Evidence defined

Evidence is a means, sanctioned by the

Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact. (Sec. 1, Rule 128, Rules of Court)


Purpose of Evidence

To ascertain or find out the truth
respecting a contested fact in a judicial
proceeding.

When necessary-

Factual Issues

It becomes necessary to present
evidence in a case when the pleadings
filed present factual issues. Factual issues
arise when a party specifically denies
material allegations in the adverse partys
pleading. These are the issues which the
judge cannot resolve without evidence
being present thereon.
Thus, whether a certain thing exists or
not, whether a certain act was done or
not, whether a certain statement was
uttered or not, are questions of fact that
require evidence for their resolution.
Questions of fact exist when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of alleged facts. (Paranaque
Kings Ent. Inc. v. CA, 268 SCRA 727; Sps.
Santos v. CA 337 SCRA 67, 74).

Exceptions:

a) Allegations contained in the complaint
or answer immaterial to the issues;

b) Facts which are admitted or which are
not denied in the answer, provided they
have been sufficiently alleged;

c) Those which are the subject of agreed
statement of facts between the parties
as well as those admitted by the party
in the course of the proceedings in the
same case;

d) Facts which are the subject of judicial
notice;

e) Facts which are legally presumed; and

f) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge
of the opposite party. (Republic v. Vda
de Neri, et al. 424 SCRA 676, 692).

Legal issues need no evidence


When pleadings fail to tender an issue of
fact-

When pleadings fail to tender an issue
of fact, either because all the factual
allegations have been admitted expressly
or impliedly ( as when a denial is a general
denial), there is no need to conduct trial,
as there is no need to present evidence
anymore. The case is then ripe for judicial
determination, either through a judgment
on the pleadings (Rule 34).

Proof vs. Evidence

Proof is not the evidence. Proof is the
result of evidence. It is the conviction and
persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of the evidence. (29 Am Jur
2d, Evidence)

a) Object or Autoptic Evidence those
presented to the senses of the court (Sec
1 Rule 130)

Kinds:
1) Those which are exhibited or produced
inside or outside the courtroom;

2) Those which are to be inspected outside
the courtroom, like cracks in a building;

3) Those resulting from a demonstration
or experiment, like when the accused is
directed to put on a pair of gloves.

b) Documentary evidence consists of
writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expressions offered as
proof of their contents.(Sec. 2 Rule 130)

Note to be considered as documentary
evidence, the writings or material,
containing letters, words, numbers, etc.,
must be offered to prove the contents.

c) Testimonial evidence - that which a
witness states in court, which can be oral
or written


Other classifications include

d) Direct evidence that which proves a
fact in issue without need for the judge to
draw an inference or conclusion thru
reasoning.

e) Circumstantial evidence the judge has
to infer the fact in issue from the facts
established by it.
The study of evidence involves the following
main parts:

a) determining whether a given piece of
evidence is admissible;



b) the proper presentation of a piece of
evidence so that the court will consider it
in resolving the issues and deciding the
case; and

c) weight or the tendency of the evidence to
convince and persuade.

A. Admissibility of Evidence

1) Axiom of Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence is admissible when it is
a) relevant to the issue and
b) is competent or not excluded by the law
or the Rules of Court. (Sec. 3, Rule 130,
Rules of Court).

Relevance

Evidence is relevant if it may establish
directly or indirectly the existence or non-
existence of the facts in issue. (Sec. 4,
Rule 128, Rules of Court).


When it has a rational relation with the
fact in question, i.e., the fact or facts to be
proved in a case, as to induce a belief as to
its existence or non-existence.

The evidence must be directed to the facts
in dispute.

Evidence on the credibility or lack of it
of a witness is always relevant because
the credibility of a witness is always an
issue as it has the tendency to prove or
disprove the truthfulness of his/her
testimony.

The test of relevancy is therefore, logic,
common sense and experience.

Collateral matters
General rule:
Evidence on collateral matters are not
allowed.
Term collateral connotes an absence of
direct connection between the evidence and
the matter in dispute.


