TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TOPICS: Objections Irrelevant And Immaterial Evidence Incompetent Evidence Opinion Of Ordinary Witness Expert Opinion Leading Question Misleading Question Compound Question General Question Question Calling For Narration Vague Question Hypothetical Question Argumentative Or Harassing Question Embarrassing Questién Question On Admitted Matter Already Answered Question Self-Incriminating Question Unresponsive Answer Failure To Make Connection Inadmissible For A Particular Purpose Outside Scope Of The Pleadings Beyond Scope of Direct Examination Assumes Facts Not In Evidence Lack Of Basis Or Foundation Illegally Obtained Evidence Photographs, X-rays, Video Tapes and Motion Pictures Sketches, Charts, Diagrams and Maps Incompetent or Disqualified Witnesses Disqualified Witness - Spouse Disqualified Witness - Transacting With Dead or Insane PersonTestimonial Privilege — Parents and Children Privileged Communication — Attorney And Client Privileged Communication — Doctor And Patient Privileged Communication — Priest And Penitent Privileged Communication — State Secret Impeachment — Own Witness Impeachment — Adverse Party's Witness Impeachment — Prior Inconsistent Statement Impeachment — Character of Witness - Memorandum To Aid Memory Right To Show Entire Transaction Right To Inspect Document Exclusion And Separation Of Witness Hearsay Evidence Self-Serving Evidence Hearsay Exception — Dying Declaration Hearsay Exception — Declaration Against Interest Hearsay Exception — Pedigree (Family History) Hearsay Exception — Family Reputation Hearsay Exception — Common Reputation Hearsay Exception — Res Gestae Hearsay Exception — Book Entries Hearsay Exception — Official Record Hearsay Exception — Commercial Lists Hearsay Exception — Learned Treatises Hearsay Exception — Former Testimony Judicial NoticeOBJECTIONS Evidence is admitted if not objected to. This is the rule. To be excluded, timely objection to its introduction must be made.Once admitted the evidence becomes the “property of the case” becoming completely subject to the disposition of the court.! In the case of oral evidence, objection may now be made on two occasions: before a witness testifies and while testifying. This is so because when a witness is called to testify, the party presenting him is required to make an offer of testimony which is a statement of what counsel expects to Prove through the witness. 2 When the offer is made, it may be objected to on the ground that the proposed testimony is either immaterial, irrelevant or incompetent. 3 Because the objection is allowed before the witness testifies, the time of the court is not wasted. On the other hand, when a witness is already testifying, the objection should be made as soon as the question is asked and before an answer is given. If the witness has began to answer an improper question, he must be stopped and an objection should be made ; People v. Cruz, GR. Nos. 13219-21, August 31, 1960, 109 Phil. 288, 291, ? People v. Yap, GR No. 103517, February 9, 1994. Catuira v. Court of Appeals, GR No, 105813, Sept. 12, 1994, Catuira v. Court of Appeals, supra. De Dios Chua Soco v. Veloso, 2 Phil. 658,__ known or should have been known. If the question is proper but the answer is objectionable, ¢.g., for being hearsay, the remedy is to strike the answer off the records. The answer is not-allowed to remain because the ground for objec- tion is not apparent in the question and becomes known only in the answer. The same remedy of striking out is available if the witness answers before the opposing counsel can object. But if the question is improper and the ground for objection is apparent, the failure to object on time will be considered a waiver. The answer even if objectionable will be allowed to stay in the records.6 Documents, on the other hand, should be objected to at the time they are being offered and not when they are merely being identified by a witness or marked as an exhibit.? Identification or marking of a document does not mean that the writing is being offered as evidence. Usually, documents are identified while their authenticity and due execution are being established. Identification is necessary so that the documents will not be lost in the records. As a matter of - practice, those for the plaintiff or prosecution are marked alphabeti- cally while those for the defendant, respondent or defense are marked numerically. Justice Van Syckel in Berryman y. Graham, 21 NJ Eq. 370; Abrenica v. Gonda, 35 Phil. 739. § De Dios Chua Soco v. Veloso, supra People yv. Teodoro, 98 Phil. 569. People v. Marino, 130 SCRA 595. People v. Solon, 79 Phil. 214. 7 Libudan y. Gil, GR. No. 21163, May 17, 1972, 45 SCRA 17. People v. de Roxas, 6 Phil. 977; 6 SCRA 666. People v. Teodoro 98 Phil. 569. People v. Santito, GR. No. 91628, Aug 22, Pooiey Yap, GR No. 10357, Feb. 9, 1984. See topic on this point.