Nick’s Daily

17/08/2026

11/08/2026

Join us this August 12, 2026 at 9:00 AM, live via Zoom* and Facebook Live for a FREE webinar to learn about the One-Time Abatement for Micro Taxpayers.

Scan the QR Code to pre-register.

*Note: In case participants are unable to join the Zoom due to limited slots, please join via the Facebook Live.

31/07/2026

WHAT SHOULD BE YOUR DEMEANOR IN COURT AS CROSS-EXAMINER?
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

During the cross-examination, the judge does not only look or observe the demeanor of the witness being cross-examined but also the behavior, attitude and demeanor of the cross-examiner.

We must remember that judges usually pull for the witness rather than the lawyer because they believe that the witness is overmatched when confronted by a trained lawyer. Therefore, you usually will fare better if you discredit the testimony and secure factual concessions rather than attack the witness as a person. Bullying the witness may backfire, causing the
judge to resent your attitude.

If the witness scores points under these circumstances, a witness may have an exaggerated impact. So, often use the witness to prove your points. Try to secure concessions from a witness for the other side add credibility to your word picture.

In conducting your croos-examination, consider the following pointers

1. YOUR EMOTION.

During the cross-examination, feel free to show controlled emotion. Thus, in the right circumstances, reactions such as surprise, disgust, and dismay may validate your position. The key is to keep them in their proper place-where the reaction is appropriate to the testimony. The last thing you want is for the judge to conclude that your emotional response is faked or overdone.

Further, you should always beware that people expect you to be professional, which requires emotional control. Your reaction should be less apparent than might be expected
from a layman.

2. YOUR CONVICTION.

In examining the witness you should have an air of convic- tion and certainty. Speak in a loud, authoritative voice. You should give the impression that you know the facts and have material to back them up. This attitude makes you the storyteller and lends credibility to your contentions. Additionally, it should make the witness reluctant to dispute your statements.

3. YOUR POSITION.

Stand when you conduct the examination. Sitting generally sends a passive, submissive signal. Moreover, it cedes prominence to the witness, as his chair is usually positioned higher than yours. Additionally, it is hard to exude a presence from a sitting position.

By standing, you assume the dominant role and help yourself control the exchange. Since you do not necessarily want attention focused on the witness in cross-examination, you should stand where the judge can see you as well as the witness. Try to stand in front of the witness box so that they do not have to look back and forth. If the court makes you stand at a podium, try to position it so that the judge can observe both you and the witness.

4. YOUR EYE CONTACT.

You should look at the witness during the examination. Eye contact makes it harder for the witness to dispute your assertions. If you are looking at the witness, and he looks down, you appear to be the one who is right.

Additionally, if you show emotion it seems more real if you look at the witness. You obviously need to check your notes periodically, but do so unobtrusively. You also must listen to what the witness has to say. You cannot impeach if you do not know what the witness says. Looking and listening are essential to controlling the examination.

5. YOUR COURTESY.

Although many attorneys try to admonish and instruct witnesses in cross-examination, they are not entitled to do so. The court, not the examiner, is empowered to instruct witnesses how to respond. You have no right to tell the witness that he should only answer "Yes" or "No” to your leading question. it is the prerogative of the judge as fact-finder. If you think that the answer is not responsive, you ask the judge to admonish the witness to answer properly or move to strike the answer from the records which you think is unresponsive.

May mga lawyers na tinuturuan ang mga adverse witnesses sa dapat isagot nila na “yes or no”lang. Mali po yan. Nagtatanong ka lang bahala sila na sumagot saiyo ng gusto nila.

Again, the lawyer is not entitled to limit the witness to yes or no; a witness generally may explain a response. Indeed, if a question cannot fairly be answered with a yes or no, the witness is entitled to respond in a different manner. The attorney does have a right to an answer that responds to the question, however; if the witness addresses a different matter, the court may strike the answer as unresponsive.

CONCLUSION:

Bullying a witness generally is counterproductive. If you interrupt, admonish, and instruct the witness to answer yes or no, you will provoke an objection. Some judges have unusual rules for cross-examination, but most tend to protect the witness giving him the right to explain without interruption.

Further, most judges do not permit counsel to instruct or admonish a witness. Thus, your action may produce a rebuke. Additionally, even if the judge allows you to cut off and bully a witness, this action may make the fact-finder pull for the witness.

God bless us.

13/07/2026

ASK LEADING QUESTIONS ONLY
DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

As a trial lawyer and cross-examiner myself, I am impressed by the performance of Atty. Mark Vinluan in cross-examining Atty. Jeremy Lotoc from the NBI. Do you know what fascinates me from his barrage of cross-examination questions? His ability to control the answers of the witness. How did he control the witness? By ASKING A SERIES OF LEADING QUESTIONS!

ASK ONLY LEADING QUESTIONS IN CROSS-EXAMINATIONS.

