Nalitong witness: unintentionally stated testimony wrongly, realized after the oath

Hi Attorney, about our Case direct assault,when our witness, who is a barangay council (defense), was examined and asked, he told to lawyer on the question "what was the condition of the place during the incident, is it dark etc... what was the physical condition of the Barangay Captain - (plaintiff) as you saw him when you were called by the suspect (my companion) in your house???

- the witnessed answered: "as we him and the defendant who asked for his help) arrived at the barangay hall, it was bright because of the headlights of the police patrol car in front of us as I was talking to the Barangay captain... His dress was torn below the v- collar: chest part:"

**** Unfortunately Attorney,after the witnessing, as we go home, our Attorney asked him (witness) why did he uttered that the Barangay Captain's dress was torn? When during his pre-interview to him and in fact is the truth, is, the bArangay captain's dress was not torn when the he/witness arrived at the Barangay hall. He told he was confused during the earlier questioning and interpretations of the interpreter. He though the question was the situation of the Barangay Captain at the Police Station....

>> because we are establishing here Attorney that the Barangay Captain ripped his own dress before he followed at the Police Station..(because we were transported using the police car, together with the 3 policemen, our witness-the kagawad, and the 2 of us- defendant).

The fact is, our barangay captain created story that my companion torn his dress when he was held at his collar during the dispute at the Barangay Hall..

>> We strongly believe that he himself torn his dress (ripped horizontally? when he was claiming he was collared???)

>> The barangay Captain mauled us, I got black-eye while my companion got bruises also,

>> The only good thing that helped us in this case by our single-witness (kagawad) is that he affirmed and confirmed that the policemen witnessing for the Plaintiff are not really those who responded in our barangay hall during the incident.. Our witness named those police(3) who actually responded and with us in the patrol car as we were transported to the Police station. Contradiction to those 2 corrupt police who seated under oath to favor our Barangay captain- but they did never came during that particular incident...they lied under oath... created stories dictated by our notorious barangay captain.. yet the 3 of them did not unified there statement regarding who responded at the incident, they stated different names on there 3rd-companion/ policemen who responded.

>> I am about to sit on the witness Stand Attorney this wednesday, and I might be also asked if I saw the Captain's torn dress.. The truth is, it was not torn... What shall I say? if I'd say it was not torn, will it not negate all our witness' testimony? The credibility of all his statements? Including the real policemen who came during the incident?


-- Can our witness still take back the wrong statement he uttered in court? What shall we do Attorney?

-- It could have been better for our case if he did not made that mistake. If he was not confused....

>> What he would want to testify, which is the truth is... By the time he came to the barangay hall just after the mauling incident, the captain's dress had no torn.. But as we meet at Police station in town, his dress had already torn as he faced the Police investigators...

Please advise attorney...

regards and more Power

it would have been better if the attorney had caught the mistake immediately and corrected it on re-direct. you can present him again later on as sur-rebuttal witness.

just state what you know to be true. do not lie on the witness stand.

Thank you for the immediate reply attorney... I don't understand why our attorney did not do as what you have advised... Could he just forgot it?

How then will I tell to our Attorney to re-present that witness as sur-rebuttal witness without getting offended Sir?

Will it not lessen his credibility as witness Attorney?

How will then, be supposedly the questioning be done in order to emphasize the wrongly declared torn dress Sir?

Because I noticed that when the Fiscal motioned for "leading question", most of the time the question or purpose was no longer continued... leading questions are hardly rephrased thus the substance and direction of the questioning is diverted and unfulfilled. hewwssss.

One more thing Attorney... Since it is but very obvious that the 2 policemen who are amongst the 4 witnesses of the plaintiff are lying, in regards to who responded at the Barangay when the Barangay captain/ plaintiff called at the police station.. Because there were 3 policemen who came that night.Yet only one of the actual police who came were amongst the witness in court, the other 2 were the police investigators who were allegedly paid by the plaintiff & that they are close friends, who really did not came during the incident. Instead they were the only ones who made the police report / blotter. Thus when they stood in the court, Police A stated the names of his 2 other companions, that included E and certain other police (F)...

Then on the next hearing, Police E also said there were 3 of them who went to the scene, that was Police A and the other one was not (F) but named other police...

When our Witness (defense), a Barangay Kagawad at that time, stood, he clearly mentioned the names of the 3 police officers who actually came, and who were with us in the police mobile when we were move to the precinct. In the mobile there were 3 policemen, the driver (who first stood in the witness stand), next to him, another police who did not testified... while at the back were a police - who did not also testified, the Barangay Kagawad, me and my co-defendant.

>> With this, being so clear that their 2 police witnesses really lied in court,as based on their conflict of testimony, should that be a ground for them to lose the case attorney? Can that be a valid reason to negate the " beyond reasonable doubt" part of conviction?

I am so nervous for it is my first time to be charged and to stand in court.. I fear for my Family, I have 4 little kids with only me striving hard to work to feed them and send them to school..
Thank you attorney

ask your attorney to give you a list of questions so you can at least practice and even if a question is objected to, you can still bring out the important point. testimony is the witness's ball game, not the lawyer's.

i'm afraid i do not wish to second guess the judge on this matter. it all depends how he appreciates it. look at him closely during trial.