‘The offer of documentary evidence is made after the witnesses have testified and just before a Party rests his case. The offer is made by disclosing the purpose for which a document is being presented. Although it can be done orally, the offer is usually made in writing if many documents are involved. If in writing, the other party has three days normally within which to object. If the court excludes the document or things being presented, the movant may have it attached to the record so that its exclusion can be teviewed properly on appeal, Object evidence, orreal evidence as known before, whichis the third kind of evidence, are those which are addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to a fact in issue, it may not only be viewed by the court but tasted, heard and touched as well. In other words, it is fully subject to examination by the judge, If the object evidence can be produced in court readily, it is usually introduced in the course of and as part of the testimony of the witness identifying it, In suchacase, objection is madeas in testimonial evidence. But if the object to be viewed cannot be taken to court, like 4 piece of land, there must first be a showing that the proposed inspection is relevant and necessary to the resolution of the issue. Usually, after viewing an object evidence that cannot be produced in court, the judge orcommissioner appointed by the court, immediately enters into the records his observations. If a party does not agree with them he can and should register his objections then and there, Remember that the right to object is only a Privilege. If not invoked at the right time, which means at the earliest opportunity, it may be lost and result in a waiver of objection. 10 9 Lopez v. Valdez, 32 Phil. 644, 10 Catuira v. Court of Appeals, supra,be k -Mentary or object evidence, must be specified always. Once stated, The ground for objection, whether for testimonial, docu- the objection is good and effective only for that ground.!! To the same class of evidence already objected to, repetition of the same objection is not necessary. It is enough if a continuing objection is made of record. !? “This the duty of the court to rule immediately on the objection. But if it desires to study the matter further the court must rule at such time during the trial so as to give the parties an opportunity to meet the situation created by the ruling.!3 In its ruling the court may overrule the objection, that is, allow the question to be answered, or sustain it, that is, prevent the question from being asked, Or it may order the modification of the question or allow it to be asked under some conditions, the discretion of the court being wide in this regard. As in the case of documents, if the court excludes oral evidence the offeror may make a tender of evidence by Stating on the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. !4 The purpose is to enable the appellate court to rule on the correctness of the exclusion later on. The basic principleis that no piece ofevidencecanbe considered and weighed by the court unless previously admitted. In the process of evaluation the court shall determine the credibility of the evidence, finding out which evidence to believe and which to ignore or reject. Keep in mind that admitted evidence does not mean automatic credibility. Admitted evidence may or may not be given any weight by the court. ‘ 1 People ¥. Singh, 45 Phil. 676. People v. Bande, 50 Phil. 37. ‘Tinsay v. Yusay, 47 Phil. 639. Ed A. Keller & Co. v. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co., 38 Phil. 514. 12 Tan Machan v. De La Trinidad, 3 Phil. 684. 13 Lopez y. Valdez, 32 Phil. 644. 1S Rule 132, Sec. 40.Evidence can be received not only by the judge but also by a branch clerk of court acting as a commissioner in certain cases. This means that the power to receive certain class of evidence can be delegated.!5 But if evidence is received by the commissioner it is the judge alone who can and must evaluate them. 15 Go v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 100772, July 1, 1992.Although there is a difference among relevancy, materiality and incompetence, these three grounds have been lumped together as a common form of objection. Frequently, they are invoked when -counsel cannot think of an appropriate or specific reason for objecting. But these grounds should not be used indiscriminately for they lose their effectiveness in excluding objectionable evidence. If grouped together as an objection, they can be overruled or denied on the ground of vagueness. Irrelevant evidence are those which do not shed any light on, have no logical connection to, or are too remote in time and substance to the matter in issue. Not of much help to the case, they are excluded because they tend to mislead, confuse, unfairly surprise a party or waste the time of the court. Evidence that is offered to prove a fact no longer in dispute because its existence or non-existence has already been admitted by the other party is an example of irrelevant and immaterial evidence.!6 But note that such evidence may still be admitted if relevant to prove other disputed facts. 