
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
Category: Criminal Procedure
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
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
Category: Criminal Procedure
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
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 1 week ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 moreOral 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 moreArticle 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 moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 moreFORESHORE 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 moreCarolyn 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 moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 morePeople 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 morePerfection 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