Exception: when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.

Evidence of similar acts

Admissible for any of the following
purposes:
a) Specific intent
b) Knowledge

c) Identity
d) Plan
e) System
f) Scheme
g) Habit
h) Custom and the like.

Competence

When it is not excluded by law or the rules.

If the test of relevance is logic and
common sense, the test of competence is
the law or the rules. Competence is a
matter of what is allowed by law or the
rules.

2. Requisites of admissibility as related to
the different kinds of evidence.

a. Object Evidence

Note that when object evidence is
offered in accordance with the requisites
of admissibility, it becomes evidence of
the highest order. It speaks more
eloquently than any testimony.

A. Object evidence to be admitted:

1) Must be relevant;

2) Must be competent, i.e., must pass the
test of authentication

3) Authentication must be made by a
competent witness; and

4) Must be offered formally in evidence

Authentication of Object Evidence

Means to show that the object is the very
thing that is either the subject matter of
the controversy or the very one involved
to prove an issue in the case.

Testimonial evidence provides the
foundation for the object evidence. The
object evidence cannot be taken in
isolation.

For purposes of authentication, object
evidence is classified into the following
categories:

a) Objects that have readily identifiable
marks (unique objects);

So long as the witness testifies that the
object has a unique characteristic, he saw
the object on the relevant date,
remembers its characteristics, asserts that
the object shown to him in court is the
same or substantially in the same
condition as when he first saw it and
alleges that these characteristics are those
of the object he is identifying in court, the
authentication is satisfied.

b) Objects made readily identifiable
(objects made unique)

testify as to what he did or saw done to
make the object identifiable; that he saw
the object on the relevant date; that he
remembers the identifying marks placed;
and that the object presented to him for
identification in court has the
characteristics he made on the object.

c) Objects with no identifying marks
and cannot be marked (non-
unique objects)

The proponent of the evidence must
establish a chain of custody. Since it is
called a chain, there must be links to the
chain. The links are the people who
actually handled or had custody of the
object.
Each of the link in the chain must show
how he received the object, how he
handled it to prevent substitution and how
it was transferred to another. Each of the
handlers of the evidence is a link to the
chain and must testify to make the
foundation complete. This is the ideal way.

Courts, however, rule that in setting up
the chain of custody, the prosecution is
not required to elicit testimony from every
custodian of the evidence or from every
person who had an opportunity to come in
contact with the evidence sought to be
admitted. As long as one of the chains
testifies and his testimony negates the
possibility of tampering, his testimony
alone is adequate to prove the chain of
custody.

Demonstrative Evidence

Is not the actual thing but called
demonstrative because it represents or
demonstrates the real thing. Strictly not
object evidence because it is not the very
thing involved in the case.

When instructive to the understanding of
the case, it will be admitted.

The admissibility of this type of evidence
depends largely on laying the proper
foundation for the evidence. The rule boils
down to one basic question: Does the
evidence sufficiently and accurately
represent the object it seeks to
demonstrate or represent? If it does, it
would be admissibile.

b. Documentary Evidence

To be admissible:
1) Must be relevant;
2) Must be authenticated;
3) Authentication by a competent witness;
and
4) Offered in evidence.

To authenticate private documents, it is
required to establish that the document
is duly executed and authentic.

Due execution and genuiness can be
proven:

a) By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or

b) By evidence of the genuiness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.

Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., et al., G.R.
No. 157766, July 12, 2007

The nature of a document, whether public
or private document is relevant in the
determination of its admissibility


c. Testimonial Evidence

This is evidence elicited from the
mouth of a witness through questions
propounded by the examining counsel
in open court. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the
answer of the witness shall be given
orally (Rule 132 Sec. 1).


When applied to a witness, competence
means qualification to take the stand.

Basic qualifications of a witness:

a) He can perceive; and is perceiving;
b) He can make known his perception to
others.

Does not disqualify:

a) Religious belief;
b) Political belief;
c) Interest in the outcome of the case; or
d) Conviction of a crime.

