Claire Castro Says Misleading Questions Are Not Allowed in Cross-Examination
The Palace press officer commented on questioning during the impeachment proceedings; her remarks were an outside assessment, not a ruling by the impeachment court.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said misleading questions are prohibited during cross-examination, arguing that poorly framed questions could confuse witnesses and distort their testimony.
“Basic, this is so basic. Misleading questions are not allowed, especially during cross-examination,” Castro said.
She explained that requiring a witness to answer only “yes” or “no” may be inappropriate when the question calls for clarification or a more complete explanation.
Castro also warned against allowing confusing exchanges to create inaccurate impressions about what a witness actually said.
“So, hindi—sanay-sanay na nga tayo sa fake news, pati ba naman sa hearing magkakaroon pa ng fake news,” she remarked.
Her statement roughly translates to: “We are already so used to fake news. Should we also have fake news during the hearing?”
Leading and Misleading Questions Are Different
Under Rule 132, Section 10 of the Philippine Rules on Evidence, leading questions are generally allowed during cross-examination. A leading question suggests the answer that the examining lawyer wants from the witness.
A misleading question is different. The rule defines it as one that assumes a fact is true even though the witness has not testified to it, or one that contradicts the witness’s earlier testimony. Such questions are not allowed.
A question seeking a “yes” or “no” answer is therefore not automatically misleading. Its acceptability depends on its wording, the facts already established and the context in which it is asked.
Objections to particular questions must ultimately be resolved by the authority presiding over the proceedings.
Castro Says She Respects the Lawyers’ Styles
Despite criticizing misleading questions, Castro clarified that she was not passing judgment on the lawyers or their respective courtroom strategies.
“Ayaw kong mag-judge, ayaw kong mag-judge [ng] style ng mga lawyers, so respeto ko lang sa kanila iyon,” the Palace official said.
She emphasized that she respected the lawyers’ styles while maintaining that questions should not be framed in a way that could confuse a witness or misrepresent the testimony presented during the hearing.
The Palace official’s comments represent her assessment of the proceedings and not a formal ruling by the impeachment court.
As the trial continues, the exchanges between lawyers, witnesses and members of the impeachment court are expected to remain under close public scrutiny. Clear questioning and accurate reporting will be essential in helping the public understand the testimony and evidence without taking statements out of context.
This report is based on Claire Castro’s publicly reported remarks. It has been updated to explain the distinction between leading and misleading questions under the Philippine Rules on Evidence.
Sources, legal context and disclosure
Castro’s quoted remarks are presented as publicly reported comments. The explanation of leading and misleading questions was checked against the Supreme Court’s amended Rules on Evidence.
- Supreme Court of the Philippines via Lawphil — 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence, Rule 132
- Lawphil — Rules of Court on evidence
- Senate of the Philippines eClips — Day 15 impeachment-trial summary
Editorial note: Castro was commenting on the proceedings; she was not issuing a ruling for the impeachment court. Whether a specific question is objectionable is decided by the presiding authority in context. This report does not take a position on the merits of the impeachment case or the conduct of any lawyer.