Evidence report

Sy - Rule 132 Secs 27-40

Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private document may
be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (28a)

Public record of private document may be proved:

1. By the original public record of private document
2. By a certified copy thereof attested by the legal custodian who has the custody of the original
record

Section 28. Proof of lack of record. —  A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an
official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (29)

The certification of lack of record must show that:

1. That the officer or his deputy has the custody of official records in his office
2. Such officer or deputy conducted a diligent search of a record or entry of a specified tenor
3. After diligent search, the records of his office do not contain such record or entry of a specified
tenor or no such record or entry is found to exist.

Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of: (a)
want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the party
offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (30a)

Judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:

1. Lack of jurisidiction of the court or the judicial officer
2. Collusion between parties or
3. Fraud in the party offering the record regarding the judicial proceeding

Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment
being  prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a)

The certificate of acknowledgment in the notarized document constitutes prima facie evidence of the
execution thereof. (CITIBANK vs Sabeniano 504 SCRA 378)
A public document duly acknowledged before a notary public, under his hand and seal with his
certificate thereto attacked, is admissible in evidence without, further proof of its due execution and delivery
until some question is raised as to the verity of said acknowledged and certificate (Antillon vs Barcellon 37
SCRA phil 148)
A notarial document is evidence the the facts in clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. Ih has in
its facor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these there must be evidence that isclear, convincing
an morethan merely preponderant. (Cabrera vs Villanueva 160 SCRA 672)
Notarizaton of a private document converts with document into a public one, and renders it admissible
in court withour further proof of its authenticity ( joson vs Baltazar, 194 SCRA 59)
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the
document shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)

To be admissible in evidence, the alteration in the document must be shown:

1. That the alteration was made by another person without the concurrence of the party objecting to it
2. That the alteration was made with the consent of the parties affected by it
3. That the alteration was properly or innocently made or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the document

Section 32. Seal. — There shall be NO difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as
their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (33a)

Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. —  Documents written in an unofficial language

shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid
interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before
trial. (34a)

The official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and English. (Section 7, art XIV, The Philippine
Constitution)
Thus, written documents to be admissible in evidences must be in Filipino or English Language or
translated in Filipino or English.
An Instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed,
issued, accepted, or transferred without being duly stamped shall not be admissible or used in evidence in nay
court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled.
A party who is among those obliged to pay the documentary stamp taxes is stopped from claiming that
the documents are inadmissible in evidence for non-payment thereof.(Filipinas Textile Mills vs CA 415
SCRA 635)

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time
the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)
Amended: All evidence must be offered orally.
The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence.
 The amendment in Sec. 35, for one, requires all evidence to be offered ORALLY.
 Also, the amendment gives emphasis on when testimonial evidence should be offered, which is at the
time the witness is called to testify.
As to documentary or object evidence, the offer should be made after presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence.

The formal offer of testimonial evidence is necessary in order to enable the court to rule intelligently
on any objections to the questions asked.(people vs Ancheta 431 SCRA 42)

The offer of testimonial evidence is effected b calling the witness to the stand and letting him testify
before the court upon appropriate questions. ( Guerrero vs St clares realty co 124 SCRA 553)

It is basic in the law of evidence that the court shall consider evidence solely for the purpose for
which it was offered. (Ragudo vs Fabella Estated Tenants association Inc 466 SCRA 136; People vs Lapay,
298 SCRA 63)

The purpose for which evidence is offered ust be specified because such evidence may be inadmissible
for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility or may be admissible for one purpose and not
for another, otherwise the advesrse party cannot interpose the proper objection. Evidence submitted for one
purpose may not be considered for any other purpose. (Uniwide sales realty and resources crop vs Titan-Ikeda
Const and Dev Corp 511 SCRA 335)

Evidence should only be considered for the purpose it was formally offered. (People vs Ignas, 412
SCRA 311)

ANY evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must FORMALLY be
offered by him. Such a formal offer is necessary because of the duty of the JUDGE to rest his findings of facts
and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial and no finding of fact
can be sustained which is not supported by such evidence(Republic vs CA 116 SCRA 505; People v Logmao
362 SCRA 105)