Rule:

A witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his own personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from
his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules. (Sec. 36, Rule
130)

Incompetent Evidence:

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

Basis for the exclusion:

There is no opportunity to cross-examine
the outside declarant.

Specific Elements of Hearsay Evidence:

1)There must be an out-of-court
statement. What matters is that the
statement was not made by the
declarant in the hearing or trial;

2)That the statement made out of court is
repeated and offered by the witness in
court to prove the truth of the matters
asserted by the statement.

Affidavit as hearsay evidence

Tating v. Marcella, et al., G.R. No. 155208,
March 27, 2007

It is settled that affidavits are classified as
hearsay evidence since they are not
generally prepared by the affiant but by
another who uses his own language in
writing the affiants statements,


which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them.
(Lim v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 60,78
(2000)) citing Peoples Bank and Trust
Company v. Leonidas, G.R. No. 47815,
March 11, 1992, 207 SCRA 164; D.M.
Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
137873, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 249,
260-261).

Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of
the opportunity to cross-examine the
affiant. For the reason, affidavits are
generally rejected for being hearsay,
unless the affiants themselves were
placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon.

Phil. Realty Holdings corp. v. Firematic
Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 156251, April 27, 2007

Well-entrenched is the rule that a private
certification is hearsay where the person
who issued the same was never presented
as a witness. The same is true of letters.
While hearsay evidence may be admitted
because of lack of objection by the
adverse partys counsel, it is nonetheless
without probative value.
Stated differently, the declarants of
written statements pertaining to disputed
facts must be presented at the trial for
cross-examination. The lack of objection
may make an incompetent evidence
admissible, but admissibility of evidence
should not be equated with weight of
evidence. Indeed, hearsay evidence
whether objected to or not has no
probative value.

Instance when hearsay evidence may be
admitted:

But when the statement is presented to
prove something else, without reference
to its truth, it is not hearsay and hence,
admissible. Such statement is non-
assertive of the truth like:

a. To prove that the statement was
made;


b. To show the feelings or state of mind
of the defendant, like his mental
condition, motive, fear, apprehension,
good or bad faith. (People v. Ramos, 30
Cal. 3d. 553).

Exceptions to hearsay rule:
1. Parts Res Gestae

Limited to 2 matters:
a) Spontaneous statements;



Requisites:

1) There is a startling event taking place;

2) That while taking place or immediately
prior to or subsequent thereto, a
statement is made;

3)That the statement relates to the
circumstances of the startling event

The res gestae is the startling event and the
part refers to the statement.

b) Verbal Acts

Statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal significance.

It is the statement contemporaneous with
the act that identifies or indicates the
character or purpose or motive of the act.


2. Dying Declaration Sec. 37, Rule 130
The admissibility of dying declaration is
founded on public policy. It is so because a
person who is about to face his Creator
can be expected to tell the truth. (People
v. Calago, G.R. No. 141122, April 22,
2002).

Requisites:

a. The declaration is made under a
consciousness of impending death

b. The declaration is used in a criminal or
civil case where the death of the declarant
is the subject of inquiry. (U.S. v. De la
Cruz, 12 Phil. 87; People v. Molas, G.R. no.
97437-39, February 5, 1993).

c. The declaration is to prove only the cause
and circumstances producing and
attending the death of the declarant.
(People v. Bustos, 45 Phil. 9; People v.
Sabio, 102 SCRA 219).

d. The declarant is competent as a witness.
(People v. Apa-ap, G.R. No. 110993,
August 17, 1994).

3. Rule 130, Sec. 38 Declaration Against
Interest

The basis of the rule is the belief that a
person will not make a false statement if it
will be against his precuniary or moral
interest.

Requisites:
a. It is made by a person who is dead,
outside the Philippines, or unable to
testify.

b. The declaration is not self-serving. (Ong
v. CA, 100 SCRA 641).

c. The declarant knew the facts and had no
motive to misrepresent or falsely
testify them. (People v. Bernal, 274
SCRA 197).


