Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in issue in the
case. It is therefore inadvisable
for a judge to ask an objecting counsel why an offered piece of evidence is irrelevant or immaterial. By his inquiry, he shows his unfamiliarity with the issues in the case. A judge is
expected to be aware of the issues which he was supposed to have defined and limited in his mandatory pre-trial order. On the other hand, the grounds for objection to the
competency of evidence must be specified[6] and are determined by the Rules or the law.
The opposites of the three requisites for admissibility of evidence, viz, irrelevancy, immateriality or incompetency, are the general grounds for objection. The first two are valid
grounds for objection without need of specification or explanation. The third ground for objection, incompetency, if offered without further explanation, is not valid for being
unspecific, except when invoked in reference to the lack of qualification of a witness to answer a particular question or give a particular evidence.
B. Proper Presentation Of Evidence
Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain processes of presentation for its admissibility and admission.
1. Object evidence
Object evidence must generally be marked (Exhibit A, B, etc. for the plaintiff; Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc. for the defendant) either during the pre-trial or during its presentation at the trial. It
must also be identified as the object evidence it is claimed to be. This requires a testimonial sponsor. For example, a forensic chemist identifies marijuana leaves as those
[7]
submitted to him in the case for examination. Further, object evidence must be formally offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.
2. Oral evidence
Oral evidence is presented through the testimony of a witness. Under the 1989 Rules on Evidence, oral evidence must be formally offered at the time the witness is called to
testify.[8] Objections may then be raised against the testimony of the witness. If the objection is valid, as when the witness’ testimony is barred by the hearsay rule or the opinion
rule, the witness will not be allowed to testify. If the witness is otherwise allowed to testify, he shall be sworn in, either by taking an oath or making an affirmation.[9] It is essential
that the proper foundation for the testimony of a witness must be laid. An ordinary witness must be shown to have personal knowledge of the facts he shall testify to; otherwise,
his testimony will be hearsay, or he will be incompetent to answer the questions to be asked of him. An expert witness must be specifically qualified as such; otherwise, he cannot
validly give his opinion on matters for which he may have been summoned as a witnes
