EVIDENCE

Performance task

Kindly quote specific paragraphs of 1 to 3 cases decided by the Philippine Supreme

Court that sustained, applied or denied the application of the following Rules or
Concepts of Evidence:

1. Impeaching a witness' testimony

2. Irregularities in a testimony
3. Foreign judgments
4. Unoffered pieces of evidence
5. Forgery or tampering evidence
6. Using evidence in another proceeding
7. Failure to timely object (waiver)
8. Rights of a Witness
9. Direct, Cross, Re-Direct, Re-Cross Examination
10. Repetitive objections
11. Equipoise Doctrine
12. Corpus Delicti
13. Tender and Proffer of Evidence
14. Offer of Evidence
15. Direct Evidence and Rebuttal Evidence
16. Circumstantial Evidence
17. Circumstantial, Corroborating and Direct Evidence

Use the foregoing list as proper headings, followed by the direct quotes of the
appropriate jurisprudence.
Impeaching a witness' testimony

G.R. No. 126781             September 13, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CALIXTO ZINAMPAN, ARTEMIO APOSTOL, ROGER ALLAN (all at large), and ELVIS
DOCA, accused.
ELVIS DOCA, accused-appellant.

The appellant may not validly impeach the credibility of Marlyn Calaycay on the basis of the
entry in the police blotter of the Tuguegarao, Cagayan police pertaining to the robbery and
killing on December 8, 1988. Appellant claimed that the pertinent entry in the said police
blotter which was elicited from prosecution witness Calaycay does not reflect any names of
the alleged perpetrators of the crime contrary to her testimony during the trial of the instant
criminal case that she knew the names of the malefactors even prior to December 8, 1988.
In impeaching a witness by evidence of prior inconsistent statements, Section 13, Rule 132
of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:

SEC. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements — Before

a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to
him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he
must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them.
If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question
is put to him concerning them.

The Solicitor General correctly noted that appellant's counsel never confronted Marlyn
Calaycay during the proceedings in the trial court regarding the entries in the police blotter to
give her the opportunity to confirm or deny authorship thereof, and in case of the former, to
explain the alleged discrepancy. It has been held that previous inconsistent statements
cannot serve as bases for impeaching the credibility of a witness unless his attention was
first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given the opportunity to explain them.

G.R. No. 122740 March 30, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
WINSTON DE GUZMAN, accused-appellant.

The records disclose that at the trial, counsel for appellant tried to utilize the testimony of
complainant given in the preliminary investigation before Judge Rodolfo A. Castro to
impeach her through statements therein supposedly different from what she gave in
court.  Alluding to her answer to Judge Castro's questions numbered 28 and 29,  appellant's
19 20

counsel asked complainant if she first reported the rape to one Dioneson Bayno.
Complainant duly corrected that statement and clarified that it was Mauricia and Hugo Bayno
whom she first told about the incident.

However, complainant was never confronted during the proceedings in the trial court with her
answers allegedly given in the same testimony at the preliminary investigation regarding
appellant's resort to sleep-including chemicals. In fact, no sub-markings for such particular
answers as exhibits were made in the records of her testimony in the preliminary
investigation, much less offered by the counsel of appellant for that purpose during the trial
of the case.
It is universally accepted that a witness cannot he impeached by evidence of contradictory or
prior inconsistent statements until the proper foundation or predicate has been duly laid by
the party against whom said witness was called.  The American rule on laying the predicate
22

is embodied in Rule 132 of our own Rules of Court, to wit:

Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements
must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and
the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing
they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them.

Although the whole record of the testimony of complainant at the preliminary examination
was offered in evidence by the defense and admitted by the trial court,  complainant cannot
23

now be discredited through any of her extrajudicial statements which were not brought to her
attention during the trial. Thus, it has been held that granting arguendo the alleged
contradictions, previous statements cannot serve as bases for impeaching the credibility of a
witness unless his attention was first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given an
opportunity to explain them.
24
Unoffered pieces of evidence

G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FE ROA GIMENEZ AND

IGNACIO B. GIMENEZ, Respondents.

