Trial Tips From Blog.docx

Trial Tips: Avoid disaster: review the information before going to trial Have you checked the information in your case lately? Information as inindictment, that is. That should seem routine. But a case we defended - purporting to be a violation of the Trust Receipts Law - was dismissed on demurrer because the prosecution did not see the need to prove criminal intent, apparently misapprehending the crime actually charged in the information. The prosecution went to trial thinking that since the charge was for violation of a special law, intent to commit the crime is not an element required for conviction. In our motion to dimiss, we argued that, while the information was indeed captioned "For Violation of the Trust Receipts Law", the allegations in the information did not make out a violation of that law - it actually charged estafa, which is a violation of the Revised Penal Code, a general law. Therefore, criminal intent is an essential element which must be proved. In a death penalty case which we handled pro bono, the death sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua when it was on automatic review by the Supreme Court, the Court noting that since the information did not allege that the crime charged is qualified by the relationship of the victim with the convicted rapist (the victim was a niece of the accused), the crime can't come under the law on heinous crimes. The information did not allege the relationship as a qualifying circumstance, but was only proven during the trial. Look at the information carefully; if there's anything in it which needs to be changed or added, it should ideally be done before the accused pleads on arraignment. Doing so after may prove difficult and may only delay the prosecution.

Unconsciously unaware of evidence Do you know how to ride a bike? If you do, do you think about it? You should not. You are, as they say in psychology, unconsciously unaware of your skill. But we did not start out that way. Most probably, we fell right after our first mount. Then, after more practice, we learned to balance. But we still swayed from side to side, without much control, and still fell, although it was becoming less and less. Through all this, we were focused on balancing ourselves, trying to control the bike, not thinking of anything else but to stay mounted. We are "consciously aware" of biking. Then, with more practice, we progressed to riding without thinking about it: we enjoy the scenery while riding, we listen to music from our ipod, we can even think of work while biking. This is when we enjoy biking and even look forward to it. So it is with the rules of evidence. We should learn them, practice them, learn some more and still practice them. The goal is to be unconsciously unaware of the rules that it becomes almost second nature to us, instinctive even. With evidentiary battles occuring almost anytime while a case is on trial, we should have the rules in our fingertips, easily accessible when required, to be drawn swiftly when needed to shoot the adversary dead.

Page 1 of 14

10 things to avoid when you're a trial lawyer part 1 1. Writtten out questions and answers for the direct examination. The lawyer has the script with him to refer to while examining the witness. What about the witness? Does he really expect the witness to memorize the script? Or even more basic, does he really expect that the examination will proceed according to the script? If the judge and the other lawyer are asleep (which may not be far-fetched because of the canned sound that a scripted examination is trademarked for), maybe. But otherwise, there are just too many variables in trial proceedings that it is just impossible to encapsulate the direct exam in a document labeled "Q&A". Objections are overruled or sustained, evidentiary battles erupt without warning, stipulations entered, etc. 2. Too many objections on insignificant matters. "Objection, Your Honor, leading question." Barely has the lawyer sat back when he springs up again for another objection, "No basis, Your Honor." And then another: "Misleading, Your Honor." Is he afraid of the witness or what the witness will say? Does he not have have confidence in the righteousness of his case? We do not win the case by how many sustained objections are made. On the contrary, too many objections, even if sustained, if made on inconsequential matters, would only paint us as an obstructionist, or worse, somebody who has something to hide. 3. Asking obviously objectionable questions, the flipside of #2 above. Nothing distracts more than a question asked only to be rephrased, or even abandoned altogether, because of an objection. It shows either incompetence or incompetence. 4. Making thoughtless objections that are frequently overruled, a corollary of #2. The only thing worse than making too many objections is making too many overruled objections. Veteran lawyers seldom object; and when they do, they get sustained. This is actually an indirect consequence of making too many objections. Because the judge got used to the lawyer's objections on even unimportant matters, overruling the objections became second nature to him. 5. Unorganized exhibits. "I am showing to you Exhibit `A' which is ah … uh … can I have a moment, Your Honor, while I look for it in my files?" The judge may be more tolerant of this lawyer the first time. But on the second or third? He's already forming his opinion as to whether this lawyer's seeming incompetence is worth his time. In one case that was being tried ahead of mine, the judge was unable to contain his irritation that he told his clerk tersely, "let's call the other cases on the calendar while Attorney So-and-So digs for his documents." 6. Improper manifestations. Lawyers ask questions; witnesses answers. That's the rule. Many young lawyers, however, seem to have this the other way around. Once I am on cross-examination. I show the witness a document, then ask if he recognizes it. The opposing lawyer grabs the document from the witness, stands up and says: "May I manifest, Your Honor, that this document was not under the letterhead of x company, and the signature appearing on it was not that of the witness." What is that? The witness is just shown a document and the question put is quite clear. If he does not recognize it, then he can say so. It was him who should answer, not the lawyer. So, I point out to the court that that's an improper manifestation, and the court directs the witness to answer. Guess what the witness says in reply? Right. He says, "I don't recognize it. It is not in the letterhead of our Page 2 of 14

