QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE ASKED:

Direct Examination vs. Re-direct examination

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him or her on the facts relevant to the issue. Simply, it refers to a lawyer’s
questions of his or her own witness. On the other hand, Re-direct examination is the
further questioning of the witness by the direct examiner to explain or supplement his or
her answers given during the cross-examination.
As to purpose, Direct examination is to give opportunity for the proponent to
elicit from the witness all the facts which are important and favorable to him. While re-
direct examination is for the witness to explain or supplement his or her answers given
during the cross-examination.
As to extent, Direct examination must be clear, forceful, comprehensive, and must
efficiently present the facts of the case. While, on re-direct examination, questions on
matters not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.

Leading vs. Misleading Questions

A Leading Question is a question which suggest to the witness the answer which
the examining party desires. It is also known as “Suggestive Question”. On the other
hand, a misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he or she has previously stated.
A Leading question is generally not allowed, except (a) On cross-examination; (b)
On preliminary matters; (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answers from a witness who is ignorant, a child of tender years, 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 offi cer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation[,] or of
a partnership or association which is an adverse party. While Misleading Questions are
not allowed to be asked of a witness.

Impeachment vs. Rehabilitation of a witness

Impeachment is the process of discrediting the witness in his or her testimony and
to show that his or her testimony is without or very little evidentiary value. On the other
hand, Rehabilitation is a process to restore the credibility of a witness after his or her
credibility has been attacked through impeachment.
The witness may be impeached during his cross-examination or during the
presentation of evidence by the party. On the contrary, the witness is rehabilitated by
being examined again during re-direct examination to improve his or her standing in
matters raised on cross examination and by introducing evidence of the witness's good
character for truthfulness and honesty, or of a prior consistent statement made by the
witness.

Disputable Presumptions and (examples baka kasama)

Rule 131, Section 3, paragraph
l. that a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it.
This presumption is in line with the Constitutional mandate that a government official or
employee may not be removed or suspended without due process of law.
For example, Mayor X, without a known appointment or election, but under such
circumstances of reputation or acquiescence, assumed the office. He has the possession of
the office and performs the duties under color of right, without being technically
qualified. His official acts are considered valid as to the public until such time as his title
to the office is adjudged insufficient or when he is ousted in office through a quo
warranto proceeding.
m. that official duty has been regularly performed.
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is
overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
presumption in rebutted, it becomes conclusive.
For example, the acts of the police officers in drug cases. The validity of their testimonies
will be presumed. If not rebutted, then it will become conclusive.
n. that a court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
A judge is a public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law and they are
presumed to be acting in accordance with law. If the court deems it proper that it can
exercise authority in hearing and adjudicating cases, the it is acing in the lawful exercise
of jurisdiction.
For example, an action was lodged in the RTC in the Philippines for the enforcement of a
foreign judgment. The judgment recognizing and enforcing the foreign judgment is
presumed to have been made in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. The burden now shifts
to the other party challenging the foreign judgment by showing that there is evidence of
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law
or fact. If no sufficient evidence was adduced to establish his allegation of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC. Then the presumption remains.
o. that all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and
passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a
dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon
by them.
This means that all matters including reliefs prayed for must be alleged in a complaint.
Otherwise, the court will not entertain those that are not included. Similar in disputes
submitted for arbitration, those that were not raised by parties during the proceeding
cannot be later on awarded.
For example, in a case for collection of sum of money, after all pleadings have been
submitted, the court will set a hearing for a pre-trial conference, during which the parties
identify: the admitted facts; the legal issues to be resolved; their respective evidence and
witnesses. The trial then ensues. X cannot later on claim for damages which was not
raised during the pre-trial.

Direct Rule vs. Wide Open Rule (not sure)

Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination, but only upon the
subject matter of the direct examination.
A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case,
including credibility. In the interests of justice, the trial court may limit cross-
examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination. Wide Open
Rule permits the cross-examiner to range across the entire case, no matter how limited
the direct exam.