16 Krouse v. Graham 19 Cal 3d 59.Relevant evidence, on the other hand, are those which induce one to believe that a disputed fact exists or does not exist. Forinstance, to prove that insanity exists, evidence that a person was under psychiatric care for sometime is relevant. But a showing that he was hospitalized for flu or other ailment not affecting his sanity is not. Thus, relevancy is a question of logic and experience. When a piece of evidence tends to support a particular inference, that is, gives a meaning that will prove the existence or non-existence of a fact in dispute in accordance with common knowledge and experience, itis relevant. A good question to ask is: does the evidence have a tendency in reason to prove the disputed fact? Since the test of relevancy is logic - common sense - and experience, there are no hard and fast rules to follow. Its determi- nation is left mainly to the sound judgment of the court. Just remember that the relevance of a piece of evidence may be directly or circumstantially, thatis, indirectly, shown. In the example above, the psychiatric treatment of the person directly proves his insanity. That ‘on one occasion ‘he acted abnormally is a circumstance that might indirectly prove the person’s mental aberration. Although the evidence of treatment has more probative value than the other both may be considered relevant. Material evidence is, of course, always relevant. But it is one that has reference to an issue raised in a case. Whether the evidence is material or not is therefore determined by the applicable law and the pleadings which define the issues of a controversy. For example, the fact that plaintiff's claim has been paid is a valid defense in a collection suit, But if the defendant fails to plead payment as a ground in a motion to dismiss or as an affirmative defense in an answer, he cannot later on present evidence showing payment if objected to. Such evidence will be barred because it is immaterial to the issue of the case even though relevant in that it proves the non-existence of the debt. Few seem to make the distinction between relevant and material evidence despite its practical significance.E 4 a ‘As a rule, evidence on collateral matters are not allowed because they do not prove directly the fact in issue. They stand far and remote from the point being investigated and resolved. Sometimes, their connection to the issue being proved still needs the introduction of other facts and circumstances. Usually. collateral matters are generated by circumstantial rather than by direct evidence. However, evidence on collateral matters becomes admissible when the existence ornon-existence of the disputed fact can be clearly implied or deduced from them. They are then admissible because they help in determining the fact in issue. Butifthe inference drawn from collateral matters offers no help for being speculative or conjectural in nature, the offered evidence will be considered irrelevant. For example, the presence of blood stains inside a car without proof that it is human blood or that it belongs to the victim cannot be admitted, even as part of the mosaic of circumstantial evidence, because the assumptions that the blood _ Stain is human and belongs to the victim are highly speculative and conjectural. !7 Note that under Rule 132, section 39, the court can strike out not only irrelevant and immaterial answers but also improper ones.INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE Although a piece of evidence is relevant, it may still be inadmissible if its presentation is forbidden by the rules or by law. The prohibition may be due LA provision of law — e.g., the privacy of bank accounts under Rep. Act No. 1405 (1955); statute of frauds (Article 1403, Sec. 2 Civil Code); express trusts (Article 1443, Civil Code); 2. A tule of evidence — e.g. hearsay rule; rules on offer of compromise in civil cases; plea of guilt later on withdrawn or unaccepted plea to a lesser offense; and, 3. Settled jurisprudence — e.g. in reviewing an administrative case by certiorari, evidence not presented during the administrative investigation is inadmissible in the certiorari proceeding; !8 evidence illegally seized is not admissible for any purpose;!9 and, an extra- judicial confession obtained without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible.20 48 Lovina v. Moreno, 8 Phil. 1401, 9 SCRA 557. 19 Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 1967. People v. Bagista, GR. No. 86218, Sept. 18, 1992. 