Submarine for PH

period.

“[W]here the incompetency or lack of qualification of a witness to testify on a particular matter clearly appears, his testimony thereon should be stricken. It is a sufficient ground for a motion to strike [if] want of knowledge of a witness … appeared on cross-examination after the court had [previously] ruled that the witness was competent” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 269-273).

Where the “testimony on direct examination was based on hearsay, his testimony is subject to a motion to strike and should be stricken. Likewise, testimony should be stricken where it is apparent that the witness is not testifying to anything within his own knowledge” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 269-273).

“Where testimony apparently based on hearsay is not clear, the court may temporarily overrule a motion to strike, and have further questions asked; and, if the objection is not thereafter removed, it has been held that a failure to strike is [an] error” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 269-273).

Where the subject matter of the evidence is privileged and the question was answered by the witness, the answer may be the subject of a motion to strike.

An answer to a question not based on facts but on speculation and probability, or an answer which argues instead of responding may also be stricken from the records.

If the answer is vague, unintelligible, or confusing, it may be stricken on motion.

“Testimony introduced without a proper foundation therefor, or on an insufficient foundation, may be stricken,” such as presenting secondary evidence of a destroyed document without proper foundation (see Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 269-273).

The testimony of a witness on a document not pre-marked during pre-trial may be presented during trial if properly reserved pursuant to Rule 18 of the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Hence, an answer pertaining to the reserved document is not a ground for a motion to strike.

“On the other hand,… evidence competent for any purpose, and relevant to any issue, should not be stricken, and evidence which, although inadmissible at the time it is admitted, subsequently becomes admissible need not be stricken” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 269-273).

The timeliness of a motion to strike “may depend on the situation presented in a given case, and it has been declared that there should be no strict rule. However, inexcusable delay in moving to strike… is ground for denying the motion” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 282-283).

“Ordinarily a motion to strike objectionable testimony must be made at the time the testimony is given [when] the impropriety of the testimony is then apparent. If the impropriety of the testimony is not apparent[,] it should be made immediately after its impropriety becomes apparent, as where the ground for the exclusion of the evidence appears for the first time on cross-examination” (Francisco, Evidence citing 88 C.J.S. 282-283).

The motion to strike the answer must be made before the witness examination is terminated or concluded.

Thus, the motion can no longer be entertained when the examination of another witness has commenced, when the party has rested its case, or when the case is submitted for resolution.

The court has to rule on the motion to strike an answer in a timely manner. The ruling of the court if tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may be questioned through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

Knowing how to move to strike an answer is important because it limits the presentation of evidence to material and relevant matters, and will prevent the court from rendering judgment based on muddled facts.

IT’S a tantalizing prospect: that the Philippines could soon acquire its firstever submarine as part of modernizing its armed forces.

If we do have our own submarine, we join the elite group of countries in Southeast Asia who already have this type of naval vessel, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Singapore.

The only question is: Can we afford it?

Perhaps the answer to that is: Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

And that seems to be what President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was thinking when he revealed last week that, yes, his administration wants to purchase a submarine so we can catch up with our neighbors in the region.

If four of our ASEAN partners have been able to prioritize the acquisition of submarines for their own defense, why can’t we? In the first place, we’re an archipelagic country with three main islands and some 7,000 plus small

We should beef up our naval defenses if we want to adequately protect our shores in the years ahead ones. We cannot forever remain under the shadow of the US naval might in this part of the world and always rely on them for our own security.

And then there’s the urgent need to reinforce our naval capability to protect our national sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as our Exclusive Economic (EEZ) amid China’s aggressive actions of late in the South China Sea.

What’s important at this point is that the Marcos Jr. administration wants the country to achieve a credible defense posture, that is, to equip our armed forces with ample capability to defend the country on land, sea and air.

Thus far, the government cannot afford to buy outright a submarine as we’re focused on economic construction in the post-COVID-19