IS IT PROPER TO CROSS EXAMINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF

DISCREDITING THE RELIABILITY OR CREDIBILITY OF AN

ADVERSE WITNESS WHOM YOU KNOW IS TELLING THE
TRUTH?

(Affirmative Side)

The right to cross examination is a vital element of due

process as embodied under Article III, Sec. 14, par. (2), of the 1987
Constitution which specifically mandates that the accused shall
enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to face, and Rule 115,
Sec. 1, par. (f), of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins that
in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to confront
and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. It is an
absolute right and not merely a privilege of the party against whom
the witness is called. It is in this context why the question Is it
proper to cross-examine for the purpose of discrediting the
reliability or credibility of an adverse witness whom you know is
telling the truth? must be answered in the affirmative.

In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on

him special powers of trust and confidence. Their relationship is
strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. The relation
is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that is required
by necessity and public interest. Only by such confidentiality and
protection will a person be encouraged to repose his confidence in
an attorney. The hypothesis is that abstinence from seeking legal
advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration
of justice. Thus, the preservation and protection of that relation will
encourage a client to entrust his legal problems to an attorney,
which is of paramount importance to the administration of
justice. One rule adopted to serve this purpose is the attorney-client
privilege: an attorney is to keep inviolate his clients secrets or
confidence and not to abuse them. Thus, the duty of a lawyer to
preserve his clients secrets and confidence outlasts the
termination of the attorney-client relationship, and continues even
after the clients death. It is the glory of the legal profession that its
fidelity to its client can be depended on, and that a man may safely
go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or supposed
rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that the lawyers
tongue is tied from ever disclosing it. With full disclosure of the facts
of the case by the client to his attorney, adequate legal
representation will result in the ascertainment and enforcement of
rights or the prosecution or defense of the clients cause. It is
because of the trust and confidence reposed by the client to his
lawyer where the latter would know the veracity of the witness
through the clients confession under the assurance that his
truthfulness will not prejudice him, so when a lawyer refuses to
cross-examine the witness because the lawyer knows he is telling
the truth, the client will feel betrayed and the basis for such candor
and confidence collapses. The Code of Professional Responsibility
Canon 21 mandates the preservation of confidentiality, to wit:

Canon - A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets

of his client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated.

xxxxxxxx

Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his

client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a
third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.
 The failure of a lawyer to cross-examine the witness just
because he knows the latter was telling the truth would violate this
rule because without the trust and confidence reposed to him by
the client, he would not be able to know such fact. Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court Sec. 6 provides for the purpose and extent of cross-
examination, to wit:

Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. Upon

the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse party as to many matters
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse,
and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

Cross examination is both a weapon to destroy or weaken the

testimony of the opponents witness and a tool to build up or
strengthen a partys case and a counsel is expected to give his due
to his client; Under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Section 20 par.
(i):

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney:

xxxxxxxx

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair

and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due
process of law.

The lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every

issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however
distasteful, that the lawyer thinks will help the clients case and to
endeavor to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy
authorized by law. When defending an accused person, it is the duty
of the lawyer to protect the client from being convicted.

It is worthy to conclude that it is still proper for the lawyer to

cross-examine for the purpose of discrediting the credibility and
reliability of an adverse witness, whom he knows is telling the truth.
The lawyer must not refrain from cross-examining the witness
because if he must, then the client would be hesitant in disclosing
the whole story of the case to his lawyer. Let us keep in mind that
it is essential to the administration of justice that there should be
perfect freedom of consultation by the client with his attorney
without any apprehension of a compelled disclosure by the attorney
to the detriment of the client.

Prepared by:

Richard A. Padaoan

John Sammy Fule

Chinita P. Viray

Homar de Guzman