period longer than the interest of justice requires. A
“filibuster” is not allowed, as in when you delay the questioning, you ask all sorts of random
questions, and you spend a good two hours doing so. This is also a fault on the part of the judge.
Thus, in Rule 133, Sec. 7, the judge is given the power to stop further presentation of evidence
and even further questioning. You cannot badger the witness, or just delay without the question
being relevant.
• Consistent with relevance, the witness can only be asked questions that are pertinent to the
issue. Here is where conditional admissibility comes in. There are instances when the question
seems to have no importance, relevance, or pertinence. But sometimes, the lawyer will have to
argue the same.
• Example: There is a question about the witness’ previous employment, but the issue is his present
one because an action for damages has been filed due to the employer’s conduct. “Your Honor, may
be allowed to ask this question about previous employment, because I will establish the connection?”
Judge: “That’s conditional admissibility.” “Kasi ho, ‘yang empleyadong ‘yan, talagang ganyan ‘yan,
meron din hong kabastusan ‘yan. The way he carries himself is really sometimes very offensive.” So
this is allowed, but again this is previous conduct, and will not establish whatever issue or facts in
connection with the controversy in his present employment. But this will establish a certain
scheme, pattern, design, or intent.
• Can the witness be required to answer a question that will degrade their reputation?
• No. “Being a son of a prostitute…” or “Being a bastard…” This is degrading, and will only be
allowed by the court if it will establish the very fact in issue. At times, the court will call

Marticio (A2020)
 your attention, “Why did you have to use the word ‘bastard’? Why not use ‘illegitimate’ or an
‘offspring born outside of wedlock’?”
• Can a witness be asked of a previous conviction? Should they answer regarding their
previous final conviction?
• Yes. If on appeal, it is not yet a final conviction.
• 2020 Amendments: Sec. 12 - an altogether separate or different set of questions
• For the purpose of impeaching a witness, their previous final conviction by final judgment
shall be admitted. But now there is a requirement—there are standards you have to satisfy.
If you look at Sec. 3, as long as it is a final conviction, questions thereon may be asked and
must be answered But here in Sec. 12, it needs a standard; the evidence of final conviction
to impeach a witness can only be used:
1. If the crime subject of that conviction carries a penalty in excess of one year (thus, one-
month imprisonment for SPI, malicious, mischief, etc. are not covered); or
2. If a crime involves violation of moral turpitude, regardless of penalty
• Sec. 11: Impeaching an adverse party witness - can his previous conviction be subject of a cross-
examination or impeachment of a witness?
• Yes. It can be shown by:
1. Examination of a witness re: their previous conviction; or
2. The record of the judgment
• But then, even though Sec. 11 recognizes and restates what is provided in Sec. 3 that allows
a witness to answer questions in connection with their previous final conviction, it will have
to satisfy the conditions laid down in Sec. 12 (see 1 & 2 above)
• Order of presentation or examination of witnesses:
• Civil cases: Plaintiff presents evidence first, and thereafter, the defendant presents evidence
• Each witness of the plaintiff will have to go through direct, cross, re-direct, and re-
cross.
• Direct examination - an examination of a witness by a party presenting them only
on facts relevant to the issue (“examination-in-chief”). You have as many
examinations-in-chief as the number of witnesses you have. We have to understand
this in relation to the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which provides that in all civil cases in
the trial court (MeTC, MTC, RTC), the presentation or examination of a witness on
direct examination will be upon a JA, in lieu of direct examination. Does this mean
that there is no more direct, and you just submit a JA?
• History of JA: When Sir started practicing law, there was no JA. It was only
used in summary proceedings. The use of JA was pioneer tested in the
litigation practice of Quezon City, then adopted in 2012 by the Supreme Court
because based on the whereas clauses of the JAR, it was effective and
efficient. But in the long-time practitioners’ view like Sir, lawyers have now
lost the capacity to be able to conduct direct examination questions (it is
harder to conduct direct than cross). But why are there books on cross-
examination (e.g., The Art of Cross-examination)? This is because in cross
examination, you will have to impeach, elicit information, and confront with
contradictory evidence. But based on Sir’s experience, direct examination is
where you lay the theory of your case, thus it is your examination-in-chief.
What is difficult about it is that you are not allowed to ask leading questions,

