RULE 132 Section

5
ROMMIL NUNEZ
 Joke Time
Why are carpenters such good witnesses?
Because they saw everything

The lawyer and the witness

The lawyer paced before the witness in the stand.

“Would you tell the court at what time the murder occurred?”

The witness tapped her chin, “I think -”

“We aren't interested in what you think,” said the attorney. “We only want the *facts*.”

The witness frowned. “I'll give them to you but I can't talk without thinking. I'm not a lawyer, you
know!”
Section 5. 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.
 Direct
Examination
The direct examination
or examination-in-chief
is one stage in the
process of adducing
evidence from witnesses
in a court of law. It
is the questioning of a
witness by the party
who called him or her,
in a trial.
What is the purpose of direct examination?
The lawyer's goal in conducting a direct examination
is to provide the court with the impression that they
are listening to an interesting conversation between
two people (questioning lawyer and answering
witness) about a subject critical to proving the
lawyer's side of the case.
 LEOPOLDO SIRIBAN
VS. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 77111,

Facts:
Leopoldo Siriban, the herein accused, Ciriaco
Kalata the herein deceased, Cesar Frayalde,
Porfirio Abbatuan, Ismael Abbatuan and Francisco
Martinez were drinking beer at the Gumarang
Canteen in the premises of the public market in
Aparri, Cagayan.

After the drinking, all of them rode a tricycle

going home and therein Leopoldo Siriban and
Ciriaco Kalata had a fist fight.
Facts:
Later on Ciriaco Kalata died and Leopoldo Siriban
was accused of killing Ciriaco.

There is no direct evidence positively pointing

to the petitioner-accused as the killer other
than what is largely circumstantial evidence. The
lower court found the accused Leopoldo guilty
which the Court of Appeals, affirmed in toto.
Issue:
Whether the accused is guilty based on the
circumstantial evidence coming from the direct
examination.

Factum Probans:
Whether Leopoldo is the one who killed Ciriaco

Factum Probandum:
-petitioner had a motive to kill him.
-positive identification in direct examination
that Leopoldo killed Ciriaco
Held:
No, It is well-established that circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction, but such a
kind of evidence must be conditioned upon the
concurrence of the following:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt."
Held:
In the case at bar, the prosecution has relied on
a solitary occurrence: the fact that the
petitioner had earlier had a scuffle with the
deceased, it is not enough to indicate the
commission of a homicide or any overt act of one,
much less to convict the petitioner thereof.

On the ground of reasonable doubt, Leopoldo was

acquitted, the decision of the Court of Appeals
was reversed and set aside.