What is impeachment of a Witness?

It is a technique employed usually as a part of

the cross-examination to discredit a witness
by attacking his credibility.
It is vital because it is linked with a witness’s
ability and willingness to tell the truth
Guideposts in impeachment of a witness:

1. It is to be done by the party AGAINST whom the witness is called.

2. Subject to certain exceptions, the party producing the witness is
barred from impeaching his own witness.
3. By way of exceptions to the preceding rule, if the witness is
unwilling or hostile, the party calling him may be ALLOWED BY THE
COURT to impeach the witness (by judicial evaluation and declaration
by the court i.e. the reluctance of the witness is unjustified or he misled
the party into calling him as a witness)
4. It is improper for the party calling the witness to present evidence of
the good character of his own witness.
Modes of impeachment under Section 11 of
Rule 132 of Rules of Court
 1. By Contradictory Evidence
 2. By evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad.
 3. By evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony

Note:
a. A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts except
evidence of his conviction of an offense as disclosed by his examination or the
record of the judgement.
b. An unwilling hostile witness so declared by the court or the witness who is an
adverse party cannot be impeached by evidence of his bad character.
Impeachment by contradictory evidence

 The declaration made by the witness in his direct testimony is raised in the cross-
examination of the witness sought to be impeached by allowing him to admit or
deny a matter to be used as the basis for impeachment by contradictory evidence.

*the intention is to show to the court that there were allegations made by the witness
that do not correspond to the real facts of the case.
*this is used to contradict conclusions made by expert witness during their
testimonies – thus, may call another witness.
Example:

 Witness A testifies on his direct examination that he was barely 5 meters away
from where the accused, D shot the Victim V. The defense counsel has reliable
information that, at the time the shooting took place, Witness A was standing as a
witness in a wedding of his friend, Witness B, in a place hundred miles away.
Impeachment by prior inconsistent
statements (Section 13 of Rule 132)
 Laying the foundation – “laying the predicate”.
- Preliminary requirement before the impeachment process prospers.

Elements:
1. The alleged statements must be related to the witness including the
circumstances of the times and places and the person present. If the statements
are in writing, they must be shown to him; and
2. He must be asked whether he has made such statement and also to explain them
if he admits making those statements (he must be given ample opportunity to
explain the supposed discrepancy).
Steps to achieve the dramatic effect:

Step 1: Ask the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement

Step 2: Relate the witness his prior inconsistent statement and at the same time,
“building up” or highlighting the contrary utterances by relating to the witness the
circumstances of times, persons and places.

Step 3: Ask whether or not the statements were made.

PURPOSE:

 To allow the witness to admit or deny the prior statement and afford him an
opportunity to explain the same.

EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS:

 It will be a ground for an objection based on “improper impeachment”

 It becomes inadmissible.

Note: “the reading of the prior inconsistent statement MUST BE VERBATIM, not
summary”.
IMPEACHMENT BY SHOWING BAD
REPUTATION
 Evidence of bad reputation for the purpose of impeachment should refer only to the
following:

(1) The truth

(2) For honesty
(3) For Integrity
No impeachment by
evidence of bad character
but by bad reputation.
CHARACTER VS. IMPEACHMENT

 CHARACTER – made up of the things an

individual actually is and does

 REPUTATION – what people think an individual

is and what they say about him
EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER
OF THE WITNESS
 PRESUMPTION:

A witness is presumed to be truthful and good another. It

is only after his character has been attacked can he prove
his being good.

HE MUST BE FIRST DISCREDITED BEFORE HIS

REPUTATION OR CHARACTER CAN BE BOLSTERED.
EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER
OF THE WITNESS
 PRESUMPTION:

A witness is presumed to be truthful and good another. It

is only after his character has been attacked can he prove
his being good.

HE MUST BE FIRST DISCREDITED BEFORE HIS

REPUTATION OR CHARACTER CAN BE BOLSTERED.
EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER
OF THE WITNESS
 PRESUMPTION:

A witness is presumed to be truthful and good another. It

is only after his character has been attacked can he prove
his being good.

HE MUST BE FIRST DISCREDITED BEFORE HIS

REPUTATION OR CHARACTER CAN BE BOLSTERED.
SEC 14. OF RULE 132

EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER

OF A WITNESS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
UNTIL SUCH CHARACTER HAS BEEN
IMPEACHED.
GENERAL RULE:
NO IMPEACHMENT BY
EVIDENCE OF PARTICULAR
WRONGFUL ACTS

EXCEPTION: HIS PRIOR

CONVICTION OF AN OFFENSE
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF
WITNESSES:
 The judge may exclude a witness who, at the time of exclusion, is not under
examination so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
 The judge may cause the witnesses to be kept separate and be prevented from
conversing with one another until all shall have been examined.
When the witness may refer to a
memorandum

 PURPOSE: to refresh the memory of the witness.

 FORM: It must be written at the time the fact occurred or

immediately thereafter or at any time when the event or fact
was fresh in his memory.
ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS AND THE RULE RES
INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE (RULE 130)
 Section 26. Admission of a party.
 Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible.
 Section 28. Admission by third party.
 Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent.
 Section 30. Admission by conspirator.
 Section 31. Admission by privies.
 Section 32. Admission by silence.
 Section 33. Confession.
 Section 34. Similar acts as evidence.
 Section 35. Unaccepted offer.
ADMISSIONS, CONFESSIONS AND
THE RULE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
RULE (RULE 130).
 Section 26. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given in evidence against him.
 Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible
In civil case - an offer of compromise is not an admission
In criminal case - an offer of compromised by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or
offer.
 An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned
by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for
the injury.

 Section 28. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or

omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

 Section 29. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the
scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may
be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
 Section 30 - he act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.

 Section 31. Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration,
or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.

 Section 32. An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and
possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
 Section 33. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence
against him.

 Section 34. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another
time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

 Section 35. An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a

written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property