company and it does not have my signature." When the lawyer makes at least 3 more manifestations of the same nature, I had to ask the court to ask the lawyer if he wants to take the stand so I can cross-examine him. 7. Forgetting the file or bringing the wrong file. We understand that lawyers are busy. But this is not an excuse to ask for a cancellation of the trial date because he forgot to bring the file, or worse, he brought the wrong file. 8. Forgetting his calendar. Calendars are as to lawyers as shopping lists are as to mommies. Calendars and organizers are so indispensable to the life of trial lawyers that you'd think they should be sewn to their sides. Yet, you'd often encounter lawyers whose agreement to a trial date comes with the manifestation that it be made "just tentative, Your Honor, because I will have to consult my calendar." 9. Coming to court unprepared then asking for postponement. One judge in Antipolo City calls them the "the very motional attorneys" because of their motions to cancel. 10. Not knowing where the court is. This reminds us of a priest who, new to the town, asks a little boy where the church is located. The boy replies, "Father, if you do not know where the church is, how would you know where heaven is?" There is a pamphlet (actually, a book) called the "Court Locator". Call the court and ask how to get there. Don't be like the young lawyer I know, who regretfully related to me how the client berated him. He said he was running late for the hearing so he called the client to ask in which floor of the building was the court he was due. When I asked him why, of all people, did he have to call the client, he told me he called the client because she sent him a text message that she was already in court, and waiting for him. I looked at him incredulously. Not only did the client get to court ahead of her lawyer, her lawyer also does not know where the court is. And worse, her lawyer even had the unprofessionalism to ask her, the client, where it was.

Pinning down a witness In many criminal cases, the star witnesses are not always the complainant or the defendant. These are strangers to the parties but, by accident or otherwise, are there at the scene when the crime happened. Through time, however, these witnesses either forget the facts, become indifferent, or even grow hostile. When meeting initially with these witnesses, we usually suggest that the meeting be done at our office. After our interview, we give him a pen and paper and ask him to write down in his own words what he just narrated to us. Or, if the witness is too lazy to do so, we ask a secretary to type it up in affidavit form. Then we ask the witness to review it and if he finds any inconsistency, inaccuracy or even falsehood, to write down, on the same paper he reviewed, his corrections. Later, if he says he did not understand the affidavit when he signed it, his own written corrections will say otherwise. Then, we make him swear to the affidavit and we notarize it. In other words, we cement the testimony. That way, the witness will have to commit perjury to deny later what he told us in the interview. Be prudent about witnesses who are strangers to the parties. They are the best witnesses because they are disinterested and therefore most credible - but they are also the most Page 3 of 14

difficult to handle, especially when the case had already dragged on for sometime, and his interest on its outcome had waned.

