If you have been following the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, you probably saw the clip. A private prosecutor objected that a question to a witness was misleading and reminded the defense that misleading questions are not allowed. Defense counsel replied that they are. Within a day, the exchange had its own hashtag, a viral Facebook post from another prosecutor, a manifestation from the defense about decorum, and a fresh round of shouting online about who was right.
The defense later clarified that it was referring to leading questions, not misleading ones. That distinction is the whole point of this article. The two words sound alike and get used loosely in everyday speech, but in a Philippine courtroom they mean very different things. Here is what they actually mean, so you can follow the trial on the merits rather than on the noise.
First, the four stages of examining a witness
When a witness takes the stand, the questioning happens in a fixed order under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:
- Direct examination — the side that called the witness asks the questions. The goal is to get the witness's own story out, in the witness's own words.
- Cross-examination — the opposing side now questions the same witness. The goal is to test that story: probe its accuracy, expose bias, and bring out facts the other side left out.
- Redirect examination — the original side gets the witness back, but only to explain or supplement answers given during cross. New topics are allowed only if the court permits.
- Recross examination — the opposing side responds to whatever came up on redirect, and to other matters only if the court allows.
Think of it as a conversation with turns. Each turn is narrower than the one before it, and the presiding officer controls the boundaries.
What a leading question is
A leading question is one that suggests the answer the lawyer wants. "You were at the office on the afternoon of March 3, correct?" tells the witness what to say and asks only for agreement. Compare that with "Where were you on the afternoon of March 3?" which lets the witness supply the fact.
Leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination. The reason is simple: if your own lawyer can feed you the answers, the testimony is really the lawyer's, not yours. There are exceptions — preliminary matters, a witness who is very young, unable to communicate well, hostile, or is the adverse party — but the default on direct is open-ended questions.
Leading questions are allowed on cross-examination. Here the witness belongs to the other side, and the examiner's job is to pin down and test the testimony. Pointed yes-or-no questions are the standard tool for that. So when the defense said "they are allowed" and meant leading questions on cross, that statement is correct.
What a misleading question is
A misleading question is different in kind. Under the same Section 10 of Rule 132, it is a question that assumes as true a fact the witness has not yet testified to, or one that contradicts what the witness already said. The classic example is "When did you stop falsifying the vouchers?" asked of a witness who never admitted falsifying anything. Whatever the witness answers, the question has smuggled in a fact.
Misleading questions are not allowed at any stage — not on direct, not on cross, not on redirect or recross. The latitude that cross-examination gives a lawyer is latitude to lead, not latitude to plant facts that are not in the record. That is why the prosecutor's objection, and the later Facebook post saying misleading questions are prohibited even on cross, were also correct as statements of the rule.
Why "just answer yes or no" is where these two collide
Much of the trial friction came from demands that a witness answer only yes or no. On cross, a lawyer is entitled to ask a closed question and to insist on a responsive answer. But the witness is also entitled to answer truthfully, and a truthful answer to a question that assumes a false premise is often neither yes nor no. When that happens, the proper move is an objection that the question is misleading, and the presiding officer decides whether to require the lawyer to rephrase. The witness's remedy is not to argue with counsel; it is to say the question cannot be answered as framed and let the court rule.
What this means for you as a viewer
A few things to keep in mind as the trial continues:
- A lawyer being aggressive on cross is not misconduct. Leading, pointed, yes-or-no questions are the job.
- A lawyer asking a question that assumes a fact nobody has proven is objectionable. Watch for the objection, and watch for the ruling.
- An objection is not a verdict on the lawyer. Objections are how the rules get enforced in real time; being overruled or sustained is ordinary trial work.
- The Senate sitting as an impeachment court has its own rules of procedure and is not bound to apply the Rules of Court with the same strictness as a regular trial court. Senator-judges have historically applied the rules of evidence with some liberality. Do not be surprised when the presiding officer resolves an objection more pragmatically than a trial judge would.
The exchange that went viral was, in the end, a dispute over a single word. Two lawyers were each stating a correct rule about a different thing. Understanding that lets you turn down the volume on the commentary and pay attention to what actually matters: what the witnesses say, what the documents show, and how the court rules.