20 People v. Robles, 104 SCRA 450,‘The term Anil tte aIRALG ass anion is prohibited by law. But it has come to mean also the qualification of Sa ies omen witness.OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS Rule 130 “ Objection, Your Honor, on the ground that Sec. 48-50 the question calls for the opinion of the witness. Our system of proof demands the most reliable source of information, It is not satisfied with mere guesses or with what others have told us. It requires actual knowledge of facts derived from first hand observation or personal experience. Hence, an ordinary witness is not allowed to testify on facts he has not perceived or known through his senses. He can narrate only what he himself has seen, heard, smelled or touched.?! Because it is the court which will give meaning and weight to his testimony, an ordinary witness is not allowed to interpret the facts he has known or perceived. He cannot give any importance or significance, or form any opinion and draw any conclusion, on what he has seen orheard.?2 Answers which are mere guesses, conjectures, suppositions or speculations on his part are, therefore, excluded.23 Notallowed to interpret facts, a witness with more reason is not allowed to interpret the law. His opinion on the law will be in the nature of a legal conclusion that only a court can make.24 21 Rule 130, Sec.36. 2 Cruz v. Alberto, 39 Phil. 991. 2 City of Manila v, Rodrigues, 7 Phil.292 . Ortiz. v. Compania Maritima, 7 Phil, 507 Rocha & Co. v. The Steamship Muncaster Castle, 7 Phil. $43. Buenaventura y, Urbano, 5 Phil. L 2%4 Santos & Jahrling v. Collector of Customs, 26 Phil. 619 beThere are, however, certain matters regarding which an ordinary witness is allowed to express an opinion so as to expedite the taking of evidence.25 Provided he has adequate knowledge or sufficient familiarity about them, an ordinary witness may testify on the following: i 3. Color - dark, light, shade, intensity ; 9. Witnesses sometimes begin their testimonies with expressions like “I believe” or “I think so.” Such phrases are to be considered more as an indication of poor memory or inattentive observation rather than as an expression of opinion. Only if found to mean that the witness is guessing or speculating should they be objected to and . Physical dimension or measurement - size, weight, shape, Identity of a person - age, sex, nationality, language, racial features; height ; Physical features and orientation - speed, motion, time, direction, visibility ; Personality of aperson- behavior, emotion, anger, happiness and sadness ; Appearance, demeanor or personal reaction -calm, collected, upset, scared, frustrated ; Intoxication - drunk, sober ; Mental condition of a person - normal, abnormal, queer ; and, Authorship or genuineness of handwriting.EXPERT OPINION As a rule, most matters are within the common knowledge and understanding of an average person and donot require experttestimony. But if the facts to be proven are highly technical in nature or involve specialized knowledge, the opinion of an expert is called for.26 A witness is considered an expert because of his special skill, knowledge orexperience in some field of science, art, trade, profession ‘orcalling. Because he is supposed to draw conclusions from facts, his ‘skill and knowledge must be such as to enlighten the court on matters it does not ordinarily understand. Indeed, an expert is called more for his opinion ona given set of facts than for his recollection of events.27 Before an expert can express an opinion, his qualifications must first be established. His education, special study, training and work experience in the particular field he is going to testify on have to be shown. Of course, time will be saved if the parties can stipulate on his qualifications. 26 U.S. v, Gil, 13 Phil. 530 Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers Union, 77 SCRA 24 . 27 People v. Medrana, 110 SCRA 130. 13ints, ballistics, ble documents;?? 3. Property appraisal: just compensation in condemnation proceedings, recovery in fire insurance cases ; 3° 4, Mechanical engineering and architectural construction. 5, Other sciences : weather and environment ; *! L * = 6. Unwritten law of foreign countries ; x 7. Undeciphered writings ; and, 8. Foreign languages. The number of experts a party may call can be limited. And the weight to be given to the testimony of an expert depends on how well it is appreciated by the court. 28 People v. De Villa, 123 Phil. 226, 16 SCRA 419. ; People v. Aleman,102 SCRA. 765. : 29 Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 370. People v, Tondo, 105 Phil. 187. 30 Republic v. Urtula, 110 Phil. 262. 