Plain and simple I've heard once that the capacity of the human mind to complicate things knows no bounds. More so that of lawyers. How many times have we heard a witness asked "when was the contract of lease executed between you and the defendant?" (Who was executed by what is just what the witness may be thinking here.) Instead, why don't we just ask, "when did you and Mr. X sign the lease contract?" Or, "what was the consideration for you when you signed the lease contract", instead of "why did you sign the lease contract?" Or, "I am showing you this document. Please tell us what relationship does this document have to the document you mentioned you signed with the defendant", instead of just "I am showing you this document. Was that the document that you and Mr. X signed?" And what's the deal with referring to the defendant as "defendant" anyway, instead of just referring to him or her by name, so there is no confusion? For the not the

some reason, we fear that we become less of a lawyer when we don't use legalese on job. But the case is not about us; it's about the client and his story. And, using legales only makes the story-telling boring (which is never a good thing), it also actually erodes witness' credibility - it makes his testimony sound stilted and memorized.

If there is danger of losing your witness in the jungle of your legalese questions, just imagine what they can do to your cross-examination. They just might turn your cross from one of question and answer to a definition and explanation game. Instead of answering your questions, the witness might ask you what you meant by your question, or ask you to define your terms. And worse, there are even lawyers asking the court to direct the witness to answer these kinds of questions. What does the judge say? "I can't direct the witness to answer a question that everyone here - except maybe only you - does not understand."

"Best Evidence is the Document" I don't really understand what the objection "best evidence is the document" means. I usually hear it during direct examination when the witness is asked to quote parts of a document she has identified, or is asked what certain statements in the document means. And what's more, when this objection is made, no further explanation is required by the judge when sustaining it. In fact, sometimes the judge himself prods the lawyer to ask another question because his earlier question is improper, "the best evidence being the document which the witness had already identified." Is the objecting lawyer telling us that the witness cannot explain what the document says because she may vary what the statements in the document literally meant? If so, the objection should be that "it will violate the parol evidence rule" rather than the best evidence rule. The best evidence rule refers to the original of a document: it says that the original must be presented because a mere copy may mislead the court. In other words, the best evidence rule says that the evidence presented to the court must be what it purports to be; a secondary evidence, such as a photocopy, will not do the trick. It's not as reliable simply because it's not the "best evidence." The best evidence rule therefore has nothing to Page 4 of 14

do with the witness reciting what the document says on its face or even interpreting them, as long as his competence to do so is shown beforehand. Sometimes, this kind of objection is also phrased this way: "objection; the document will speak for itself." By this, perhaps what the lawyer means is that the witness should not be permitted to so testify because whatever she says might just mislead the court since the best evidence of that fact is already in the document. But this is the same dog with a different collar; it's still invoking the parol evidence rule. In reality, can a document really speak for itself? If it does, what's the need for identification and authentication? The point perhaps is that, if what the witness will read or even interpret is in fact already in the document, then there should be no additional harm in having him say his piece about the document - it's already there anyway.

Leading questions erode credibility The objection "Leading question, You Honor" is perhaps the most frequent objection we either make or hear during trials, supposedly because of fear that the witness's "Yes" or "No" to this type of question will enter the record and thus hurt us. But so what? Testimony may be on record, but this does not mean that the court will believe it. In fact, the question is, will the court believe a testimony that was mostly drawn out from the witness by leading questions? Consider the purpose of the rule when it disallows leading questions. It is disallowed because of the danger that the testimony of the lawyer will be substituted with that of his witness; the witness's words are reduced to an echo, the witness mechanically saying what the examining lawyer is puttting into his mouth. We suggest that, analyzing this rule, it is actually an implicit directive to the court or fact-finder to disbelieve, or at the very least, to be wary of, the answer of the witness. What happens if we do not object to a truly leading question? It gets into the record, yes, but will it be believed? That's another story. What happens if we object? The examining lawyer rephrases his question, the witness answers the non-leading question, and it becomes more credible, further burying us. We suggest that perhaps the rule disallowing a leading question is more the lookout of the examining lawyer than of the opposing counsel. It is more aimed at the examining lawyer: ask leading questions at your peril; do not ask leading questions so that your direct examination is more credible.

