Marione John C.

Seto April 18, 2019

Trial Technique and Practice
1. In a criminal case, what would you do if your intended star witness is unwilling to testify
because he is a friend of the other party?
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled
the party into calling him to the witness stand.

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character.  He may also be impeached and cross-examined
by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.

This rule is based on the theory that a person who produces a witness vouches for him as being
worthy of credit, and that a direct attack upon the veracity of the witness “would enable the
party to destroy the witness, if he spoke against him, and to make him a good witness, if he
spoke for him, with the means in his hands of destroying his credit, if he spoke against him.”

2. How would you present a child witness who is 5 years old or under?
The trend in procedural law is to give a wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the
questioning of a child witness. Under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rules on Examination of a Child
Witness, child witnesses may testify in a narrative form and leading questions may be allowed
by the trial court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the interest of justice.

The witness may testify inside a room but he must be visible and can be heard through the
medium of  facilities appropriate for the purpose such as a mirror.

3. In cross-examination, what would you do if the witness for the opposing party is truthful in
answering your questions and strengthens their case more?
The lawyer should asked questions which attack the weak spot of the testimony of the witness
for the opposing party. Don’t give the witness a chance to repeat his testimony. Asked
questions which would give him away from testifying on the main facts.

4. In direct-examination, what would you do if your witness is lying and weakens your case
more?
It depend on the witness presented in the court.
If the witness is a party in the case, the lawyer should examine into the minor details
constituting the background of the exaggerated statement, showing to the false testimony in its
true light.
If the witness is not a party in the case, the lawyer may impeach him after asking the Court to
give a declaration of hostility, that the witness misled the party in calling him in the witness
stand.

5. How would you know if a person is a proper witness for your case?
If the testimony that the witness is willing to testifies agrees or in consonance with the party
who the lawyer defended in trial.

6. A sued B for collection of sum of money pursuant to their loan with a check as collateral.
Enumerate the necessary witness and what point/s will they be testifying on.
For the Party of A (Plaintiff):
A should be a witness testifying that B owed him a sum of money, that it is due and
demandable, and that B refuses to pay A despite repeated demands.
For the Party of B (Defendant):
B should be a witness testifying that he did not owed anything to A, or that the loan has already
been paid.

7. A, B, & C the putative children of X from his mistress, sued W & Y, the legitimate children of
X, for settlement of X estate.
7.A. Enumerate the documents and witnesses necessary to prove A, B, & C's case.
a. A, B, & C must present documents showing their filiation to their father X.
b. A, B, & C must present witnesses that will testify that their father X admits that he
had children to his mistress.
7.B. How would you defend W & Y and what documents you need and who should be your
witnesses?
a. W & Y must present witnesses impeaching the testimony of the witness presented by
A, B, & C.
 b. W & Y may also present expert witnesses contradicting the genuineness of the
documents presented by A, B, & C.
8. Is the 10 commandments of cross-examination still applicable today? What would you
suggest as innovations of said commandments?
Be polite with the judge or quarrel with him. Also, don’t show your much intellectual with the
judge or appear arrogant. Respect all the parties’ right, including the opposing party. Don’t
involve your personal belief or feelings in your professional work.

9. How would you deal with an opposing counsel who keeps on making sham or groundless
objection? How would you deal with a judge who keeps on sustaining the sham or groundless
objections?
A lawyer should let the opposing counsel who keeps on making sham or groundless objection
do what he wants or to continue making groundless objection. It is a manifestation that the
opposing counsel is uncertain of his course yet want to show his competence. It is not hard for
a Judge to see the true color of this kind of counsel.
On the other hand, a lawyer should not fight, quarrel or argue with a Judge if he keeps on
sustaining the sham or groundless objections. A lawyer should at all times give respect to the
Court and to the Bar. Quarreling, arguing and fighting with the Judge can get you nowhere and
only show how unprofessional and naïve you are with the ways of the world. So reserved all
your feelings and judgement to your pleading. Not all Judges are crooked or stupid anyway. And
if you lose, it will not kill you.

10. Bonus question. What decorum would you observe during cross-examination. Describe
your actions.
A quiet, restrained, reasoned approach. A man of reason, who lived by reasoning with the
decisions and the authorities. Excitement, anger, emotional outbursts, sarcasm, and appeals
to sympathy is not shown on to him. He has patience and fortitude. And never permit himself
to allow his anger to overflow the banks of reason.