4. Sec. 39, Rule 130 Evidence of Pedigree
or Family History

Matters of the family history like the
relationship, age, date and place of birth,
marriage or death of a family member may
be established by an act or declaration of
a dead or unavailable person. It may be
found in a family bible, deed, letter, will or
other types of family record.
Requisites:

a. The declarant is dead, outside the
country, or otherwise unavailable;

b. He is a member of the family either by
birth or marriage which fact must be
proven by independent evidence. (Ferrer
v. De Inchaustim 38 Phil. 905; Lazatin v.
Campos, 92 SCRA 250).

c. The declaration is made before the
controversy at a time when the declarant
has no motive to lie. (Gravador v. Manigo,
20 SCRA 742).

Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person,
or against a person of unsound mind, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any
matter of fact accruing before the death of
such deceased person or before such person
became of unsound mind. (Sec. 23, Rule
130, Rules of Court).

The reason for the rules is that if persons
having a claim against the estate of the
deceased or his properties were allowed to
testify as to the supposed statements
made by him (deceased person), man
would be tempted to falsely impute
statements to deceased persons as the
latter can no longer deny or refute them,
thus unjustly subjecting their properties
or rights to false or unscrupulous claims or
demands. The purpose of the law is to
guard against the temptation to give
false testimony in regard to the
transaction in question on the part of the
surviving party. (Tongco v.Vianzon, 50
Phil. 698; Go Chi Gun, et al. v. Go Cho, et
al., 622[1955]).


Heirs of Lourdes Sabanpan v. Concepcion,
456 Phil. 161 (2003)

Admissibility of evidence not equated with
its weight.


Ladingnon v. CA, 390 Phil. 1160
(2000);Rivera, et al. v.Turiano, G.R. No.
156249, March 7, 2007).

Mere comparison of signatures does not
support the claim of forgery.

Rules in determining the existence of
forgery.

The process of identification, must include
the determination of the extent, kind and
significance of this resemblance as well as
of the variation. It then becomes necessary
to determine whether the variation is due to
the operation of a different personality, or
is only the expected and inevitable variation
found in genuine writing of the same writer.




It is also necessary to decide whether the
resemblance is the result of a more or less
skillful imitation, or is the habitual and
characteristic resemblance which naturally
appears in a genuine writing. When these
two questions are correctly answered the
whole problem of identification is solved.

Presentation of handwriting experts to
determine forgery

Jovina Dabon Vda. De Mendez v. CA, Et al.,
G.R. No. 174937, June 13, 2012

Finding of forgery does not always depend
upon expert testimony.

B. Presentation of Evidence

Note that there is now a preclusion rule as
distinguished from the exclusionary rule
as provided in Rule 128 Sec. 3.

No evidence shall be allowed to be
presented and offered during the trial in
support of a partys evidence-in-chief
other than those that had been identified
and pre-marked during the pre-trial. Any
other evidence not indicated or listed in
the pre-trial order shall be considered
waived by the parties.
However, the Court, in its discretion, may
allow introduction of additional evidence
in the following cases: (a) those to be
used on cross-examination or re-cross-
examination for impeachment purposes;
(b) those presented on re-direct
examination to explain or supplement the
answers of a witness during the cross-
examination; those to be utilized for
rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes; and (d)
those not available during the pre-trial
proceedings despite due diligence on the
part of the party offering the same. (A.M.
No. 03-1-09-SC)

Offer of Evidence

Why the court will consider evidence only if
it is offered.