Does the judge know what you and your witness are talking about? In one "episode" during the nationally televised impeachment trial of Erap, a senator-judge -- as far as I can recall, it was Sen. Raul Roco -- suggested that the examining counsel distribute copies of the documents he was referring to during the direct examination of a witness. Sen. Raul Roco complained that he was having difficulty following the testimony of the witness because he did not have a copy of the document that the lawyer and the witness were constantly referring to in their questions and answers. You will observe that this also happens in regular trials. Page 5 of 14

So, when you are either on direct or cross, and you're using a document that you want the witness to refer to when answering, prepare at least 4 copies of the document: one on which you scribble your questions (thus, doubling as your notes); two, the original to confront the witness with; three, the photocopy that you will mark as evidence after comparison with the orginal; and the last copy to give to the judge as you go along the testimony of the witness. When you give the judge his copy though, remember that it must be what it purports to be. In other words, you need to authenticate it first. So, before giving it to the judge (and of course, before starting out with the meat of the direct or cross exam), have the witness identify it first and the opposing lawyer compare it with the original. That way, the judge is assured that what he's holding is a faithful reproduction of the original of the document. Note that, during a trial, your foremost audience is the judge; it's your job to make it easy for him, as the fact-finder, to find the facts, especially those that are favorable to your case.

Be picturesque Before language was invented, psychologists say that humans think in and relay thoughts by pictures. We simply remember better when we see pictures and not just hear words; in fact, going further, educators say that learning about something (such as remembering a testimony in court) will be much faster when the learner (such as the judge) is made to use more of his senses during the process, such as sight, smell or touch, rather than just making him use his sense of hearing. Have you watched and listened to a witness during a trial and not seem to understand the testimony because you cannot "see" the scene being described? Aside from losing the message, the testimony is also so boring that you wonder whether there is a rule somewhere that examinations should as much as possible put the judge to sleep. If you are examining an eye-witness to a vehicular mishap for instance, and you're prosecuting, you'd want to convey recklessness, overspeeding, and irresponsibility on the road. You'll not use questions like, "What happened? (Answer: the car hit a pedestrian); What happened to the pedestrian? (Answer: he fell); What did you do? (Answer: Nothing); and then, what happened after that?" You'd want to use questions that picture fast-paced action: How fast was the car? Was it blowing its horn? Describe the sound of the horn. What was your reaction when you heard the horn? Why did the horn catch your attention? Was the traffic slow or fast? Short, crisp and cadence-like questions, designed to be answered in equally short and crisp responses will be effective in conveying this scene. The more you use words that "picture", the more the examination becomes interesting, the more it will become understandble, and more important, the more it will become memorable to the judge. And, all these is good for your case.

Page 6 of 14

More on Best Evidence Sometimes we hear the objection "best evidence is the document" during crossexamination. Is this really proper? One time I was watching a lawyer who was cross-examining a witness, apparently focusing on the witness' affidavit that was submitted to the prosecutor during the preliminary investigation. The opposing lawyer raised this objection and the judge "sustained" him. I was thinking to myself, isn't the cross-examiner entitled to ask questions on the affidavit because, one, it's an admission which can be used against the witness; and two, it wasn't altogether "very nice" of the prosecution to have the witness authenticate an affidavit then object to being cross-examined about it? More basic, the objection may not be applicable: "best evidence rule" refers to the original of the document, which must be presented because the photocopy (or any other reproduction) has the potential of misleading the court and the other lawyer. Perhaps, what is being raised as an objection is the "parol evidence rule"; but this is likewise not applicable because one, the document is an affidavit, not a contract. Second, it was the witness who authored the affidavit, and the defense is not a party to it. And finally, I don't think that the objection "best evidence" or "parol evidence" is available at all as in a cross-examination because the cross-examiner is precisely not introducing the evidence but is in fact, testing its evidentiary weight. What do you think?