ACCORDINGLY, there being no valid and cogent justification shown by the

plaintiff for the Court to Grant its Motion for Reconsideration and admit its Formal
Offer of Evidence, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached
Formal Offer of Evidence is DENIED. The Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to
Evidence filed by the defendant Ignacio B. Gimenez and adopted by defendant
Fe Roa Gimenez is GRANTED. The case is then DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 182805               April 22, 2015

HEIRS OF SERAPIO MABBORANG: LAURIANO MABBORANG, DOMINGO

MABBORANG, ENCARNACION MABBORANG, FELIX MABBORANG,
FAUSTINA MABBORANG, ELIAS MABBORANG, ALBERTA MABBORANG;
HEIRS OF REGINO MABBORANG: JOSE MABBORANG, DIONICIA
MABBORANG, SOTERA MABBORANG, MARIANO MABBORANG; HEIRS
OF SUSANA MABBORANG: CECILIA UBIÑA-OCAB and CANDIDA U.
TAGUIGA; SEGUNDA MABBORANG; HEIRS OF VICTORINO MABBORANG:
JUAN MABBORANG, JR., SERVANDO MABBORANG; AND HEIRS OF
VICENTE MABBORANG: MARIANO MABBORANG, MARTIN MABBORANG,
LUZ MABBORANG-CARILLO, Petitioners,
vs.
HERMOGENES MABBORANG and BENJAMIN MABBORANG, Respondents

Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered." This is to enable the trial judge to know
the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. Also, it
allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. A formal
offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and
judgment strictly and only upon the evidence offered by the parties at trial. Consequently,
review by the appellate court is facilitated for it will not be required to review documents
not previously scrutinized by the trial court.20 Hence, strict adherence to this basic
procedural rule is required, lest evidence cannot be assigned any evidentiary weight or
value:

Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial evidence presented and
exclude the documents not offered. Documents which may have been identified and
marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which were not formally offered in
evidence cannot in any manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such unrecognized
proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It must be stressed that there is a
significant distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal
offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is accompanied by the
marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is done only when the party rests
its case. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit
does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence. It must be
emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the
court must formally be offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.21

In certain instances, however, this Court has relaxed the procedural rule and allowed the
trial court to consider evidence not formally offered on the condition that the following
requisites are present: (1) the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded; and (2) the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.22

None of the conditions are present in this case.

G.R. No. 167454               September 24, 2014

EMERITU C. BARUT, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Barut’s contention did not itselfgo unnoticed by the CA, which observed that the RTC
could not takethe declaration of Villas into consideration because Villas’ extra-judicial
sworn statement containing the declaration had not been offered and admitted as evidence
by either side. The CA stressed that only evidence thatwas formally offered and made
part of the records could be considered; and that in any event, the supposed contradiction
between the extra-judicial sworn statement and the court testimony should be resolved in
favor of the latter.

The CA’s negative treatment of the declaration contained in Villas’ extra-judicial sworn
statement was inaccord with prevailing rules and jurisprudence. Pursuant to Section 34,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the RTC as the trial court could consideronly the
evidence that had been formally offered; towards that end, the offering party must specify
the purpose for which the evidence was being offered. The rule would ensure the right of
the adverse party to due process of law, for, otherwise, the adverse party would not be put
in the position to timely object to the evidence, as well as to properly counter the impact
of evidence not formally offered.10 As stated in Candido v. Court of Appeals:11

It is settled that courts will only consider as evidence that which has been formally
offered. x x x

A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity
toobject to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it. A formal
offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment
only— and strictly—upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party
to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as
evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of
his chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court
will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below.
The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of
documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such
pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case.

The rule that only evidence formally offered before the trial court can be considered is
relaxed where two requisites concur, namely: one, the evidence was duly identified by
testimony duly recorded; and, two, the evidence was incorporated inthe records of the
case.12 Furthermore, the rule has no application where the court takes judicial notice of
adjudicative facts pursuant to Section 2,13 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where the
court relies on judicial admissions or draws inferences from such judicial admissions
within the context of Section 4,14 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where the trial
court, in judging the demeanor of witnesses, determines their credibility even without the
offer of the demeanor as evidence.