PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (RULE
132)
The order in which an individual witness
may be examined is as follows:
1. Direct examination by the proponent –
the examination-in-chief of a witness by
the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
2. Cross-examination by the opponent –
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.
3. Re-direct examination by the proponent
– 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.
4. Re-cross-examination by the opponent –
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.
Leading questions – a question which
suggests to the witness the answer which
the examining party desires
GR: Leading questions not allowed.
Exceptions
 cross examination;
 Preliminary matters;
 difficulty in getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness
who is
 ignorant, or
 a child of tender years, or
 feeble mind, or
 a deaf-mute;
 unwilling or hostile witness; or
 witness 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.
Misleading question – one which
assumes as true a fact not yet testified to
by the witness, or contrary to that which
he has previously stated.
Misleading questions are never allowed.
No exceptions.
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, honesty,
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.
GR: The party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.
Exceptions: When party may impeach
his own witness (except evidence of bad
In any case, the grounds for the objections
character)
must be specified.

1. an unwilling or hostile witness; or

Grounds for objection – Hearsay,
2. a witness who is an adverse party or
argumentative, leading, misleading,
an officer, director, or managing
incompetent, irrelevant, best evidence
agent of a public or private
rule, parol evidence rule, question has no
corporation or of a partnership or
basis
association which is an adverse
party.

Grounds for declaring a witness When Evidence Considered Offered

unwilling or hostile
People v. Franco, 269 SCRA 211 (1997)
1. adverse interest The court shall consider no evidence, even
2. unjustified reluctance to testify, or an extra-judicial confession, which has
3. misled the party into calling him to not been formally offered. Mere fact that
the witness stand. evidence has been identified and marked
in the course of the examination of a
Consequences of being an unwilling,
witness, without the contents being
hostile, or adverse witness
recited in his testimony, does not mean
that it has been formally offered as
evidence. Identification of documentary
1. may be impeached by the
evidence is done in the course of the trial
proponent, except by evidence of
and is accompanied by the marking of the
bad character
evidence as an exhibit, while the formal
2. may also be impeached by the
offer of documentary evidence is done only
opponent
when the party rests its case.
3. may be cross-examined by the
opponent, only on the subject
matter of his direct examination
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA, 195
4. proponent may ask leading
SCRA 567 (1991) Where the genuineness
questions
and due execution of documents of an
instrument attached to a complaint are
deemed admitted by failure to specifically
Sec. 36. Objection to evidence offered
deny it under oath, such instruments are
orally must be made immediately after the
considered as evidence although they were
offer is made.
not formally offered.

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.
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.
Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such
documents. — When an action or defense
is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding
section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be
deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath, specifically denies
them, and sets forth what he claims to be
the facts; but the requirement of an oath
does not apply when the adverse party
does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an
order for an inspection of the original
instrument is refused.
When objection should be made
People v. Java, 227 SCRA 668 (1993)
Objection to testimony on the ground of
lack of a formal offer of the testimony
should be done when the witness was
called to testify.
Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 186
SCRA 385 (1990) Objection to
documentary evidence must be made at
the time it is formally offered (i.e. when the
party rests its case) as an exhibit and not
before. Objection prior to that time (e.g.
identification of the evidence) is
premature. Mere identification and
marking is not equivalent to a formal offer
of the evidence. A party may decide to not
offer evidence already identified and
marked.
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE (RULE 133)
In civil cases, the party having the burden
of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining
where the preponderance or superior
weight of evidence on the issues involved
lies, the court may consider
1. all the facts and circumstances of
the case
2. the witnesses’ manner of testifying
3. their intelligence
4. their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are
testifying
5. the nature of the facts to which they
testify
6. the probability or improbability of
their testimony
7. their interest or want of interest
8. their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial.
9. number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number.
A cause of action on the ground of
reformation of instrument must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
A defense of self-defense must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.
In cases filed before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by
substantial evidence
Substantial evidence – that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion
Generally, the motive of the accused is
immaterial in a criminal case, not being
an essential element of the crime,
hence, it does not need to be proved.
Exceptions:
1. when there is no eyewitness and the
suspicion is likely to fall on a considerable
number of persons;

2. when there is doubt as to whether the

accused is or is not the person who
committed the offense;

3. when it is necessary to determine the

sanity of the accused or the voluntariness
of the act, the specific nature of the crime
committed, or whether the shooting was
intentional or accidental;

4. when the accused interposes self-

defense or defense of stranger.