Effective proposals for stipulation of facts, Part 1 Why is "stipulation of facts" becoming a useless exercise during preliminary conferences? I went through a preliminary conference last week and virtually got no stipulation from the other side. In fact, when I lamented the lack of cooperation from the other lawyers, I was doubly disappointed when one of them said that maybe it would speed things along if we just state in the minutes that the parties admit only those facts stated in their respective pleadings. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the exercise? Indeed, most lawyers are indifferent to stipulations of facts (I found this reaction to be equally true to the modes of discovery despite the Supreme Court instructing trial judges to encourage their use among lawyers appearing in their courts). I would venture that this is due to lack of appreciation of the benefits of stipulation. In a bouncing checks case, for instance, where receipt by the accused of the demand letter is now virtually an indispensable element of the crime, just imagine if you are able to get a stipulation of personal receipt by the accused: that's lifting a heavy (if not the heaviest) load off of your shoulders! And, if the accused also admits that the checks were his, and that they bounced, well, you're almost done. And that's just during the pre-trial stage! Or, even if we're aware and do appreciate the benefits of stipulation, we don't translate it to action by coming to the proceedings prepared (most of us just read through the proposals for stipulation enumerated in our pre-trial briefs). For instance, how can we commit to a stipulation if we are not familiar with the documents, or even facts, of the case? I suspect that we even suffer paranoia during these times. When confronted with a proposal, we know how it will affect our case because the facts proposed are sometimes so obvious that there Page 7 of 14

should be no reason not to stipulate on it. However, we instinctively say to ourselves, what if it is used against my case later on? Thus, we conclude that it is better to just deny it and let the other lawyer prove it during trial. What we probably don't realize is that an otherwise prejudicial fact somewhat loses its impact if, rather than being testified to by a witness, it is instead stipulated on. Of course, the judge must cooperate as well. She should be able to see through a lawyer's antics, whether the lawyer is responding to the proposals in good faith, is dragging his foot, or is just being plain obstinate. And she must act accordingly, chastising him if necessary. Here's something to ponder. A judge once told me that she's impressed with a lawyer who is cooperative during stipulations, and is willing to enter into it even if the facts may appear to hurt him. It shows that the lawyer knows his case, he knows how to spot the issues, and is confident of the righteousness of his cause. And it will never hurt to earn the good graces of your judge.

Effective proposals for stipulation of facts, Part 2 Here are some thoughts you may find useful in effectively preparing for and making proposals during preliminary or pre-trial conference: 1. Read the pleadings carefully: the complaint, answer, pre-trial brief, and everything else. This should be pretty obvious but, at one time or the other, we're guilty of grabbing the folder just the night before the conference, or scanning the files just hours before, or worse, not reading them at all, plunging into the conference thinking everything is just right up there in our head, ready to be retrieved if needed. Before this, however, you should have already listed down the elements of your case, and the facts needed to prove each element. Then, get the facts admitted by the pleadings. Chances are that most of the facts you would've had to prove are already admitted and there's just a few left that are truly disputed. 2. Analyze the facts you listed as admitted by the pleadings. Most of the time, the allegations in the answer or complaint are generalized statements, since the rules only require the parties to state the ultimate facts supporting their case. But, most of the time too, there are facts that can be implied from the admissions in the pleadings, which cannot be disputed by the other side without appearing stubborn. For instance, an admission in the pleadings that the promissory notes are forms that came from the bank can give way to an admission that your client did not have any participation in the actual preparation of the notes other than signing them. 3. Read the annexes carefully as well. The documents attached to the pleadings may be a treasure trove of possible admissions that can be extremely helpful to your case. And, as in no. 2 above, this covers not only those that are written in the documents themselves but those that can be implied from them as well. For instance, a provision in the contract that interest charges shall be based upon prevailing rates of interest at the time the payments are due may give way to an admission that the prevailing interest rate at the time was 12%. This will limit the extent of your client's liability, if the court do find him liable later on. Page 8 of 14