The cardinal rule of cross-examination is to ask only leading questiins. Leading leadings contain or suggest their own answers. A leading question is one which puts the desired answer in the mouth of the witness by suggesting the desired answer. In leading questions, it is the attorney who is really the one testifying (telling the story) and the witness. is merely affirming the lawyer’s testimony, often by responding with “yes” or “no” answers.

Although generally prohibited during direct examination, leading questions are allowed during cross-examination because it is assumed that your adversary’s witnesses will not cooperate with you. The right to askleading questions is also usually understood to include the right to insist on receiving a responsive answer from the witness.

Cross-examination is no time to seek the witness’s interpretationof the facts; rather, it is the time for you to tell a story by obtaining thewitness’s assent.

How can you be sure to ask only leading questions? The answer is preparation. It appears that Atty Vinluan prepared himself with his questions by looking at his notes as his guide. He propounded questions and did not care what the answers of Atty. Lontoc might be. In his questions, he was introducing the theory of the defense to be@ heard by the senator-judges.

When you cross-examined, it is very important that you are thoroughly familiar with the facts of the case and familiar with your documentary evidence and of the prosecution. Look for material inconsistencies in the exhibits of your opponent, statements in the report and testimony of witnesses during the trial.

Likewise, you also highlight the bias, prejuice and interest of the witness and test the accuracy and truthfulness of the witness based on the issues of the case.

Read thoroughly your case file until you are confident of what testimony the witness must provide. Read the witness’s affidavits, scour the report, and read the other witnesses’ affidavits. Then, once you are certain that there is no plausible denial,tell the witness exactly what they did. Because your leading questionis based upon a verifiable fact, the witness will have no choice but to agree with you.

Further, leading questions enable the cross-examiner to tell the case story as the examiner wants it told. In a leading question, the examiner makes a statement of one fact to support his theory of the case and puts in a word or two like “True?” or “Is that correct?” or just raises the tone of voice at the end of the sentence to make the statement sound more like a question.

In leading the question, it is the lawyer who is actually testifying by making a declarative statement to the witness, and the adverse witness is merely asked to confirm it.

Next time you cross, lead like Atty. Mark Vinluan.

08/07/2026

THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIONS
DURING THE TRIAL.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada

We maybe irritated by the multiple and continuing objections of the lawyer for the defense to the direct examination conducted by Atty. Ligutan. But in court trial, it has a purpose for the lawyer who is objecting.

Objections raise and resolve evidentiary disputes. You may object to the questions posed by attorneys, the testimony given by witnesses, the introduction or use of exhibits, or to the demeanor or behavior of any of the participants of a trial.

Although most people associate the process of objecting with contentiousness and even hostility, that need not be the case.

Our adversary system relies upon opposing attorneys to present evidence and the judge to decide upon its admissibility. An objection, then, is nothing more than a signal to the judge that there is a disagreement between counsel concerning the rules of evidence or procedure.

When there are no objections, which is the overwhelming majority of the time, the judge can allow evidence to come into the record without a specific ruling. If we had no process of objecting, the trial judge would have to rule upon every separate answer and item of evidence. Thus, unless the process is abused or misused, trials are actually expedited by the judge’s ability to rely upon counsel to object to questionable evidence.

The lawyer objecting is called the opponent of the evidence, whereas the lawyer attempting to present the evidence is the proponent.

TWO TYPES OF OBJECTIONS:

There are two main types of objections: SUBSTANTIVE and NONSUBSTANTIVE.

Substantive objections bring into question the admissibility of the content of the testimony or exhibit at issue. Non-substantive objections raise the appropriateness of the manner in which the information is being sought or delivered to the court.

One: THE NON-SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS.

The most common non-substantive objections are challenges to
the form of a question asked.

For example, a leading question on direct examination is improper because it tells the witness what answer is expected. Even if the answer itself would be admissible, the question is not allowed because of its suggestiveness.

Likewise, compound questions, vague questions, and argumentative questions, to name a few, are also objectionable because of their form. Non-substantive objections may also be made to anything else that might have an impermissible impact on the trier of fact.

For instance, a lawyer can object if opposing counsel raises their voice to
a witness or approaches the witness in an intimidating manner. Likewise, counsel may object to the manner in which exhibits are displayed or to the position of chairs and tables in the courtroom.

Two: SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS.

Even if a question is phrased in the proper form, it may nonetheless call for inadmissible evidence. The information sought. may be irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, or hearsay. For instance, the question, “What is your religious affiliation?” is in proper form but any answer would be inadmissible under most rules of evidence since it is almost certainly irrelevant.

In addition, even if a question is not objectionable, a witness may respond with an inadmissible answer. The answer might voluntee irrelevant information, it might contain unanticipated hearsay, or it
might consist entirely of speculation.

For example, a direct examiner could ask the perfectly allowable question, “How do you know that the traffic light was red?” only to receive the hearsay reply, “Because Mr. Reyes told me just last week.” Hearing this response, opposing counsel would no doubt object to the answer and move
that it be stricken from the record.