Marticio (A2020)
 and if you are not trained, your questions will mostly be answerable by yes or
no. In law school, it is taught that this will lead to an objection for being
leading because ordinarily, in a direct examination, a leading question will
only be allowed on preliminary matters. In the deliberations in litigation
practice in Quezon City, it was discussed that there really are lawyers who
have difficulty conducting a direct examination. This delays the entire process
for lack of preparation and inability to ask questions without being objected
to. This led to the issuance of the JAR.
• In a JA, there is an attestation by the lawyer that they did not coach the client
and/or witness. There is also a statement therein by the witness that it is
based on their personal knowledge, and that they are aware that they may be
held liable for perjury or false testimony.
• The correct procedure to be able to achieve the purposes of the JAR is that the
lawyer asks the witness to come to the office, where the latter will be asked
questions prepared beforehand and will answer, which will be recorded by the
lawyer. The lawyer will NOT ask the witness to read a Q&A and sign
thereafter.
• Once recorded, the client will be asked to read it and sign, and the same will
have to be notarized in the presence of a notary public. Only then will it be
submitted. According to the JAR, it should be attached to the pre-trial brief,
and should be submitted at least five days before the date of the pre-trial;
OR at least five days before the date of the hearing.
• There are lenient judges who allow submission less than five days before the
said date. The downside of submitting everything before pre-trial is that the
opposing party already knows your story and will be able to prepare for it. But
the intention really is to expedite the proceedings.
• Recall: Rule 7 on contents of a pleading - in the past, pleadings should state
ultimate facts. Now, the 2020 Amendments require not only ultimate facts
but the inclusion of evidence (Rule 8, Sec. 1). In Sec. 6, there is now an
additional requirement: Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses
shall, in addition to what is provided in Sec. 2 (parts of a pleading), will have
to state the following:
1. Names of witnesses will have to be presented to prove a party’s claim or
defense. The nature of these witnesses should already be given when
you submit your pleading (complaint / answer).
2. The summary of the witnesses’ intended testimony, provided in a JA.
The JA, at this point in time, should already be ready, and the same
should be attached and form an integral part of the pleading.
• Rule 7 also provides that when the lawyer signs, they have an
attestation or a certificate that will say that their claim / defense
/ contentions are warranted by law or jurisprudence, or are not
frivolous arguments just to extend, modify, or reverse
jurisprudence.
• There is a very strict reminder that if you fail the name the
witnesses, and attach the same to the JA, you cannot present

Marticio (A2020)
 them, or their testimony cannot be admitted by the court at
some future time, except only for meritorious reasons.
3. Documentary or object evidence in support of the allegations in the
pleading
• So it is not just a mere JA submitted five days before the pre-trial or hearing. If
Rule 7 were to be followed, it should already be submitted together with the
pleading.
• In direct examination, the witness will be called to the stand and made to take
an oath, personal circumstances will be stated, and there will be an offer of
testimonial evidence. Then the JA will be identified by the witness, and unless
there are additional questions, which are normally not allowed, then the court
will ask, the opposing counsel, “Are you ready for your cross-examination?”
• Should the JA be marked as evidence for the prosecution? There is some
confusion here. Some judges require that it be marked, others not. Sir says it
should not be marked because that is in lieu of direct examination. Otherwise,
if you mark it, you will have to offer it again as an exhibit, and there will be a
possibility that that JA is stricken out, as it will be subject to comments and
objections at the end. If it is treated just as a direct examination, then there is
an offer of testimonial evidence at the time or before the JA is presented—by
saying it in open court or including it in the JA. There is really no reason to
mark the JA, but do NOT argue with the judge if they want it marked!
• Cross-examination - still in connection with the JAR, before proceeding with your
cross-examination, all objections to the items or questions laid down in the JA will
have to be raised. There are some judges who resolve them, others will sustain them
and strike the questions out, and still others who will overrule. But then, there are
some who will simply say, “Ah, okay, okay, just conduct your cross-examination.” a.k.a.
“‘Wag ka nang mag-object, ipapa-cross-examine naman kita.” But objections are in fact
allowed by the JAR.
• Sir has had an experience with a complex case where he raised his objections
in writing, which he filed in court and were sustained by the judge.
• Sir also has had a bad experience with a judge who, at first, sustained his
objection, leading to the opposing counsels’ MR in open court. The judge
seemed to be pressure and therefore sustained them and overruled Sir’s
objection. Sir then moved for reconsideration, saying that the judge had
already earlier sustained the objection, but the latter just resolved to allow the
opposing counsels and for Sir to conduct his cross-examination.
• Objections may be raised orally in the third part of Rule 132 (offer of
evidence?), to the testimony of the witness. The grounds should be stated as
soon as they become known. Do not allow the witness to answer; otherwise,
you will have to move to strike out the answer.
• After determination of the direct examination, the witness will be allowed to
be cross-examined. Cross-examination has the following functions:
1. To elicit information or important facts bearing upon the issue. But
lawyers hardly do this because the very moment you ask to elicit, the