Tips 4 and 5 will deal with phrasing the proposals themselves and will be covered next time. Effective proposals for stipulation of facts, Part 3 More on making effective proposals for stipulation: 3. Limit the proposals to facts. This should be quite obvious because the proceedings is called "stipulation of facts" not "stipulation of arguments". Yet, it is not rare to still encounter a proposal such as this: will the plaintiff admit that he was negligent in crossing a street without a pedestrian lane? Obviously, whether an act is negligent or not is a conclusion of fact, one that is for the court to resolve; it is properly an argument, not a fact to be proved. If it is an argument, it will surely meet denial by the other side. The lawyer, however, may consider revising her proposal by limiting it to the fact that the plaintiff crossed the street. Then, she can follow up with another proposal that there was no pedestrian lane in that part of the street. Even if one is denied, the other may possibly be admitted. 4. Limit the proposal to one fact at a time. Much like in cross-examination where we are counseled to ask one fact at a time, so it is with proposals. If we compound the proposal, the other side can make a blanket denial; had we broken the proposal down, one of the facts may be admitted. For instance, this proposal: will the plaintiff admit that the contract of lease was terminated because the rents were not paid? This is obviously a proposal for 2 facts: one, the fact of termination, and two, the fact that the reason for the termination is that the rents were not paid. If the termination of the contract is already a given, then this proposal may be good since then, what we presumably are getting to is the reason for the termination. But even then, this proposal can still be improved; as it is, while the other side may concede that the rents were not being paid, he may resist the implication that this was the cause for the termination of the contract. We can propose two facts for admission: will the plaintiff admit that the lease contract was terminated? Then, will the plaintiff admit that the rents for January and February 2008 had not been paid? 5. Make the proposals in an affirmative tone. In other words, avoid proposals phrased in the negative: they are ambiguous, tend to confuse and may just automatically draw a denial. To avoid confusion, craft your proposals in an affirmative way. For instance, "will the plaintiff admit that he did not sign the contract" will be ambiguous if it is answered with a simple "denied" or "admitted". If denied, what the plaintiff is saying is that he admits signing the document. The denial to me is actually a yes to the contract. On the other hand, if he admits, he says "yes, he did not sign the document" which is to me, actually a denial of the contract. To make things simple, proposals must be in the affirmative. If we want the other party to say yes, the contract existed, or no, the contract did not exist, we simply ask, will the defendant admit that the contract was signed by him?

Page 9 of 14

Overcoming the "leading objection" "Objection, leading!" This is perhaps the most oft-repeated objection of all during direct examination. While most lawyers (and judges) gauge if a question leads or not by the standard "if it is answerable by yes or no, then it is leading," the rule-book definition of a leading question, however, is that it is a question which suggests the answer that the questioner desires. Of course, one way of avoiding this objection is not to ask a leading question at all. However, this may not be practical; in fact, it is not even advisable. There will always be occasions when you need to make your questions pointed and unequivocal to get maximum effect, or even just to avoid confusing your witness. This is why I noticed that seasoned trial lawyers lead one time or another. For instance, to emphasize a scene, you may have to use short and pointed questions to make it more vivid, such as when you want the witness to describe the scene of a robbery he witnessed while it was in progress. You'd want to convey fast-paced, heart-pounding action. Open-ended questions with long-winded answers simply will not do the trick; on the contrary, they'll just lose the impact that you'd have wanted. You want short questions; and you want equally short and crisp answers, moving the testimony forward in a fast cadence. You also may want to "lead" to dispel any probable "unresponsive" answers - those answers that you do not really intend - from your witness; otherwise, you may have to repeat your question to get what you want, and this just distracts the judge from the testimony. Consider the question "describe the door when you arrived at the apartment". While you may have simply wanted your witness to say that the door was already open when he arrived, he may get confused and start describing the door as "wooden, painted white, with brass knobs." One way of beating this objection is to watch your tone: be conscious of it. It cannot be described here accurately, but your tone of voice when you ask the question alerts the judge and other lawyer of the nature of the question. For instance, I once asked the witness on direct, "what were you doing at that house?" The witness answered, "we were there to fetch our friend on our way to the party." Then I followed up, in a matter-of-fact tone of voice, "so, you went by your friend's house first before you went to the party?" This last question could be objected to as leading, but because of the tone of the voice, it slipped by without the other lawyer noticing it. My next question was, "At what point did you take your first drink of beer that night?" Answer: "when we were already at the party." And then I asked, again in a matter-of-fact tone, "so, you were not yet drunk before you went to the party?" Again, this last question could have been objected to as leading were it for the tone of voice. Make the tone sound like you are just following up the answer with a question. Another way of overcoming this objection is to give the witness choices, so that it will not appear that you are suggesting the answer to him. If you want the witness to say that he was still sober when he arrived at the party, and it was only after that he got drunk, you'd have to go a round-about way of extracting these

