IMPEACHMENT A.

Concept: The process of showing that a witness is not credible or that his testimony is not worthy of belief, i.e. casting doubt as to the credibility of the witness or credibility of his testimony. Note that credibility of the witness is different from credibility of testimony B. Impeachment of the witness of the adverse party Generally the witness may be impeached during his cross-examination or during the presentation of evidence by the party. Thus the witness of the plaintiff may be impeached at the time he is cross-examined by the defendant and/or during the presentation of evidence in chief by the defendant. On the other hand, the witness of the defendant may be impeached by the plaintiff during the cross examination of said witness and/or during the presentation of evidence during the rebuttal stage. C. Specific Modes pursuant to section 11 and jurisprudence 1. By presenting evidence or facts which contradict the version of the witness 2. By proving the bad general reputation of the witness for truth or honesty or integrity. a). He cannot be impeached by the direct testimony of witnesses of the adverse party as to particular instances of immoral acts, improper conduct, or other evidence of misconduct. b). The person who is called by the adverse party to testify to the bad general reputation of the witness of the opponent is called the Impeaching witness who himself may also be impeached. 3. By proof of prior inconsistent statements in that a truthful person will be consistent with his statement even on different occasions and to different persons 4. By introducing evidence of his bias or interest, such as his relationship to a party, or financial gain as well as of his motive or intent. 5. By showing his social connections, occupations and manner of living in that he voluntarily associates with those who are engaged in disreputable activities, or if he is addicted to disgraceful or vicious practices, or follows an occupation which is loathsome and vile, even if not criminal, as all these affects his credibility. 6. By proof of prior conviction: the moral integrity of a person is placed in doubt by reason of a conviction for violation of the law, but not by the fact that there are pending cases against him 7. By showing the improbability of his testimony or that it is not in accordance with ordinary human experience. Example: (i) the claim of an accidental firing of a caliber gun is not believable because the mechanism of the gun which requires that pressure be applied on the trigger for the gun to fire (ii) the claim of four big able men having been attacked and mauled by one person who is who is much smaller in height and heft 8. By showing defects in his observation, or that he has a faulty or selective memory 9. By showing that this actions or conduct is inconsistent with his testimony. Example: A rape victim was shown to have been partying with the alleged rapist after the rape 10. By engaging the witness in contradictions and discrepancies as to the material facts testified by him.

D. Impeachment of ones own witness. 1. General Rule: It is not allowed pursuant to section 12. The reason is that a party calling a witness is supposed to vouch for the truthfulness of the witness and of his testimony, which he is assumed to know before hand, and is therefore bound by whatever the witness testifies to in court. A party is not permitted to let the witness be believed as to facts favorable to him, but to impeach him as to facts not favorable. 2. Exceptions: If the witness presented is any of the following: a). An unwilling witness b). He turns out to be a hostile witness or a treacherous witness and the party was mislead into calling him as a witness c). An adverse party witness E. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement. 1. The procedure or Laying the Foundations is outlined by section 13. To be effective the steps should follow the following sequence: a). Recommit: Confront the witness with his prior statements narrating the circumstances of time, place, persons or occasion, or by showing him the prior written statement. Get the witness to affirm he made the statements b). Build-Up. Let the witness affirm he made the prior statements freely, knowingly and that he stood by the accuracy and truthfulness of said statements c). Contrast: Confront the witness by the fact that his prior statement contradicts or deviates or is materially different from his present statement d). Demand an explanation why he made a different statement from his previous statements 2. Reason for the Procedure: a). Fairness to the witness and avoid surprising him, so that he may recollect the facts, and to give him the opportunity to explain the reason, nature, circumstances, or meaning, of his statements. Example: He might have been too emotional then, or was improperly influenced, or wanted to avoid embarrassment, and similar reasons. b). To save time if he admits his prior statements 3. Exceptions when there is no need to lay the foundation: a). In case of statements made by a deceased which contradicts his dying declarations b). If the contradictory statements are testified to by another person as an admission Section 14. Exclusion and separation of witness. A. Concept: The act of excluding a future witness from the court room at the time another witness is testifying or, of ordering that witnesses be kept separate from one another to prevent them from conversing with one another. 1. This is upon the courts own motion or on motion of the adverse party. 2. A disobedient witness may be testify but his (a) testimony may be excluded or (b). his disobedience may be considered to affect his credibility and (c) he maybe punished for contempt of court

B. Purpose: To ensure the witnesses testify to the truth by preventing them from being influenced by the testimony of others; to prevent connivance or collusion among witnesses (Note: the practical purpose of this rule is defeated by the reservations for cross examination or resetting to present another witness, such that the counsel and other witness have the opportunity to go over the testimony of the witnesses). C. Who may not be excluded. 1. Parties to an action even if they are numerous. a) In criminal cases, the presence of the accused is indispensable and he may not be excluded. b). The private offended party should not also be excluded even if he will be a witness. As such he has a right to be present because it is his interest which is involved and also to assure that the proceedings are conducted properly. Besides he is party to the civil aspect of the case. 2. Expert witnesses as they testify to their opinions based on facts of their own knowledge, or on hypothetical facts 3. Witnesses on rebuttal 4. Character witnesses 5. Spectators unless they behave in a manner which is against the proper decorum of the court or when the evidence to be presented are sensitive