Cases (Leading and Misleading Questions)

Question 1

For automatic review is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding appellant Jesus S. Perez guilty of raping Mayia P. Ponseca and imposing on appellant the death penalty. On appeal, Appellant contends that his identification in open court by Mayia was highly irregular. Appellant points out that the prosecutor had already identified him as the man wearing an orange t-shirt when the prosecutor asked Mayia to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant stresses that when Mayia identified him in open court, she referred to him as a man named “Johnny” and did not give any description or any identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in the cell when Mayia identified him after the police arrested him. Appellant bewails that the identification was not done with the usual police line-up.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of the minor-victim should be expunged on the ground that leading questions were asked during her testimony in court

Answer 1

No. As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000, namely,
(1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth,
(2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child,
(3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and
(4) avoid waste of time. Leading questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the same will further the interests of justice.”