It is well-settled that courts will consider
as evidence only that which has been
formally offered, Sec. 34, (Rule 132),
otherwise, the opposing party would be
denied due process of law. (Pigao v.
Rabanillo, G.R. No.150712, May 2, 2006,
488 SCRA).
Lomises Aludos v. Johnny Suerte, G.R. No.
165285, June 18, 2012

Testimonial Evidence

a) Testimony must first be offered stating
the purposes (Sec. 35, Rule 132);

b) Objections to be made immediately if
available (Sec. 36, Rule 132);


c) Tender of excluded evidence;

d) Objections may be raised as soon as
the grounds become reasonably
apparent. (Sec. 36, Rule 132);

e) Rights of witnesses, (Rule 132, Sec.3),
especially child witness under the Child
Witness Rule;

f) Offer of evidence


It must be formally offered at the time the
witness is called to testify (Rule 132 Sec.
35). Objections may then be raised against
the testimony of the witness. If the
objection is valid, as when the testimony
is barred by the hearsay rule or the
opinion rule, the witness will not be
allowed to testify. If the witness is
otherwise allowed to testify, he shall be
sworn in, either by taking an oath or
making an affirmation. (Rule 132, Sec. 1)


Need of laying the proper foundation of the
testimony of witness-

It is essential that the proper foundation
for the testimony of a witness must be
laid. An ordinary witness must be shown
to have personal knowledge of the facts
he shall testify to, otherwise his testimony
will be hearsay, or he will be incompetent
to answer the questions to be asked of
him.

An expert witness must be specifically
qualified as such; otherwise, he cannot
validly give his opinion on matters for
which he may have been summoned as a
witness.
However, the requirement of qualifying an
expert witness may be dispensed with if:

(a) the adverse counsel stipulates on the
experts qualification; or

(b)the court takes judicial notice of the
witness expertise because the judge
happens to be aware thereof on
account of the judges judicial
functions.

People v. Marcos 212 SCRA 748; People v.
Anchta, et al, 431 SCRA 42, 49-50

The Court ruled that if a witness has given
unoffered direct testimony without
objection from the adverse party, the
latter is estopped from raising that
objection which he is deemed to have
waived; hence, although not formally
offered, the testimony may be considered
by the court.

The view can be advanced, however, that
although the aforesaid testimony was not
expressly formally offered, it was,
nonetheless formally offered, albeit
impliedly and automatically, the moment
each question was propounded to elicit an
answer. This view is premised on two
related provisions in Rule 132, Sec. 36,
i.e., that Objection to evidence offered
orally must be made immediately after the
offer is made:,
and that Objection to a question
propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as
soon as the grounds therefore shall have
become reasonably apparent. Clearly the
purpose of the express formal offer of oral
evidence before the witness testifies is
merely to determine, on the basis of the
stated substance of the testimony and its
purpose, whether the witness shall be
allowed to testify.
Once the witness is allowed to testify,
each question propounded to elicit specific
oral evidence may still be objected to as
soon as a ground for objection becomes
reasonably apparent. But it is fundamental
that an objection to evidence be validly
raised only after an offer is made. Thus,
every question asked of a witness,
especially on direct examination,
presupposes a formal offer of the answer,
the oral evidence sought to be elicited. It
would seem, therefore that unlike
documentary and object evidence, which
are formally offered only after all the
witnesses of a party have testified, oral
evidence is offered twice: once, expressly,
before the witness testifies and, again,
with each question propounded to the
witness.
Failure to interpose any objection in either
stage amounts to waiver of objection to its
admissibility. (Bayani v. People, G.R. No.
155619, Aug. 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 84, 92)

Who has the burden of proof to prove a
cause of action.

It is a basic rule in evidence that the
burden of proof lies on the party who
makes the allegations

In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance
of evidence is the weight, credit,
and value of the aggregate evidence on
either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term greater
weight of evidence or greater weight of
the credible evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last
analysis, means probability of the truth. It
is evidence which is move convincing to the
court as worthy of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto. (Rep. v.
Orfinada, Sr., G.R. No. 141145, November
12, 2004, 442 SCRA 342; Ching v. Nicdao,
et al., G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007).

Guidelines in determining preponderance of
evidence.

the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses
manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify,
the probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of
interest,
and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial. The court may also consider the
number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number. (Rule 133, Sec. 1; Ching
v. Nicdao, et al., No. 141181, April 27,
2007,).

Nature of the rebuttal evidence.

Evidence not offered cannot be considered
in the rendition of the judgment.