Marticio (A2020)
 witness—who is not your witness—will obviously narrate their story,
and you do not want that. But the law allows this.
2. The more recognized function is to cross-examine on any relevant
matter. You may only cover on cross matters taken out of direct
examination (Sec. 6). However, the same provision gives some leeway
—sufficient fullness and freedom—to test the accuracy and truthfulness
of the statement, and the freedom of that statement from bias or
interest (i.e., to impeach a claim).
• How to impeach a witness (Sec. 7) - no amendment
1. You may impeach on contradictory evidence (documentary, object, previous
testimony)
2. Their general reputation for truth, honest, or integrity is bad - goes to the
credibility of the witness
3. Prior inconsistent statements, i.e., made at some other time (Sec. 14) - it is
not enough for you as a lawyer to say, “Alam ko sinabi mo noon, ganito…” You
will have to make the circumstances of time, place, and person (source) so
that there is sufficient recollection. This is called laying the basis. If it be in
writing, the document itself will have to be presented to the witness.
• Example: Roger’s deposition was taken sometime in 18 Nov 2019. He
stated therein that on 14 Oct 2018, he was in Cagayan. But now in
court, presented as a witness, Roger says he was in Leyte on that day.
For the lawyer to be able to ask in connection with a previous
inconsistent statement, they will have to lay the basis of time, place,
and persons: “Do you recall that your deposition was taken sometime in
Nov of 2019?” “Yes.” “And that it was before Atty. Juan Santos?” “Yes.”
“And it was in his office in Malate, Manila, and it was on this particular
day and time?” “Oh, yes.” “Im presenting to you a copy of your deposition,
taken in the presence of Atty. Juan Santos. Can you please go over it, and
please confirm if it is your deposition?” “Yes.” “Mr. Witness, can you turn
to the last page thereof? There is a signature on top of a typewritten
name, Roger Pua. Whose signature is that? “That is my signature.” “Now,
I would like you to Question 34, I repeat ‘Where were you on 18 Oct
2014, and your answer was you were in Cagayan. How come now you are
telling us you were in Leyte?”
4. Prior final conviction, but you have to satisfy the conditions above-mentioned
(if it is a crime, the penalty should be in excess of one year; or if it involves
moral turpitude, penalty is immaterial)
• Also: authorities in evidence, prejudice, bias, interest
• Re-direct examination (Sec. 7) - the function is to ask the witness you presented
who was not able to clearly answer many questions on cross-examination
(inconsistencies were established, and bias, prejudice, and contradictory evidence
were shown). Your tendency is to want to cure it. The matters taken up or questions
to be asked on re-direct examination are only those taken up on cross-examination.
However, the court may allow the lawyer conducting re-direct examination to ask
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination. It is the judge’s

