NISHIKAWA, SHINJI L.

JD4401 – PRACTICE COURT

SUMMARY ON OBJECTIONS

RULE 132, SECTION 36. OBJECTION – Objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the
unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

WHEN OBJECTION IS MADE

If evidence orally offered, objection must be made immediately after the offer is made.
On the other hand, if evidence offered is in writing, it shall be objected within three (3)
days after notice unless a different period is allowed by the court.

ACTION ON THE OBJECTION

The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the
ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. (Rule 132,
Section 38)

EFFECT OF ANSWER TO AN OBJECTIONABLE QUESTION

Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to
voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the
court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.

On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n) (Rule 132, Section 39)

REMEDY OF OFFEROR IF EVIDENCE OFFERED IS EXCLUDED

If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have
the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the
offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness
and the substance of the proposed testimony. (n) (Rule 132, Section 40)
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
The failure to object to incompetent evidence has been held not to render other
incompetent evidence admissible in corroboration thereof. Nor by having failed to object
to the admission of improper evidence at one time does a party lose or waive the right to
object to like evidence when it is offered at a later stage of the proceedings.

PREMATURE OBJECTION
An objection to evidence cannot be made in advance of the offer of the evidence sought
to be introduced.

WAIVER OF OBJECTION TO ORAL EVIDENCE

1. An objection may be expressly waived.
2. Implied waiver;

EFFECT OF WAIVER OF OBJECTION OR FAILURE TO OBJECT

Failure to object evidence at time it is offered is a waiver of objections to its admissibility.
The waiver is operative, not only as to substantially the same testimony given in other
portions of the examination of the witness and subsequent proceedings on the trial, but
also as affecting the right to have questions of its admissibility reviewed on appeal or writ
of error.

SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

Some of usual grounds for objection are the following:
a. Objection to the question for being leading;
b. Objection to the question for it calls for hearsay evidence;
c. Objection to the question for lack of basis, or it assumes a fact not established;
d. Objection to the question for it invades the field of confidential communication;
e. Objection to the question for being vague;
f. Objection to the question for it calls for a conclusion of law;
g. Objection to the question for it calls for a conclusion of fact;
h. Objection to the question for being argumentative;
i. Objection to the question for the proper foundation has not been laid;
j. Objection to the question for it calls for the opinion of the witness;
k. Objection to the question for being misleading;
l. Objection to the question for it has already been answered;
m. Objection to the question for the witness is incompetent;
n. Objection to the question for being inadmissible under the parol evidence rule;
o. Objection to the question for it attempts to elicit from the witness self-serving
evidence;
p. Objection to the question for it tends to elicit evidence which is not the best
evidence;
q. Objection to the question for it calls for parol evidence of an alleged agreement
under the statutes of fraud;
 r. Objection to the question for being irrelevant.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

1. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING LEADING

SCENARIO: Z, the accused, is on the witness stand for the crime of theft

QUESTION ASKED: “At 5am in the morning of October 21, you were at the house of A,
correct?”

OBJECTION: “Objection, your honor. The counsel is leading the witness."

RATIO: The question above must be immediately objected for it is a leading question.
Leading questions during trial are those which actually suggests an answer. In the
illustrated question, the counsel constructed its question in a way that it imputes the
person being at the house of A at a certain time and day.

2. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR IT CALLS FOR HEARSAY EVIDENCE

SCENARIO: X is charged with violation of B.P. 22 or Bouncing Checks Law with regard
the payment of cavans of rice extended by A.
QUESTION ASKED: “Mr. A, will you please identify before this court the person who
executed the check?”
ANSWER STATED: “According to my cashier who received the check, it was executed
by X upon placing his order in our shop.”
OBJECTION: “Objection, your honor. The statement is hearsay"
RATIO: The statement made in answer to the question asked is an example of a hearsay
and must be objected immediately. A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception (Rule
132, Section 36).
In the illustration above, the person being asked does not have personal knowledge on
the matter of execution of the check in question as he was only told by the accounting
department. Hence, the statement is unreliable and should be objected.

3. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING VAGUE

SCENARIO: X is charged with murder of Y. Z, on the witness stand.
QUESTION ASKED: “Where did you see X?”
OBJECTION: “Objection, your honor. Question is vague.”
RATIO: The question is objectionable for it is vague and ambiguous. Questions to a
witness must be clear and precise in order for the person being questioned to easily
understand the question. Otherwise, it would result to confusion and unreliable answer.
In the illustration above, the objection may be made in order for the counsel asking to
clarify its question in order to arrive in a more responsive and precise answer from Z. The
question may be restructured by specifying a date where Z allegedly saw X.

4. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING ARGUMENTATIVE

SCENARIO: A is charged with bigamy. A is in the witness stand for cross examination
after making a statement during direct examination that his wife B, abandoned them and
has no knowledge of her whereabouts.
QUESTION ASKED: “You previously said that you have no knowledge of B’s
whereabouts yet you met with her last month in a restaurant. How can you explain the
photo previously presented before this court of the said meeting?”
OBJECTION: "Objection, your honor. Counsel is being argumentative."

RATIO: Objections for being argumentative are raised in order to protect a witness during
cross examination. In the illustration above, the question asked by the cross examining
counsel is argumentative for it seeks no further facts. Rather, it challenges the witness
about an interference from the facts and argumentative.

5. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR THE DOCUMENT OFFERED IS SELF-

SERVING
SCENARIO: A is in the witness stand for his illegal dismissal case. He offered documents
stating that

RATIO: Self-serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court at one time; it
does not include a party's testimony as a witness in court. It is excluded on the same
ground as any hearsay evidence, that is the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by
the adverse party, and on the consideration that its admission would open the door to
fraud and to fabrication of testimony.

6. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED

SCENARIO: A is charged with reckless imprudence. During his direct examination,
Counsel X asked "Did you slowdown upon seeing the pedestrian lane?" A answers, "No,
he did not." X then asks, "Let me be sure, you did not slow down despite seeing the
pedestrian lane?
OBJECTION: “Objection, your honor. This question has been asked and answered."

RATIO: The objection to a question already asked and answered is simply when question
being asked again is already asked and answered by the witness. In the illustration above,
the question asked by Counsel X is a repeat of his previous question already answered
by the witness.

7. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR IT INVADES THE FIELD OF

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

SCENARIO: A is charged with murder for the death of X, their college friend. B, his wife,
is placed before the witness stand for questioning.

QUESTION ASKED: “Is it true that A confessed to you about the crime he committed
against X?”

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor, the witness is disqualified by reason of marriage.”

RATIO: Under Rule 130, Section 24 of the Rules of court, it states that “[t]he husband or
the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage …” In the illustration above, A and B is covered by the spousal privileged under
the aforementioned rule. Therefore, any statement made by B in relation to the question
asked is objectionable for it invades the protection of confidential communication.

8. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE

SCENARIO: A and B entered into a contract of loan where it states therein that the interest
rate would be 3% per annum. A alleges that they had previously agreed that 1% interest
rate would be imposed on the contract of loan. B is on the witness stand for questioning.

QUESTION ASKED: “Is it true that you agreed to a lower interest rate of 1% to be imposed
on the contract of loan?”

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor, the claim is inadmissible under parole evidence
rule”
RATIO: When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted
to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices which, to all purposes, would alter the
terms of the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have
been waived and abandoned. In the illustration above, it is clear on the contract of loan
that the interest rate is 3%. Any evidence presented to establish otherwise is
objectionable.

9. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING IRRELEVANT.

SCENARIO: A and B met a vehicular accident.

QUESTION ASKED: “What color are you wearing on the day of the incident?”

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor, the question is irrelevant.”

RATIO: The question being asked neither contribute to the case nor relate to merits of
the case. In the illustration, the clothing of the parties does not establish anything to the
case. Therefore, irrelevant and can be subjected to an objection.

10. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR THE WITNESS IS INCOMPETENT

SCENARIO: X is charged with homicide. A, who is medically diagnosed with blindness,

was put on the witness stand as an eye witness to the killing of B.

QUESTIONED ASKED: “Can you describe the person you saw that night?” A answered
“I saw a blonde person stabbing B”.

OBJECTION: “Objection! Your Honor, the witness is incompetent for he has color
blindness”

RATIO: An individual might be deemed unfit to give testimony because he or she might
be deemed mentally incompetent in some significant capacity. In the instant case, A was
medically diagnosed with color blindness and therefore, he is incompetent in terms of
describing the accused that requires the ability to discern colors. The statement of A that
he saw a blonde person is objectionable because requires the capability of discerning
colors. Hence, it is objectionable.

11. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR IT CALLS FOR THE OPINION OF THE
WITNESS

SCENARIO: A and B are long time best friends. B stole a laptop belonging to C.
QUESTION ASKED: “Do you think B is capable of stealing?”

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor. The question calls for the witness’ opinion.”

RATIO: In the illustration, the question asked requires the personal opinion of A based on
his relationship with B that can be a subject of an objection. As a rule, opinion testimony
is only admissible when it is based on perceptions/observations made with the witness’s
five senses.

12. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR BEING MISLEADING

SCENARIO:

13. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR LACK OF BASIS, OR IT ASSUMES A FACT

NOT ESTABLISHED

SCENARIO: A is a witness in a shooting incident. He was put on a witness stand and the
first questioned asked was:

QUESTION ASKED: “What did you see at the Malugay Street?

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor. Lacks foundation.”

RATIO: The question assumes the presence of A in the place of the incident. The counsel
asking the witness failed to establish that fact that A was in that place on the day of the
incident before asking the question. Therefore, it is objectionable for lack of foundation.

14. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR LACK OF BASIS, OR IT ASSUMES A FACT

NOT ESTABLISHED

SCENARIO: A, a pedestrian, witnessed a vehicular accident between a private vehicle

and a UV Express van.

QUESTION ASKED: “Where were you at the time if accident?” A answered “I was at the
waiting shed near across the street where the accident happened.” Counsel then asked
“What was the driver of the UV Express doing”?

OBJECTION: “Objection, your Honor. The question assumes facts not in evidence.”
RATIO: In the scenario, there was no prior question as to the description of the vehicle
involved. Hence, there was an assumption on the question that what A saw is a UV
Express van, which was not established prior.

15. OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION FOR IT CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION OF LAW

SCENARIO: A, B, and C are siblings and parties in a probate proceeding involving the
probate will of their father, D. A was put on the witness stand for questioning.

QUESTION ASKED: “