Ralph Vincent I.

Honorico
Video Critique

1st Video
In this scene, the examination of witness was incorrect because it was the
defense counsel who cross examined the witness first. The Rules provide it must
be the party presenting an individual witness who must conduct direct
examination to such witness and shall be followed by the cross examination of
the opposing counsel. In this video, the cross examination was conducted first
before the direct examination of the prosecution or the party presenting the
witness.
2nd Video
The trial in this video is somehow more realistic compared to the first
video. The questioning of the lawyer was straightforward and spontaneous as well
as the responses of the witness. One thing I observe in the first part of the video is
that the witness, in answering the questions of the lawyer, was not that attentive
and always rubbing his eyes which is for me, a sign that he is not focused in the
trial.
3rd Video
In this video, the defense counsel was very emotional and he is questioning
the witness in a very high tone. This conduct by the lawyer for me was not
necessary. The witness was also somehow carried away by his emotions maybe
because the victims here was his sons. I commend the lawyer for making use of
demonstrative evidence in this case. I also commend the lawyer when he is
testing the accuracy of the statements by the father. Our rules provide that in
cross examination, testing the accuracy of the witness can be done in such
examination of witness.
Question: In the Philippine setting, is the examining counsel not allowed to go
near the witness?
4th Video
 In this video, I think the statement by the lawyer that she is tired in trying
the case is irrelevant and unnecessary. The examination of the witness in this
scene was too emotional. The conduct of the lawyer was improper. There were
many statements made by the lawyer that was irrelevant to the case. I think what
was the lawyer is trying to do is let the witness/accused admit something that is
why she was very emotional. The lawyer in this video was making statements
based on her personal perceptions which is not allowed by the rules. Based on my
court observations, the trials in the movie and in real life is very different from
each other. I think what happened in this scene does not happen in real court
trials. The chaos that happened in the court room was just exaggerated for the
purposes of the movie. However, it does not mean that it does not happen in real
court trials especially when the cases are sensitive in its nature.
5th Video
In this trial, the first error that I have observed is that the second lawyer
when it was his time to cross examine, did not ask permission to the judge or did
not make any statements about him cross examining the witness. He directly
stood up and proceed immediately with the examination. Next is the cross
examination of the accused. The accused was arguing with the opposing counsel.
He was answering questions but at the same time making arguments with the
examining lawyer. Lastly, the prosecution was showing sensitive photos to the
public of the wounds and injuries sustained by the victims. This act was
inappropriate since it is a sensitive matter.
Question: Are witnesses or accused allowed to argue with the lawyer or even
expound his answer which is not relevant to the question?
6th Video
This video is the most entertaining for me. What transpired in the trial was
somehow unique. At first, the lawyer was trying to discredit the witness but in the
end he failed. The witness proved his credibility by demonstrating to the court his
knowledge in behavioral analysis. The examining counsel in this video failed badly
in discrediting the witness. However, whatever negative things the witness said
against the lawyer will not affect the case at all since such statements only prove
that he is a credible witness and it will not affect the competence of the counsel.
In this case, the witness was not told to demonstrate or show the court his
capability but he did it in his own volition.
Question: Can a witness say or demonstrate something in court without being
asked?
7th Video
In the first part of the clip, the lawyer only asked one question but the
witness made statements not related to the question. He also makes conclusions
and even asked that the accused be acquitted. This statements by the witness is
irrelevant to the fact in issue. It does not in any manner help in the cause of the
accused. In the second part of the clip, the grounds for objections made by the
defense counsel was not correct. Also, the examining lawyer was already making
conclusions without basis about the witness testifying for Cardo.
Question: Is it allowed to impeach or discredit a witness on the ground that he
has close relationship with the accused?