Marticio (A2020)
 discretion. So the function of re-direct is to explain or supplement. A lawyer
conducting cross-examination usually demands that the witness just answer yes or
no. If the question were, Were you at the scene of the crime?,” and the accused just
answers yes, and cross ends with no further questions, in re-direct, you will have to
call the attention of the court and the witness, “Mr. Witness, you answered a question
that goes this way: ‘Were you at the scene of the crime?’ Your answer was yes. Could you
please explain to this Honorable Court why you were there at the scene of the crime?”
• Re-cross examination - the final opportunity for the cross-examiner to present
contradictory evidence, to impeach, and to test the credibility, compounded with
prior inconsistent statements.
• From direct examination down to re-cross, it is an inverted triangle / cone (the
scope gets narrower). However, the court has reasonable discretion to allow
questions which were not covered by the earlier examination.
• Today, consistent with the Guidelines on Pre-Trial and Modes of Discovery (Rule
18), one-day examination of witness rule is in effect, which was lifted from the
Guidelines of Litigation Trial and Modes of Discovery in 2004. This means when the
witness is presented on direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross should also be gotten
over with on the same day. The problem before this was that if direct examination
takes 3 months, and it is the opposing counsel’s turn to conduct cross, the latter, who
does not have their own notes, will usually ask for a reset to be able to review the
TSNs. At present, because the examination of a witness is done in one day, even
without a TSN, you should listen!
• Also consider under Rule 18 the “most important witness rule.” You cannot present
first the most insignificant, but rather the most important in the order of presentation
of witnesses.
• Leading questions (Sec. 10) - a question that suggests an answer. Sometimes, it is
okay, especially with a yes-or-no question. However, not all leading questions are
answerable by yes or no. Any question that will suggest an answer is a leading
question. Example: “After your class on 08 Aug 2019, did you go to SM North EDSA or
Trinoma?”
• Recall: A leading question is not allowed on direct examination, but it is
allowed on cross-examination because the latter allows impeachment. The
lawyer should be given sufficient freedom and fullness to test truthfulness and
accuracy.
• Leading questions are also allowed in preliminary matters. Example: When
after the witness is sworn and asked their name, age, residence, and
employment, they may be immediately asked, “You said that you are employed
at Johnson’s & Johnson’s, Inc. Is that correct?” This cannot be objected to for
being leading because the witness has already stated it preliminarily. However,
this does not happen anymore now because of the JAR.
• Leading questions are allowed to be asked of an ignorant, a child of tender
years (Child Witness Examination Rule), a feebleminded person (one who
cannot make a proper, certain disposition; a person who is mentally deficient
or usually vacillates), or a deaf-mute because of the incapacity (although not
total incapacity)—even on direct examination.

Marticio (A2020)
 • Re: unwilling or hostile witness (Sec. 13) - this is a different matter. A
witness will have to be declared by the court as such. The presumption is that
the witness that you present is willing and will not testify adversely to your
interest. When it appears in the course of examination that: (1) the interest is
adverse; (2) they have misled the party to bring them to the witness stand; or
(3) there is an unjustified reluctance to testify, you may ask the court to
declare them as a hostile witness. Once declared as such, you may now ask
leading questions. You may also now impeach them as if presented by the
adverse party. But after you are through with your hostile witness, who
was originally your witness, whom you are now cross-examining, the
other party may conduct a cross-examination.
• Leading questions may also be asked of the adverse party (Sec. 11 on how to
impeach an adverse party). This refers to a natural person, officer / director /
agent of a juridical person.
• What is a misleading question? A question that assumes as true a fact that was
never testified to by a witness. Example: “Having said that you are an engineering
graduate…” “Objection, Your Honor, he never testified that he graduated from an
engineering course. Misleading.”
• Criminal cases: The prosecution presents evidence, and thereafter, the accused presents
evidence
• In the MTC, the JAR applies.
• In the RTC, it depends on the accused. If the latter agrees with the prosecution, a JA
is allowed.
• If the accused does not agree, a JA is not allowed.
• However, under the Rules on Continuous Trial of 2017, if the evidence will
only establish or show documentary evidence and the authenticity of the
document, and in cases like falsification, estafa, and the like; or where the
nature of the crime is transactional or is purely documentary, a JA will be
presented even in the RTC. This also applies to the Sandiganbayan (e.g.,
malversation).

Sec. 2: Evidence of character of the witness

• This has been deleted but was not altogether scrapped but merely transferred, as discussed in the
lecture on character evidence
• The good character of a witness may only be presented the very moment it is impeached

Sec. 15: Exclusion of witnesses

• 2020 Amendments: The court may, on its own initiative (motu proprio), or upon motion of a
party, order that witnesses be excluded, the reason being to protect the other witnesses from
hearing the testimony of the other.
• Under the old provision, the court is only given reasonable discretion. The present provision is
more specific, but there is no departure from the basic concept before.
• The practice has been that if a lawyer notices that there are other witnesses of the other party, the
lawyer moves that these other witnesses be excluded from / requested to leave the courtroom. This