31 People y. Robin, 109 SCRA 187A question is leading when it suggests, urges and prompts the Witness to give the answer the examiner wants to hear.32 It is ‘objectionable because it influences the witness in his answer. It tries © put words into his mouth making the answer not his but that of the examiner. Although the substance of the question determines whether it 4s leading, the form of the question, the way it is framed, usually indicates whether it is objectionable. Questions that begin with “Did” ‘or “Didn’t” or ending with phrases such as“ Didn’the” or “Doesn't” # are often leading. However, a question that is answerable bya simple “Yes” or “No” is not necessarily leading. Many lawyers think that they should object to all leading ‘questions. Not so for not all leading questions are objectionable. On Girect examination, only when the leading question refers to a fact in issue or is eliciting the main point a witness is intending to prove, is the question prohibited. For example, in a criminal case for murder, it is leading to ask a prosecution witness: “ Did you see the accused shoot the victim ?”. _ = People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 1654, November 20, 1948, 82 Phil. 122. 15re matters - those ‘issue, thereby dence - leading Leading questions may also be asked: _ Ty In cross-examination, but not when the witness is friendly to the cross-examiner; To assist a witness who is ignorant, young, or mentally and physically handicapped in expressing himself; To examine an adverse party; To examine an uncooperative and prejudiced or hostile witness; and, To identify persons, things or exhibits.33MISLEADING QUESTION This kind of question is objectionable not only for suggesting an answer but more so for suggesting a wrong or untruthful answer. Actually, it is a trick question, one that is designed to confuse and make the witness give a false or inconsistent answer. While leading questions are allowed in cross examination, misleading questions are not permitted in either direct or cross examination.34 Anexample is: “ You stated in your last testimony that you saw Pedro driving the car. Why are you now insisting that he was not driving?”. The question is misleading because the witness merely said in his previous testimony that he saw Pedro seated on the front seat of the vehicle. Thus, a question is misleading either because it assumes as truea fact which has not yet been testified to by the witness or because it is contrary to what is previously stated. 34 Francisco, Rules of Court 327 (1973 ed.). tie 17It is prohibited, ine peciiee part of eresioaimnsy call for irrelevant and inadmissible testimony. Secondly, because the witness may not realize that there are several queries in the question and he may forget to answer some of them. And lastly, because the court may find it difficult to determine which part of the question is being answered or is left unanswered by the witness. An example of a compound question that sounds simple but is not for it contains two questions actually is: Does IBM company or did IBM company produce the goods that your firm was intending to buy? Here, the question calls not only for the present but also for the past production of the company.ke QUESTION CALLING FOR NARRATION A narrative question is one that invites a continuous recitation of an incident from beginning to end. An examplé of a narrative question is: “In your own words, please tell us what you saw or what happened?” Awitness, ifallowed to testify in story form, is practically given the freedom to say almost anything even if not connected or relevant to anissue. Usually, if given the chance to tell his observations freely, not limited by any specific and detailed questioning, the witness will find it convenient to include his own opinion and perception, matters which he is not allowed to express. As a result the record will be cluttered with confusing and unnecessary testimony. Thus, although it expedites the presentation of evidence, the narrative question is unfair because it deprives the opposing counsel of an opportunity to make a timely objection to the introduction of inadmissible testimony. While it is true that objectionable testimony can be stricken off the record, this procedure tends to prolong rather than facilitate the presentation of evidence.VAGUE QUESTION Only from clear answers can truth be easily ascertained. And only from clear questions can clear answers be obtained. Questions that are vague, ambiguous or unintelligible result in vague and ambiguous answers. They must therefore be avoided, Vague questions are those that cannot be answered specifically while those which are capable of double meaning are ambiguous. An unintelligible question, on the other hand, is one that cannot be understood because of the way it is framed or asked. To be free from vagueness - and this is the test - the question mustcall for a specific answer the relevance of which is apparent from the question. An indication of an able lawyer is the clarity of his questions, which should be short, direct to the point and couched in simple, understandable language. Kilometric questions are oftentimes a sign of incompetence or lack of preparation on the part of counsel. To make the question clear, preliminary statements, like re- Peating the previous testimony of a witness, is permissible. In fact, such repetition is required in laying down the predicate to prove inconsistent declarations.35 But unless required by the rules, such 35 Rule 132, Section 13. 