Cross-examination:

Take note that as a rule, the scope of the cross-examination is not confined to the matters stated by the witness in the direct
examination. This is because the rule allows the adverse party to be cross-examined with sufficient fullness and freedom questions
to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness, his freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue. Section 6, Rule 132, Rules of Court

Exception, i.e., only matters covered by direct may be subject of cross:

1. Witness is unwilling or hostile as so declared by the court (Section12, Rule 132)

2. Witness examined is an accused (Section 1[d], Rule 115)

Common Objections

1. Leading Question – framed in such a way that the question indicates to the witness the answer desired by the party asking
the question.
Not allowed : direct and re-direct (except: preliminary matters, witness is ignorant, child of tender years, feeble-
minded, or deaf mute, witness is a hostile witness, or when the witness is an adverse party, or an officer, director,
or managing agent of a corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party
Allowed : cross examination

Example: Q: While the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation on the date and time you mentioned, did
you see the defendant deliver P50,000.00 to the plaintiff? Here, examiner obviously wants the witness to directly testify that money
was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff in his presence. Could have been : “What have you observed, if any, while the plaintiff
and the defendant were engaged in a conversation?”

2. Misleading Question - 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 in any type of examination
Example: Q- You testified that you and the accused were in a car bound for Baguio City. How fast were you driving?
This is objectionable where there was no previous testimony from the witness that he was driving the car.
3. Calls for a Hearsay
Elements of Hearsay:
a. An out-of-court statement. (A statement made out-of-court by someone, and such statement is not
his own)
b. The statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness in court to prove the truth of
the matters asserted by the statement.
Hence, it is important to know the purpose of the testimony. If it is to prove the truth of the matter in
the statement, it is hearsay. If otherwise, it is not hearsay.
4. Irrelevant/Impertinent – does not have a relation to the fact in issue.
Example: “S” is indebted to the bank. “B” takes the witness stand. Question: “Are you indebted to the bank?” The
issue is the indebtedness of S, not B.
5. Argumentative – examiner is likely trying to offer a conclusion of what the evidence means rather than simply asking for
the facts of what actually happened.
Example:
Attorney: How often did you get your brakes checks prior to the accident?
Witness: Twice a week.
Attorney: You expect this court to believe that you got under your car twice a week, every week, to check
your brakes?
Other counsel: Objection! Argumentative.
(Here, the witness never said he got under the car twice a week – only that someone checked the brakes
twice a week)

- May also mean lawyers tending to push an issue by insisting or repeating certain questions to be able to elicit
new information. May be described as “badgering the witness”
6. Lack of foundation – assumes facts not in evidence; lawyer asks a question but has not shown the court why the witness is
qualified to answer the question.

Example:

Attorney: Are you a tennis player:

Witness: Yes

Attorney: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of rubber

Other counsel: Objection. Lacks foundation

7. Calls for speculation/Hypothetical – To answer the question, witness has to speculate or guess.
Example:
Witness: A man with a glorious ponytail came in and bought a newspaper with his credit card.
Attorney: Why did the man use his credit card instead of paying with cash:
Other counsel: Objection. Calls for speculation.
8. Assumes facts not in evidence – question references a fact that not yet been presented or accepted as evidence.
Example:
Attorney: Where were you at the time of the accident?
Witness: I was standing at the bus stop.
Attorney: What did the driver of the black van throw out of the window?
Other counsel: Objection. The question assumes facts not in evidence. And it’s leading.
9. Non-responsive – witness is not responding properly to questions asked under oath.
Example:
Attorney: In what year did you meet him?
Witness: We’ve known each other since high school. A lot of people don’t know that he was quite a ladies’
man. ..
Other counsel: Objection. Non-responsive.

10. Compound Question

11. Vague question – example, “what happened next.” It is objectionable because you cannot elicit definite answers or
responses from the witness. It also allows open-ended answers.
12. Calls for a narration/ opinion
13. Document offered is self-serving
14. Attempts to elicit from the witness self-serving evidence
15. Inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
16. Witness is incompetent
17. Tends to elicit evidence which is not the best evidence
18. Question has already been answered
19. Question invades the field of confidential communication
20. Question calls for a conclusion of law/fact