Marticio (A2020)
 is when you do not want them to hear the testimony of the other because there is a tendency to
attune their testimony with the previous witness.
• However, the clear amendment is that this rule does NOT authorize the exclusion of:
1. A party - if the witness who is inside the courtroom is a party to the case, they cannot be
excluded
2. A designated representative of a juridical person that is a party to the case
3. A person whose presence is essential to the presentation of a party’s cause
4. Someone who is authorized by law to be present. Example: It is the right of the accused to
be present in every hearing of their case.
• Sir thinks these exceptions are acceptable, except that in practice, there are some realities that you
are faced with. There are a number of people inside the courtroom, and sometimes, you really do
not know who the witness is of whom. So a lawyer’s general tendency / practice is to scout / look
around, and they notice some individuals, they would ask the court to have these persons identify
themselves. But Sir says the amendment is a narrow application of the rule because in the past, he
could just move to exclude any witnesses of the other party from the courtroom.
• Sec. 15 is not only exclusion; it likewise covers separation. The court may cause witnesses to be
kept separate. The reason for this is to prevent them from conversing. This is why practitioners
would scout around the courtroom and say, “Parang familiar ‘tong mukhang ‘to, ah. Parang
kakampi ‘to ng kalaban.” You cannot avoid the witnesses from prompting other witnesses.
• The provision on separation is not limited to a witness in relation to another witness, but extends
to their intermediaries.
• But the separation is only up until the time that they have been examined in court.

Sec. 16: Refreshing a witness (no amendment)

• To help a witness refresh is to bring their attention or present to them a written memorandum.
There are two kinds:
1. Present recollection revived - although this is not a classification provided by law but by
authorities in evidence
• The evidence will be the testimony because the witness has an independent recollection of
what transpired, except that they need to be refreshed by the document, and when they see
something they have prepared or recorded, or was recorded or written under their
direction, they should be able to remember it. They may, of course, inspect the document,
and the other party may also do so in the course of cross-examination.
• In relation to Sec. 18: Whenever a witness is presented something which is in writing, it may
be inspected by the adverse party. Example: Sir presented a witness on direct examination,
and is now being cross-examined on a document that was not presented by Sir on direct.
Can Sir scrutinize or go over it? Yes. (That is why lawyers keep on standing when a
document is being presented to their witness.)
2. Past recollection recorded
• Although the person wrote down or recorded down or recorded it, or it was written down
or recorded under their direction when the facts occurred, or immediately thereafter, or when
they were still fresh in their memory, when the document is presented to them to help them
refresh, he could no longer remember it.
• The evidence is the writing. However, the Supreme Court has held that this writing should
be taken with caution, precisely because the witness can no longer remember it. There are

Marticio (A2020)
 instances when we know that a handwriting or signature is ours, but we cannot remember
the subject of the document.

• Laying the basis: Whether the first or the second kind, for a witness to be able to refresh, the basis
should be laid by the fact that the written or recorded document has been prepared by themselves
(the person who will refresh), or under their direction. And this recording should have been:
• When the fact occurred;
• Immediately thereafter; or
• When the facts are still fresh in their memory

Sec. 17
• If a part of an act, declaration, writing, or conversation is given in evidence, the whole of the same
subject may be inquired into by the author. If you present a portion, expect that the other party
may examine the entirety thereof.
• Parallel provision in deposition: The very moment that you present or use a portion of the
deposition, the entire deposition may be examined in court, as distinguished from the mere taking
of a deposition. You may take as many depositions as you want because it is a mode of discovery,
but the very moment you use it in court, the entire deposition may be examined.

Part 2: Authentication and Proof of Documents (Secs. 19 - 33)

• Remember: All documents in the Philippines are just classified into—

1. Public
2. Private
• By knowing what these documents are, you will know how to authenticate them.

Public Documents
1. Written official acts or records of sovereign authority
• Cover bodies, tribunals, and public officers, whether in the Philippines or in a foreign
country
• How to authenticate (Sec. 24):
1. By publication (Official Gazette, newspaper of general circulation, UP Law Center)
2. Certified true copy, or a copy attested to by the officer having legal custody of the
record
• The above two are the simplest ways to authenticate. However, theis is where the
2020 Amendments come in, the drafters taking into consideration the Apostille
Convention.
• When there is proof of official record of a document, where the Philippines and a
foreign country are parties to a treaty or convention, and such document is
considered a public document under such treaty or convention - the certificate
or its equivalent shall be the form prescribed by such treaty. Before, if it is
a domestic document, the requirement is a mere CTC; if a foreign country,
before the application of the Apostille Convention, there was a need to go to
the Philippine consulate / secretary of the embassy / legation / consul