21_ Statements should be repeated only when necessary to make the question clear. Too much repetition of previous testimony tends to confuse and prolong the trial and must be avoided. Ifthe court isnot sure about the meaning ofa question, it should ask the witness if he understands it. Thisis done so that ifthe objection is overruled and the question is ordered answered, the witness cannot complain afterwards that he did not understand it.HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION " Your Honor, I object because it is a hypothetical question and the witness is not being — Presented as an expert.“ Hypothetical questions usually begin with words like ir, “Suppose”, “assuming” or “isn’tit possible”. It is not allowed for the Same reasons that questions that assume facts not yet in evidence are not permitted. They are objectionable because they tend to mislead the witness. Moreover, a hypothetical question usually calls for an opinion which if given by an ordinary witness has no weight or probative value. Only an expert is permitted to express an opinion and he may be asked hypothetical questions so that he can express his opinion on specific matters. Even then such questions must be based on facts that the evidence tends to prove.36 36 Richmond v. Wood, 109 Va. 75, 63 S.B, 449, United Commercial Travelers of America v. Barnes, 75 Kan, 720,9 Pac. 293. 23ARGUMENTATIVE OR HARASSING QUESTION ot argumentative. However, when it tends ‘witness. badger or trick him, the question is more often than not argumentative. This usually happens when a lawyer wishes to point out or emphasize a factual inconsistency in the testimony of a witness. Or when the lawyer engages the witness in a discussion of the applicable law. If two statements, for example, are not reconcilable, asking a witness how he can reconcile two inconsistent statements is argumentative.37 But asking which of two inconsistent statements is true may be proper.38 Another argumentative question: “How is that you can recollect a date as long ago as that and you cannot remember the day of the week?” Because of their nature, argumentative and harassing questions are met more in cross than in the direct examination of a witness. 37 Estate of Loucks, 160 Cal. 551, 558, 117 P. 673, 676. 38 People v. Southack, 39 Cal. 2d 578,590, 248 P. 2412, 20. 24EMBARRASSING QUESTION -. Mobject, Your Honor, because the ends to embarrass or degrade the: It is the duty of every citizen to testify when required by the court. But in the performance of this duty, the citizen has the right not to be subjected to embarrassment. If asked a question the answer to which will tend to degrade, dishonor, discredit or humiliate a witness he can rightfully refuse to answer it and not be compelled to do so. This rule, however, is subject to an exception. Even if the question tends to embarrass or degrade his character, the witness must answer if it refers to the very fact in issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue can be inferred. Inother words, if the witness is asked the embarrassing question merely for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, he can refuse to answer. But when the embarrassing question is asked to prove the existence or non existence of a fact in issue, he has no choice except to answer.k Proof is required only on disputed matters. There is no need to Present evidence on points which either or both parties have admitted, Toallow such evidence will confuse the issues and unduly prolong the trial. Yet because of lack of thoroughness in preparation, some lawyers do not know exactly what they have to prove or not to prove in a hearing. The admissions that substitute for proof and do not require the introduction of evidence are those made in the course of the trial. Called judicial admissions, they may be oral or written. A witness while testifying or a lawyer while making a manifestation incourtcan make anoral admission. A written admission, on the other hand, may be found or made in a pleading, such as a complaint or answer, or in a memorandum or brief, or even in a motion. Only by a showing that an admission was made through palpable mistake or that it was never made at all can an admission be contradicted and set aside. 26Repeated questioning on the same subject is not allowed because it is time consuming, It may also unfairly emphasize the testimony of a witness on a particular point. However, when the purpose of the question is to clarify prior testimony it may be allowed. In cross examination, a witness may be asked to repeat what he has said on a particular matter to testhis recollection of an incident and to find out if he has changed or varied his observation. But he cannot be made to repeat his entire testimony given in direct examination, especially if the purpose is to annoy or harass him.39 39 O'Donnel v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367. 