Page 10 of 14

answers (unless of course, you and him have already memorized a script along these lines): Q: Upon arriving at the party, describe your state of mind. or, Q: How were you feeling when you arrived at the party? With these kinds of questions, who knows how the witness will answer? The better way is to suggest it to the witness without appearing to do so. Consider: Q: When you arrived at the party, were you drunk or still sober? or, Q: When you left the party, were you still able to walk, or did somebody have to carry you out? In time, with enough practice, you would not even notice anymore that your direct examinations did not draw a single "objection, Your Honor, leading".

Mistaken action I once inherited a case for an aunt of mine in the province. She and my uncle were sued for "annulment of a deed of sale" over the lot on which their conjugal home was built. When it was passed on to me, the case was already lost - in fact it was already for execution, my aunt's lawyer not having filed an appeal. The lawyer for the plaintiff had earlier filed a motion for execution asking that the court order my aunt's family to vacate the lot and the house. The judge actually granted the motion, and the sheriff served the notice on my aunt. However, it was apparent that there was nothing in the decision which says anything about the plaintiff being entitled to the ownership, much less possession of the house and lot. It did not say that my aunt have to vacate the property. All it said was that the deed of absolute sale was null and void. I filed a motion for reconsideration (of the order granting the execution) precisely on that ground. And, at the hearing, I also pointed out that, in fact, ownership may have already been with my aunt because of prescription. Before the case was filed, my aunt was already in the property for more than 10 years, and prescription in good faith (because of the colorable title that the deed of sale gave) may have already set in. I was thinking how a mistake - which could have been easily prevented by reasonable foresight - cost the plaintiff. He won in paper only. In reality, he gained nothing. Why ask for annulment of the conveyance and not ask for reconveyance (of ownership and possession)?

Page 11 of 14

Preparing witnesses 1: testimony to be in most persuasive form Witnesses must be prepared for direct examination. "Preparing witnesses" does not mean coaching him on his testimony. On the contrary, the witness should always be instructed to tell the truth; preparing means doing our duty as lawyers to present the witness’ testimony in the best and most persuasive light possible. We suggest that, even before the initial conference with the witness, the lawyer should've already asked him to write down everything that he knows about the case. In other words, he should write down his story. Sure, the lawyer himself can do this by taking notes during the interview, but there are numerous benefits in asking the witness to do this himself: First, the witness knows the facts that he will testify to more than the lawyer does or ever will. Asking the witness to write it down minimizes leaving out important facts or events. Of course, before the witness starts to write, the lawyer should have already focused the witness only on those events that he expects to question the witness during his testimony; otherwise the witness' written out story will be formless and fuzzy that it will not serve its purpose. Second, the witness becomes better prepared and more confident. After writing down his story, he knows that he has full grasp of the facts, and that knowledge will ease the apprehension when he takes the stand. Third, the witness’ recollection of the events will be better. We've all had this experience: unlike verbally narrating an event - when we sometimes blurt out words without meaning them - writing makes us think harder of the event. Chances are that the witness wrote and re-wrote his "essay" before he gives it to the lawyer, checking and rechecking his recollection of the events before he commits them on paper. By doing so, he jogs his memory more. And fourth, it becomes easy for the lawyer to prepare his outline of the witness' testimony. That same confidence of the witness will ultimately infect his lawyer, whose own confidence will come from knowing that his witness is well-prepared.

Preparing the witness 2: discussing the testimony with the witness When witness may be outline,

discussing the outline of the witness' testimony, the lawyer does not give the a copy, however. He recognizes the danger that, during cross-exam, the witness required to produce the outline if he unwittingly mentions it. If he does produce the it will give the impression that he was coached.