Marticio (A2020)
 general, i.e., the consular office of the Philippines in that foreign country,
where they were in a better position to know what authentic documents and
official acts of the country with which we have diplomatic relations
(“authenticated / consularized”). The document is authenticated with a
ribbon.
• In the Apostille Convention, there is a central office, then there is some
communication. If the document already goes through that process, it
is considered as an official record.
• For documents originating from a foreign country that is NOT a contracting
party to a treaty or convention - follow the old practice (see grey text re:
“consularization”)
• Sec. 24, last par. tells us the value of the record with the official certificate described
above. The document accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie proof of its
due execution and genuineness.
• The one who prepared the certificate need not be presented in the Philippine court—
that would be a waste of time. The person who obtained the certificate from a
foreign contracting party to a treaty or convention will be the one to sit on the
witness stand. They will tell the court that they applied for and obtained it on a
certain date, and they will attest to that. The document itself will also be considered
prima facie evidence of its due execution and genuineness. The same applies to when
you obtained an authenticated or consularized copy from the consular office of the
Philippines in a foreign country. No need to present the officers.
• The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention between the
Philippines and a foreign country has abolished the requirement.
2. Document acknowledged before a notary public
• “Acknowledged” - therefore not just a jurat subscribed before a notary public
• When it is duly acknowledged before a notary public, it is treated as a public document. It is
wrong to say that all notarized documents are public documents. There are documents that
would only carry a jurat, in which case it is notarized by the notary public, recorded in their
notarial book, but it does not make it a public document.
• What makes it a public document is the fact of its recording in a public office. Examples:
affidavit of adverse claim, birth certificate
• How to authenticate (Sec. 30):
• The notarized document itself, which usually has 3 - 5 copies. If you retain the
original, present that in court, and that is the way to authenticate it.
• In the absence of an original notarized document, there are other options, although
not provided for by law:
• Go to the original notary and bring a photocopy, and the notary public makes
a notarial comparison with the copy in their record.
• Go to the RTC that commissioned the notary public, and obtain a CTC of the
document appearing in the latter’s record, identified by the Doc. No., Page
No., Book No., and Series. If it is not in the indicated book, there is something
wrong—the document may have been falsified.

Marticio (A2020)
 • The provision of the law says, “except last wills and testaments” because by its very nature,
a will is revocable during the lifetime of the testator. If there is a notarial will, that is not
kept by the notary public.
3. Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are enforced
between the Philippines and the country of source
• How to authenticate: (see Sec. 24, par. 2 above re: where the country of source is a
signatory to the treaty like the Philippines, you may obtain a certificate or its equivalent, as
required by the treaty or convention)
4. Public records kept in the Philippines of private documents required by law to be entered therein
• Example: A birth certificate, by its very nature, is a private document (it is merely
subscribed, not acknowledged), but the fact of its recording makes it a public document.
• Example: An affidavit of any type is not a public document, but if it gets to be recorded in a
public office, it becomes a public document.
• How to authenticate (Sec. 27):
• By a CTC

Private Documents
• Sec. 19, last par.: All other documents are private.
• How to authenticate: Before a private document is presented as authentic, and to be accepted /
received in evidence by the court, its due execution and genuineness must be proven:
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written, i.e., one who perceived it (“How do
you know that that is the signature of the person?” “I saw him sign it.”)
2. Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
• How to prove genuineness of handwriting (Rule 122, Sec. 22):
1. They have seen the person write
2. They have seen writings purporting to be that of the person
3. They have acquired knowledge of the writing of such person
• Therefore, it is either, they have seen it or have sufficient knowledge that that is the
handwriting of a certain person, as evidence of its authenticity and genuineness.
• Sec. 22 allows comparison made by the court itself or a witness.
1. Comparison made by the court - the court compares the document subject of
dispute with a document with a handwriting which is admitted by the other
party or the person against whom the evidence is being offered, or which is
proven to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court (specimen).
2. Comparison made by a witness - jurisprudence: a witness here could be an
ordinary witness or an expert witness. Based on the opinion rule, an ordinary
witness can give their opinion on handwriting with which they are sufficiently
familiar, while the expert, based on their special skill, knowledge, expertise,
education, and training, will be in a position to say W/N the handwriting is
genuine (there is again a specimen fot the expert to make a comparison, i.e., a
specimen that is admitted by the person against whom it is offered, or one that
is accepted by the court, or with which the court is satisfied to be genuine).