27* Involved here is the constitutional right of a person not to be compelled:to be a witness against himself.40 A question that has a tendency to expose a witness to acriminal | charge or to any kind of punishment is self-incriminating. Thus, a ‘@eestion that attempts to establish a link in the chain of evidence ‘which may lead to the conviction of a witness, or which will call for of the names of persons upon whose testimony the be convicted, is prohibited. EE Fe ‘The right against self-incrimination, which is strictly personal, . can be invoked only by the witness. Not even his lawyer or the party who called him to testify can claim the right for him. When an incriminating question is asked, the lawyer should : object and request the court to advise the witness of his right against self-incrimination or the lawyer may do the advising himself with the court’s permission.4! 4© Article IV, Section 20, Constitution. 41 Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294. People v. Sandiganbayan, Gen. Fabian. Ver, 138 SCRA. 294. a eyOnce the right is invoked, the court shal] determine whether the question is incriminating or not. If it finds that the danger of self- incrimination is not imaginary or speculative but isreal and reasonable, considering all the circumstances, the court must not allow the question to be answered. The government cannot compel an accused to testify as a prosecution witness in a criminal case against him.42 That will violate his right against self-incrimination. But if the accused voluntarily gives a confession admitting guilt it may be used against him without violating his right against self-incrimination. Historically, the right protects the witness against testimonial compulsion only, that is, the giving of oral declarations against his wish. Now, under certain conditions and upon proper showing, a witness may be asked to show his body for inspection without violating any right.43 42 Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA. 663 43. Villaflor v. Summers, 4l Phil. 62. 29) Improper questions can be objected to. But answers that do not reply to or address the questions cannot be objected to. Since unresponsive answers cannot be anticipated or known until given, the remedy is to strike them off the records. Unresponsive answers are not allowed because they are usually irrelevant to the issues. Apart from injecting confusion in the case, they unnecessarily prolong the trial. The fact that such an answer happens to be relevant cannot save it from being stricken off the records. For the sake of orderly procedure in the presentation of evidence, the relevant but unre- sponsive answer of a witness has to be expunged from the records. But note that the rule on waiver is fully applicable to unrespon- sive answers. If not stricken off on time such answers will remain in the records as admitted evidence.FAILURE TO MAKE CONNECTION Involved here is the rule on conditional admissibility of evidence.44 As in the construction of a house, a case or defense should be built gradually, step by step if need be. For the sake of clarity, related pieces of evidence must be introduced one at a time. While this procedure is desirable, the presentation of evidence not immediately related to the one just given cannot be avoided sometimes. Hence, there are occasions when the testimony of a witness may appear irrelevant at the beginning although actually relevant if connected to another. To meet this problem, counsel should move for the admission of the isolated evidence on the promise that he will tie it up with other facts later on. On that condition, the evidence may be admitted temporarily by the court, But if the promise is not met, the necessary connection not having been made before the case is closed, the evidence already admitted may be stricken off the records for being irrelevant. + Rogers v, Brent, 10 Ill, 573, People v. Yatco, 97 Phil. 940. Prats & Co, v. Phoenix Insurance Co.,52 Phil. 807. 31Involved here is the rule on multiple admissibility. Since a piece of evidence may be relevant for two or more ke Purposes, it is necessary that it satisfies the requirements of the particular purpose for which it is being offered. Otherwise, it will be les rejected even if it fulfills the requirements of the other purposes.45 For example, the declaration of a deceased person may be admitted as a declaration against interest, anadmission, anentry inthe be course of business, a dying declaration, or as part of the res gestae. If it is being presented as a dying declaration, there must be a i showing that it was made under the consciousness of an impending death, which need not be shown if the declaration is being offered as one against interest. t 45 People v. Ananias, GR No. 5591, March 28, 1955, 96 Phil. 979 (Unrep.) Lopez y. Standard Oil Co., 5 Phil.549. People v. De Gracia, 18 SCRA 197. 32.