RULE 132

Presentation of Evidence

A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of witnesses presented in a trial
or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the questions calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness
shall be given orally. (1a)

Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the
questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of
the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.

A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder
and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings.
(2a)

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a witness:

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;

(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;

(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;

(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or

(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very fact
at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must answer
to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. (3a, 19a)

Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in which the individual
witness may be examined is as follows;

(a) Direct examination by the proponent;

(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;

(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;

(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)

Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to many 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. (8a)

Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — 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. (12)

Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse

Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded,
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its
discretion, as the interests of justice may require. (14)

Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:

(a) On cross examination;

(b) On preliminary matters;

(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;

(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or

(e) Of a witness who 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.

A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (5a, 6a, and 8a)

Section 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, honestly, 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. (15)
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate
showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into
calling him to the witness stand.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached
by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but
such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (6a, 7a)

Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a witness can be
impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to
explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is
put to him concerning them. (16)

Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good character of a witness is
not admissible until such character has been impeached. (17)

Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude
from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear the testimony of
other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
conversing with one another until all shall have been examined. (18)

Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — 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, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; 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, and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with
caution. (10a)

Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, the
remainder admissible. — When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and when a
detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence, any other act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in
evidence. (11a)

Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it
may be inspected by the adverse party. (9a)
The Witness and the Witless (Presenting A Hostile Witness)
By Obiter07

Some people may remember a previous impeachment where a person on the stand was addressed as
“Madame Wetness” by one of the prosecution lawyers.  But the substance of the testimony by one the
witnesses at the current impeachment trial is certainly not wet but rather hot and controversial.  The
Ombudsman just testified that millions of dollars are allegedly held by the Chief Justice in various bank
accounts. But the Ombudsman was in fact not called by those prosecuting the Chief Justice but by the latter’s
defense team. Why the defense called on the Ombudsman, who presumably had evidence of the CJ’s millions
of dollars, is still a mystery.  Even as she was declared as the defense team’s hostile witness.  

Exactly what is meant when she was declared as a “hostile” witness?

In the normal course of a trial, both sides are expected to call witnesses to establish their case. However, there
is a peculiar situation where either the prosecution or the defense may need to call a witness who may not be
sympathetic to their respective cases.  Calling a witness hostile is not automatic but has to be declared by the
court -

“A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand (Section 12, Rule 132).”  

A party calls witnesses to discharge his burden of proof as it is “the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Section 1,
Rule 131).  Hence, the defense, in calling the Ombudsman to the witness stand, must have felt that her
testimony would aid their case especially since a declaration that she is a hostile witness gives them a lot of
leeway in eliciting testimony.

Leading questions allowed

For example, the defense can ask leading questions of such a witness.  A leading question is something “which
suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires.”  To illustrate:

Leading question: When was the $1,000,000.00 deposited into the Chief Justice’s account?

This is a sample leading question because it already assumes the Chief Justice has a dollar account - when such
an issue is still in contention.

Alternative and non-leading questions:  In whose name is the account where the $1,000,000.00 was
deposited? When was it deposited?

A leading question is not allowed, except “of an unwilling or hostile witness (Section 10, Rule 132).”   This
dispenses with the tiresome task of meeting objections on questions which are framed in a leading
manner. Leading questions are actually easier to formulate.  Otherwise, questions have to be formulated in
sequence and have to call only for certain specific information so as not to be objectionable.

Impeaching a hostile witness

More importantly, a hostile witness can be impeached by the party calling him to testify. 
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, honestly, 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. (Sec. 11, 132)

It seems ironic that the Chief Justice’s defense team may seek to impeach a witness in an impeachment case
against their client.  Then again, they were the ones who asked her to testify in the first place.  The last laugh
may yet be theirs as the CJ is set to testify and refute all the apparently damaging evidence and testimonies
next week.

In any case, impeachment, in this context, of a hostile witness refers to being “impeached by the party
presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. (Section 12).”   In effect, the witness’
“credibility” is put at issue.   This is not allowed as a general rule except in certain instances which includes a
hostile witness (Section 12).

So far, it seems to have been a witless strategy to have called a witness who was able to testify on matters
damaging to the defense.  It may turn out that a witness hostile to the accused may be friendly to the cause of
justice but not to that of a sitting Chief Justice.