As a general rule, when a Witness takes the stand, the law on ground of public policy, presumes that
he is competent. The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the ground
of INCOMPETENCY (People vs Pruna 390 SCRA 577)

The court shall consider NO evidence which has not been formally offered. (Alcaraz v Racimo 125
SRA 328; Divinagracia v Cometa 482 SCRA 648)

Identification of a documentary evidence must be distinguished from the formal offer as an exhibit.
The first is done in the course of the trial and and is accompanied by the marking s of the evidence as an
exhibit. The second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. (People v Santito 201 SCRA 87)

An exhibit which was not properly identified of introduced as evidence at the trial but was marked as
an exhibit upon mere manifestation of counsel is deemed inadmissible in evidence. (Tin v People 362 SCRA
594)
 WITHOUT a formal offer of evidence, courts are constrained to take no notice of the evidence even if
it has been marked and identified. (FEBTC v CIR, 502 SCRA 87; Parel v Prudencio 487 SCRA 405)

Documents which may have been identified and mark as exhibits during pre trial or trial but which
were not formally offered in evidnce CANNOT in any manner be treated as evidence. (Heirs of Pedro Pasag
v. Parocha, 522 SCRA 410; Tandog v Macapagal 532 SCRA 550)

A document or any article for that matter is not evidence when it is simply marked for Identification; it
must be FORMALLY offered.( Candido v CA 253 SCRA 78)

Exhibits not yet formally offered nor admitted in evidence cannot be considered by the the court
(Collado v Hernando 161 SCRA 639)

Evidence not formally offered before the Trial Court cannot be considered on appeal, for to consider
them at this stage will deny the other parties their right to rebut them. (Servicewide Specialists In vs CA 257
SCRA 643)

To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to consider it as
evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties
will be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On the other hand,
the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below
( Ong v CA SCRA 387)

When the case is already deemed submitted for decision or resolution, the court can only consider the
evidence presented prior to this period ( Trinidad v COMELEC 320 SCRA 836)

The practice of submitting evidence late CANNOT be tolerated. It defeats the speedy administration of
justice and is also UNFAIR. (Olongapo Maintenance Service Inc v Chantengco 525 SCRA 252)

There is no need to formally offer in evidence a document attached to a motion under Rule 133,
section 7. (bravo Jr v Borja 134 SCRA 466)

No Formal offer of evidence is necessary in cases covered by the Rule on summary procedure. The
rule requiring formal offer of evidence is applicable only to ordinary trials not to cases covered by the Rule on
summary procedure - cases in which no full-blown trial is held (HEIrs of Lourdes saez sabanpan v
Comorposa, 408 SCRA 692)

The fiscal’s failure to make a formal offer of his exhibits is a trivial matter as the entire evidence has
been recorded. (People v Mate, 103 SCRA 484)

Evidence not formally offered cannot be considered by the court unless it has been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case. (TAbuena vs CA 196
SCRA 650)

Requisites in order that evidence not formally offered may be admitted and considered by the court are
1. The same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and
2. The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case (Vda de Onate v CA 250 SCRA
283; People v Napat-a 179 SCRA 403, Ramos v Dizon 498 SCRA 17)
Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as
soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the unless a different
period is allowed by the court.

Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness
begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must
be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. —  When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course
of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of
questions. (37a)

Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall
always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity
to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the objection is based on
two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or
grounds relied upon. (38a)

Rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of the
trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of separate appeal or review on certiorari, but are to
be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court
on the merits of the case. (Deutche Bank manila vs Chua Yok See, 481 SCRA 672)

The failure of the judge to rule on the formal offer of evidence and the objections thereto will not result in the
reversal of the conviction. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the judge will not consider
inadmissible evidnce in making his decision. (People vs Alicante, 332 SCRA 440).

Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court
shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper. (n)
Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, or where a question is not objectionable, but the answer is not responsive, or
where a witness testifies without a questions being posed or testifies beyond limits set by the court, or
when the witness does a narration instead of answering the question, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order such answer, testimony or narration to be
stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant or otherwise improper.

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony. (n)