Practice question
A witness admits no recollection because years have passed. Counsel converts that answer into an affirmative declaration that the disputed transaction never happened, then claims the conversion supplies stronger negative evidence. Which is correct?
- Any forgotten fact legally did not occur
- Lack of recollection cannot simply be enlarged into personal knowledge of nonoccurrence
- Counsel may replace the witness’s answer with a stronger fact
- Negative wording automatically creates a complete observational foundation
- The time lapse proves forgery
Legal references
- A.M.19-08-15-SC, current Rules128,130 Sections1,21–22 and133 Sections1–5: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf
- Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R.156284, February6,2007, MAIN: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_156284_2007.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.