Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Objection... Your Honor...

Every week, in my moot court subject, we are trained to object on evidences presented by the adverse party. The rule is – evidence is admitted if not objected to. In the presentation of oral evidence, objections may be made on two occasions, (1) before a witness testifies and (2) while the witness is testifying.

On the first occasion, the testimony of a witness may be objected to on the ground that the proposed testimony is either immaterial, irrelevant or incompetent and such testimony will only waste the time of the court.

On the second occasion, when the witness is already testifying, the objection should be made as soon as the question is asked and before an answer is given.

Objections may be made on the following grounds:

“Objection, Your Honor, it is/the question is – “

- irrelevant
- immaterial to the issue
- incompetent because it is excluded by the rules
- incompetent because it is excluded by law
- calling for the opinion of the witness
- calling for an expert opinion and the witness has not been qualified as such
- leading
- misleading
- too general
- calling for a narration or narrative answer
- vague, ambiguous, or unintelligible
- argumentative
- harassing the witness
- tend to embarrass or degrade the character of the witness
- based on evidence already admitted
- already answered
- not alleged or pleaded as an issue
- not taken-up or touched upon in the direct examination
- assumes facts not yet in evidence
- no basis. It has not been shown that ___________
- the witness is incompetent to testify
- hearsay evidence

It is also important that an adverse counsel move for the exclusion and separation of other witnesses to prevent them from hearing and being influenced by the testimony being given by the witness on stand. So, the adverse counsel must make the following manifesto : “ Your Honor, I move for the exclusion and/or separation of the witnesses present in court today.”

Phrase of the Day

Hostile Witness – one who testifies on a material matter unfavorable to the party who calls him.

Question of the Day

Is this question on direct examination of a hostile witness allowable over proper and timely objection: “Even though you knew you were at fault, you didn’t stop?”


  1. It is a misleading question because you are assuming that the person is at fault.

  2. Parang harassment of witness yan eh so di pwede yan.

  3. thnx anony and lovely, it is indeed a misleading queston coz the counsel asking such question is assuming a fact.