Marticio (A2020)
Proof of Lack of Record
• Example: If you are single, and you go to the PSA to get a marriage contract, even though you do
not have a spouse. When you give your name, this will be a case of “Certificate of No Record.”
• Example: You are looking for a particular title of land that you inherited from your father. You
check with the ROD where the property is located to secure a CTC. But what you are given is a
document called “Certificate of No Record.”
• Therefore, there may also be a proof of lack of record.

Impeaching Judicial Records

Grounds:
1. Want of jurisdiction
2. Collusion between the parties
3. Fraud on the part of the party offering the record

Alteration in Documents
• An alteration that appears in the document after its execution will have to be accounted for (e.g.,
in a deed of absolute sale, deed of conveyance, loan document). What to account for:
1. That the alteration was made by another, not by you
2. That it was with the consent of the parties affected
3. That it was innocently made
4. That it did not change the meaning / tenor / language of the instrument / document
• Example: In court, lawyers stand a lot to examine the document presented by the other party
because the very moment you see an alteration, you call the attention of the court, “Your Honor, I
would like to manifest that this document, on page 2 thereof, has an alteration. There is a handwritten
notation on the side of par. 7.”

Part 3: Offer and Objections (Sec. 34 - 40)

• Remember: No evidence will be considered by the court, unless formally offered.

• 2020 Amendments: All offers of evidence today should be oral, whether offer of testimonial
evidence, or formal offer of exhibits after the presentation of all the witnesses.
• The offer of testimony by the witness must be made at the time that the witness is called to
testify.
• Example: The court calls your case. You stand, together with the other party. You enter your
appearance. The judge asks, “Are you ready with your witness.” “Yes, Your Honor, I am ready
with my witness.” “Okay, bring him to the stand.” Your witness will stand up and be placed
under oath, then will be asked his full name and personal circumstances, and the judge will
say, “Proceed, Counsel.” “Your Honor, before proceeding with my direct examination of the
witness, I am now making his offer of testimonial evidence.”
• You may have your offer of testimonial evidence independent of your JA. But some lawyers
incorporate it in the JA. It is up to you. Personally, Sir does NOT incorporate it in the JA, but
rather just orally make his offer of testimonial evidence because the other party will
immediately be alerted of the direction he intends to make. Some lawyers argue that there
will be a testimony, so the other party will find it out anyway. But it really depends on the

Marticio (A2020)
 lawyer. The very minimum is before the witness testifies, there should be an offer of testimonial
evidence.
• The offer of documentary and object evidence comes at the end of a party’s presentation of
evidence (e.g., once the plaintiff ends their presentation of evidence, then that party may make an
offer of documentary or object evidence, generally called a formal offer of exhibits).
• The above may be objected to after the party makes an oral offer of testimonial evidence. The
judge will ask, “Any comment?”
• Based on the provision of the law, objection to the offer of evidence must be made orally
immediately.
• Objection to the testimony of a witness, for lack of formal offer, must be made as soon as
the witness begins to testify. Jurisprudence: If for one reason, one party brings a witness to
the stand, but forgets to make an offer of testimonial evidence. The testimony proceeds, but
the other party did not even notice and proceeded to cross-examine. Can the court still
consider the testimony? Yes. But today under the provision of the law, there are two things
you have to remember:
1. Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after offer was made.
There are times when there is a reason to object, such as when the testimony is
completely irrelevant to the case.
2. If there is lack of offer of testimonial evidence, objection should be made as soon as
the witness begins to testify. If both parties forget, the jurisprudence cited above shall
apply.