The lawyer merely discusses with the witness the facts he wishes to extract from the testimony. For instance, if the witness is an eye-witness, the lawyer may tell him, "What I will be asking you questions about will focus mainly on what you saw happened at the time of the event, and my questions may require some detailed answers. I may also ask you why you were there at the time, where you were located while the events were happening, and other questions which will provide the context of your testimony."

Page 12 of 14

Then - and this is key - he give the witness the topical points of the testimony, explaining to him its general order, where the probable beginning, middle and end will be, but always assuring him not to worry about the particular order as it is not written in stone and may, therefore, change. The witness must know the topics and the facts that will be taken up within these topics. Because of this discussion, he will instinctively recognize these topics as his direct examination goes along. It is also important that beforehand, the lawyer must have already discussed with the witness the role that his testimony will play in the case. For instance, the lawyer may say "You are an eyewitness to the robbery. Your testimony is therefore very important because it is you who can identify who the robbers were. You were there while the robbery was going on, so you can describe to the judge what the robbers did during and after the robbery, what was taken from you, and your mental state while the robbery was going on." This will make the witness aware of the significance of the topics that the lawyer will ask him during the examination. The lawyer does not rehearse the witness by going through a written Q & A with him. This will just make the witness nervous: he knows that when he takes the stand, only his lawyer will have a copy of the "script" while he will only have his memory to rely on. He may think he may screw up, forget something, or answer a question incorrectly. But, perhaps just to give him a feel of how the questions will be phrased, the lawyer can ask him a couple of sample questions to answer during the discussion. But, he has to be reminded that the words of the questions are not important: the lawyer may ask it in a different way, especially when there is an objection from the other lawyer. What is important is he understands the question and he should answer as he understood it, taking into account the topics that the lawyer discussed with him earlier.

Preparing witnesses 3: some reminders to the witness Below is just seven of the things that we usually discuss with the witness immediately before he takes the stand: 1. You are under oath to tell the truth, so just do that. If you do not know the answer, say you do not know. If you do not remember, say that, too. Don't guess. You may think that you knew something because somebody told you about it; however, when you're testifying in court, you don't really know that something because you were not there when it happened: you have not seen, witnessed or perceived the event by your own senses. So, say you do not know. Or, qualify your answer by telling the examiner the source of your knowledge: that you only knew it from someone else. 2. When your lawyer stands before the question is finished, that generally means he will be objecting to the question, so don't answer immediately. The judge will later decide if you will answer or not. 3. If you do not understand the question, do not answer. Instead, say that you did not get the question and ask that it be repeated. Remember, you are there to tell the truth; you'll not be able to do that if you didn't understand the question in the first place.

Page 13 of 14

4. Be courteous to the court and the other attorney. Address the judge as "Your Honor", the lawyers as "Sir" or "Madame." 5. Every word uttered in court is recorded, unless the lawyers and the court agree that it be "off-the-record". So speak clearly, slowly and loud enough so the stenographer will be able to record everything you say. It'll distracting if the stenographer interrupts the testimony and asks you to repeat what you said earlier so she can transcribe it. If you want to answer the question or questions in the vernacular, say so and your lawyer will ask permission from the judge. You’ll be allowed to do so. 6. Listen to the words of the question carefully, but do not interpret them. Ascribe only ordinary meaning to the words used. When the question is "who are you?", that usually refers to your name only; it is not a deep question that asks for your personality, or values, or advocacy. Answer only what is being asked. The questions and answers in court are unlike everyday conversations, when we can read meaning into questions and understand what the other is asking although different words may have been used. If necessary, ask that the question be interpreted in the vernacular first so you will feel comfortable with its meaning. 7. Your lawyer may ask you to recall conversations. Unless the question calls for it (of which you will be told beforehand), don’t be afraid to paraphrase; your lawyer is not asking you to repeat the conversation word for word. It is usually impossible to recall the exact words; what matters is the message that those words conveyed to you. It is different during cross-examination, however, where the other lawyer will attempt to "box" you into committing to the exact words that were used. Resist; say that you can only paraphrase. This will give you elbow room later if he repeats the question. Finally, we warn the witness not to be late. Only judges have that privilege.

Page 14 of 14