Exceptions to the rule:

1. The Rule on Summary Procedure where
no full blown trial is held in the interest
of speddy administration of justice;


2. Summary Judgment (Rule 35), where
the judge bases his decision on the
pleadings, depositions, admissions,
affidavits and documents filed with the
court;

3. Document whose contents are subject
of judicial notice;

4. Documents whose contents are
admitted by the parties;


5. If a witness has given an unoffered
direct testimony without objection, the
adverse party is stopped from raising
objections which he is deemed to have
waived;

6. Object evidence that have disappeared
or have been lost after they were
marked, identified and testified on and
described in the record and became the
subject of cross-examination of the
witnesses who testified on them during
the trial;

7. In land registration, cadastral and
election cases, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings when it is not
practicable and convenient to apply the
Rules on formal offer of evidence. (Ong
Chia v. Republic, G.R. No. 127240,
March 27, 2000)

Guidelines in determining the age of the
victim.


Sierra v. People G.R. No. 182941, July 3,
2009

The Court ruled that it is the defense
which has the burden of proving the
minority of the accused as an exempting
circumstance in a crime of rape, since age
or minority is not an element of this crime.
If the prosecution has a burden related to
age, this burden relates to proof of age of
the victim as a circumstance that qualifies
the crime of rape. With respect to the
provision of R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the last
paragraph of Section 7 thereof provides
that any doubt on the age of the child
must be resolved in the childs favor.


Three principles that serve as guide to the
courts in the review of rape cases.

In the review of rape cases, courts are
required by three principles: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with
facility, and it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the accused, though innocent,
to disproved; (2) in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime of rape where only two
persons is usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
(People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 172118,
April 24, 2007).

In resolving rape cases, the primordial
consideration is given to the credibility of
the victims testimony. (People v. Noveras,
G.R. No. 171349, April 24, 2007).

Moreover, at the heart of almost all rape
cases is the issue of the credibility of the
witnesses. This is primarily because the
conviction or acquittal of the accused
virtually depends entirely on the
credibility of the victims testimony as only
participants can testify to its occurrence.
It is also settled that the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis of the
victims testimony, provided that such
testimony is credible, natural, convicting,
and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. If the victims
testimony meets the test of credibility,
this is sufficient to convict the accused.
The credibility of the victim is almost
always the single most important issue to
hurdle.

MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE

1. By objection; and

2. By a motion to strike out.

In order that an objection or a motion to
strike out after an answer has been given,
may be effective to render the evidence
inadmissible, the following requisites must
concur:

1) there must be an objection;
2) the objection must be timely made; and
3) the ground for objection must be
specified. (Rule 132 Sec. 36)


Failure to seasonably object to offered
evidence amounts to a waiver of the
grounds for objection. However, the rules
of exclusion are not self-operating. They
must be properly and timely invoked.

Grounds not raised are deemed waived.
However, repetition of objection is
unnecessary when a continuing objection
is properly made. Objection to the purpose
for which evidence is offered is not proper.

Evidence is objected to at the time it is
offered and not before.
Objection to evidence may be formal or
substantive

1. Formal objections are based on the
defective form of the question like
leading, multiple, vague, repetitious or
argumentative questions.

2. Substantive objections are those based
on the inadmissibility of the offered
evidence, e.g.:

a. irrelevant, immaterial;
b. best evidence rule;
c. parole evidence rule;
d. disqualification of witness;
e. privileged communication;

f. res inter alios acta;
g. hearsay;
h. opinion;
i. evidence illegally obtained; and
j. private document not
authenticated.

A Motion to Strike Out Answer or Testimony
is Proper in the following instances:

1. The witness answers prematurely;
2. The answer is incompetent, irrelevant,
or improper.
3. The answer given is unresponsive;
4. The ground for objection was not
apparent when the question was
asked;


5. Uncompleted testimony e.g., a
witness who gave direct testimony
subsequently becomes unavailable for
cross-examination through no fault of
the cross-examiner;

6. Unfulfilled condition in conditionally
admitted testimony.

END