Continuing Objection
• This is to object to a set of questions which are objectionable, where the question has been
previously sustained or previously overruled.
• Example: At a time when electronic evidence was relatively new, Sir had a case where his
opponent, on direct examination, presented an email. The witness was neither the one who wrote
the email nor the recipient thereof. So when the opponent started asking questions, Sir said, “Your
Honor, objection. The witness is not competent to testify because he has no knowledge of this
document.” “Sustained.” But Sir’s opponent was a very resilient lawyer, so he persisted, “Mr.
Witness, will you please tell me what the email communication of 15 May 1995 says?” “Objection,
Your Honor. As I have said, he is not competent to testify.” “Overruled.” Sir was surprised, and the
opponent started to ask a series of questions in connection with the email, exchange of
communications between the parties, and his observation of what the contents are. Sir said, “Your
Honor, I would want to make a continuing objection to this line of questioning.” It is short of using
highlighters on these questions so that on appeal, the reviewing judge / justice would see that they
are objectionable.
• Should a judge resolve a continuing objection? No. Unfortunately, the judge, based on Sir’s
experience, still ruled on the continuing objection, which was wrong.

Ruling on an Objection
• Sustained v. Overruled
• There is no need for the judge to state the reason why they sustained or rejected the objection.
• However, if there are two or more grounds, the judge will have to explain their ruling.

Marticio (A2020)
• Example: “Your Honor, compound and irrelevant.” “Overruled.” This is wrong; the judge has to
explain.
• If you want to irritate the judge (lol), require them to rule on every matter with your multiple
grounds for objection. Sir does not suggest this (practically speaking, haha).

Striking Out of an Answer

• This is very common in practice.
• 2020 Amendments: Amended the entire provision on striking out of an answer. The beauty of this
amendment is that it captured a number of scenarios:
1. A witness answers the question before the adverse party had opportunity to object. The remedy,
because it is already on the record, is to say, “Your Honor, I have this objection…” Explain to the
court, and then say, “I will move to strike out that answer.”
2. The second basis for striking out of an answer is where a question is not objectionable, but it the
answer is not responsive. Example: “Will you please explain to me how the equipment operates?”
“Well, we purchased that from a manufacturer in Sweden.” “Objection, Your Honor. That is not
responsive. I move to strike it out.”
3. Where a witness testifies without a question being posed, or testifies beyond the limits set by the
court. There are times when a witness suggests anything they know—be quick and ready for this.
4. The witness makes a narration. This is a very common practice of witnesses, and if you do not stop
this, they will just keep on narrating. “Your Honor, that is a narration, and therefore, I move to strike
out the narration.” Should the court sustain the objection, and will order such answers, testimony,
or narration to be stricken off the record so that it will no longer appear in the records of the case.

Tender of Excluded Evidence a.k.a. Proffer of Evidence

• When does this happen? It depends on your evidence:
• Document or object excluded by the court - during formal offer, if the other party
comments / objects, with which the court agrees, and thus excludes the document or object,
the tender is by attaching the same, or making it part of the record. The reason for this is
that if the case is elevated on appeal and reviewed, the reviewing judge / justice will have
that opportunity go over the record even if the document / object was excluded.
• Testimony - the witness is present and ready to sit on the witness stand at the time of the
offer. The other party objects “completely irrelevant / the testimony has no relation to the fact
in issue.” The judge says, “Okay, I will not allow this witness to testify. You can make a tender
of that testimony by giving the name of the witness, their personal circumstances, and the
substance of the proposed testimony.
• Remember: Formal offer of exhibits (document / object) - after a party completes their
presentation of evidence, and according to the 2020 Amendments, it should be oral (Sec. 35).
This is also provided in the JAR. It is expected today that a party, once they conclude the
presentation of their witness/es, they should be ready to make a formal offer of exhibits. They
have to identify each exhibit A, B, C, D, and E, and for every exhibit, without giving the name
of the document or object, state the exhibit, letter (for plaintiff / prosecution) or number
(defendant / accused), and purpose. Why not say the name of the document? The judge
assumes that you are all on the same page because to require to state each and every document
again will further delay the proceedings. Some judges will allow the other party to already make
an objection or to comment, and then the court will rule on that particular document / object, so

Marticio (A2020)
on and so forth. But some judges allow the party to first present a formal offer of all their exhibits
(the lawyer should be ready with the sequencing of all these exhibits), after which the other
party / counsel is asked for objections / comments. The other party will go through the process of
“Exhibit A, this is my comment / objection… Exhibit B, this is my comment / objection…” On the
same day, the judge is expected to rule on them.

Marticio (A2020)