Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRUE. Par. 5(i) of Supreme Court A.M. No. 03-1-09SC requires that a witness has to be fully examined in
one (1) day only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to
subject to the courts discretion during trial on whether
or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination
for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted
for each party, he is required to make his formal offer
of evidence after the presentation of his last witness
and the opposing party is required to immediately
interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge
shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open
court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow
the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with
Section 35, Rule 132.
Alternative Answer
FALSE. This rule is not absolute: it will still allows the
trial judge the discretion whether to extend the direct
and/or cross examination for justifiable reasons or not.
The exercise of this discretion may still result in
wrangling as to the proper exercise of the trial courts
discretion, which can delay the proceedings.
Alternative Answer
Objection sustained. The disclosure made by Carla
has no other probative value except to identify who
shot Betty. Its tenor is irrelevant to the incident, and
the same made not to a police investigator of the
occurrence but to a nurse whose concern is only to
attend to the patient. Hence, the disclosure does not
quality as independently relevant statement and
therefore, hearsay. The nurse is competent to testify
A motion is a pleading.
False. A motion is not a pleading but a mere
application for relief other than by a pleading (Rule 15,
Sec. 1, Rules of Court)
A counterclaim is a pleading.
True. A Counterclaim is a pleading by which a
defending party makes a claim against an opposing
party (Sec. 6, Rules of Court)
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Leticia was estranged fro her husband Paul for
more than a year due to his suspicion that she
was having an affair with Manuel, their neighbor.
She was temporary living with her sister in Pasig
City.
For unknown reasons, the house of Leticias
sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia
survived. She saw her husband in the vicinity
during the incident. Later, he was charged with
arson in an Information filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Pasig City.
The act of Paul in setting fire to the house of his sisterin-law, knowing fully well that his wife was there, is an
act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of
marital relation which the disqualification primarily
seeks protect. The criminal act complained of had the
effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal
relation. It underscored the fact that marital and
domestic relations between her and the accusedhusband have becoe so strained that there is no more
harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved (Alvarez
vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 [2005]; Ordono vs.
Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 [1975]).
after the fire, also encountered him not too far away
from the burned house.
IX(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priestconfessor, be allowed over Walters objection? (3%)
IX