Three: THE RULES OF OBJECTING.

The guidance to follow in determining whether, when, and how to object, as well as. how to respond to and recover from objections.

1. CONSIDER OBJECTION CAREFULLY.

When deciding whether to object, ask yourself if the objection is truly necessary. Not every valid objection needs to be made. Objections can be tiresome: they interrupt the flow of the evidence, they distract attention from the real issues at hand, and they have an awful tendency to degenerate into whining. You may even lose points with the judge by incessantly interrupting your opposition only to point out your incredible grasp of the rules of evidence.

For instance, there is little point to objecting if opposing counsel will be able to rectify the problem simply by rephrasing the question, as is the case with most non-substantive objections that address the improper form of a question. This is particularly true of leading questions on direct examination. I do not normally object as to the form of question if the adverse counsel can just rephrase the question.

EXAMPLE:

PROPONENT: Isn’t it true that you had the green light as you approached the intersection?

OPPONENT: Objection, counsel is leading their own witness.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

PROPONENT: What color was the traffic light as you approached the intersection?

OPPONENT: It was green. (Lusot din, binago lang nya ang porma ng tanong.)

In this example, the objection to the leading question excluded no evidence and may actually have emphasized the witness’s testimony that the light was green. Although it was technically proper, counsel would have been just as well off not making the objection. Of course, the persistent use of leading questions to feed answers to a witness is quite another matter. In those circumstances, an objection should almost always be made.

2. DIRECT ALL ARGUMENTS TO THE JUDGE.

Objections at trial are conducted as a conversation between counsel and the court. Ideally, the opponent of the evidence argues first, followed by the proponent of the evidence and concluding with a reply from the opponent. In practice, however, the format is often much less formal, with the judge asking questions and counsel responding.

No matter what, do not argue with, or even address, opposing counsel. It is the judge who will make the ruling and the judge who must be convinced. It is ineffective, distracting, and even insulting to the court when counsel turn to each other to argue their objections.

OPPONENT: Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation.

PROPONENT: What more foundation could you want, counselor?

OPPONENT: Well, you could start with a basis for personal knowledge.

PROPONENT: He already testified that he is the comptroller. Isn’t that enough for you?

No matter how foolish, trite, or easily disposed of the other side’s position seems, always avoid speaking directly to opposing counsel. Make all of your arguments to the court. Sana ma realize ito ng mga private lawyers sa impeachment trial na huwag mamersonal sa kapwa abogado. Avoid character assasination against a fellow lawyer. They are watched by the public in social media and they should maintain proper decorum.

3. RAISE THE OBJECTIONS APPROPRIATELY.

The accepted format for making and meeting objections may differ from court to court. The majority approach is as follows.

A: STAND UP.

Stand whenever you speak to the presiding judge, including when you raise objections. Sitting while objecting can be seen as a sign of disrespect to the judge.

Some judges refuse to entertain objections from seated counsel. Even if a judge allows you to object while sitting, most will not be pleased by the practice. Stand when you object unless the presiding judge requires that you remain seated instead, which is the rule in a few jurisdictions.

Aside from showing respect to the court, there is another benefit to standing while objecting. Since the purpose of objecting is to keep inadmissible information from being introduced at trial, standing to make your objection draws the physical attention of everyone in the courtroom away from the current action and onto you.

B: OBJECT AND STATE YOUR GROUNDS.

The best way to state your objection is clearly and concisely. For instance: “Objection, Your Honor, relevance.” “Objection, counsel is leading the witness.” “Your Honor, we object—hearsay.” “Objection, lack of foundation.” You may also refer directly to the precise rule of evidence on which your objection relies. This method demonstrates your knowledge of the rules and impeccable trial preparation, in addition to signaling to the judge the specific nature of your objection.

C) IF APPROPRIATE, RESPOND TO THE COURT.

If the judge sustains your objection immediately, your job is done.
If the judge overrules it, you may wish to politely ask the judge if you may be heard on the matter further by stating, “Your Honor, may I be heard?” Use this technique prudently, however. If the judge allows you to be heard after ruling against you once and your additional statements do not change their mind, the judge is unlikely to allow you the luxury again.

If the judge seeks a response from opposing counsel, the court will usually return to you so you may have the last say. If the judge does not invite your reply, let your instincts tell you whether it is appropriate for you to ask to be heard on the matter again. You might say, “May I respond, Your Honor?” This technique is also useful for those times when the judge appears to be wavering on the ruling or pausing in thought. It is usually safe to take these cues as invitations to further explain your argument. Always ask permission to argue before you do so.

God bless us.

REFERENCE:

Mock Trials, Preparing, presenting, and Winning Your Case
by Jill Coster& Steven Lubet, National Institute for Trial Advocacy. (NITA) Third Edition.