A+ A A-

RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION?

>     It means that the accused can only be tried using those witnesses that meet him face to face at the trial who give testimony in his  presence, and who may be subject to cross-examination
 

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THE RIGHT?

>     The  right  to  confrontation  is  afforded  the  accused  to  allow  the court to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying and to give the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in order to test their recollection and credibility
 

CAN THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BE WAIVED?

>     Yes, it can be waived either expressly or impliedly
>     It  is  waived  impliedly  when  an  accused  waives  his  right  to  be present at trial
>     It is waived also by conducting amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine
>     When the party was given an  opportunity to confront and  cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons  attributable  to  the  party  alone,  he  is  deemed  to  have
waived his right
 

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO DIES OR BECOMES UNAVAILABLE?            

>     If  the  other  party  had  the  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the witness before he died or became unavailable, the testimony may be used as evidence
>     However, if the other party did not have the opportunity to cross-examine  before  the  subsequent  death  or  unavailability  of  the witness, the testimony will have no probative value.
>     What  suffices  to  be  able  to  use  the  testimony  of  a  witness  as evidence is the opportunity to cross-examine and there need not be an actual cross-examination


RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION?

>     It means that the accused can only be tried using those witnesses that meet him face to face at the trial who give testimony in his  presence, and who may be subject to cross-examination
 

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THE RIGHT?

>     The  right  to  confrontation  is  afforded  the  accused  to  allow  the court to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying and to give the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in order to test their recollection and credibility
 

CAN THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BE WAIVED?

>     Yes, it can be waived either expressly or impliedly
>     It  is  waived  impliedly  when  an  accused  waives  his  right  to  be present at trial
>     It is waived also by conducting amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine
>     When the party was given an  opportunity to confront and  cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons  attributable  to  the  party  alone,  he  is  deemed  to  have
waived his right
 

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO DIES OR BECOMES UNAVAILABLE?            

>     If  the  other  party  had  the  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the witness before he died or became unavailable, the testimony may be used as evidence
>     However, if the other party did not have the opportunity to cross-examine  before  the  subsequent  death  or  unavailability  of  the witness, the testimony will have no probative value.
>     What  suffices  to  be  able  to  use  the  testimony  of  a  witness  as evidence is the opportunity to cross-examine and there need not be an actual cross-examination


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

DE GARCIA V. CA 37 …

DE GARCIA V. CA37 SCRA 160FACTS:Guevarra was the owner of a lady’s diamond ring with white gold mounting, solitaire 2-karat diamond as well as 4 brills. It was stolen from her house. On a relevant date, while she was talking to Garcia, an owner of a ...

Read more

FORESHORE LANDS, SU…

FORESHORE LANDS, SUBMERGED AREAS, AND RECLAIMED LANDS> A foreshore land is that strip off land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tide> Inalienable unless converted by law...

Read more

Carolyn Garcia v. R…

LOAN   In Carolyn Garcia v. Rica Marie Thio, G.R. No. 154878, March 16, 2007, Rica received from Carolyn a crossed check in the amount of $100,000.00 payable to the order of Marilou Santiago. Thereafter, Carolyn received from Rica payments. Aga...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook