OFFER OF EVIDENCE and OBJECTIONS

ETRIII REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW Lecture Series

Lecture Outline No. 8

OUTLINE/ LECTURE ON
OFFER OF EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIONS
UNDER THE RULES OF COURT AS MODIFIED BY
THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
By: Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III

(Prepared for Law 3-A, 

Univ. of San Agustin Law School,   
SY 2016-2017)

i. Comparative Analysis of Rules on Offer of Evidence & Objections Under

the Rules of Court and the Judicial Affidavit Rule

NOTE: Pursuant to the Judicial Affidavit Rule, a much later enactment than
the Rules of Court, “Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. -
The provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of procedure governing
investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence are repealed or modified insofar as these are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Rule”.1âwph

Sections 34 to 40, Rules of Court Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-
8-8-SC)

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.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to
testimony in judicial affidavit. - The
party presenting the judicial
affidavit of his witness in place of
direct testimony shall state the
purpose of such testimony at the
start of the presentation of the
witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to
strike out his affidavit or any of the
answers found in it on ground of
inadmissibility. The court shall
promptly rule on the motion and, if
granted, shall cause the marking of
any excluded answer by placing it
in brackets under the initials of an
authorized court personnel,
(n)
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
therefor 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.
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.
Potential Ground for Objection
The reason for sustaining or
would be as to the: 1) FORM and/ or
overruling an objection need not be
2) SUBSTANCE of the Contents of
stated. However, if the objection is
without prejudice to a tender of
excluded evidence under Section 40
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the
witness on his judicial affidavit. - The
adverse party shall have the right
to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit and on the exhibits
attached to the same. The party
who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct. In
every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the
witness to determine his credibility
as well as the truth of his testimony
and to elicit the answers that it
needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and
objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon the
termination of the testimony of his
last witness, a party shall
immediately make an oral offer of
evidence of his documentary or
object exhibits, piece by piece, in
their chronological order, stating
the purpose or purposes for which
he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is
offered, the adverse party shall
state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission,
and the court shall immediately
make its ruling respecting that
exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object
exhibits form part of the judicial
affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient
that such exhibits are simply cited
by their markings during the offers,
the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of
each exhibit.
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)
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)
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)
the Judicial Affidavit
Section 3. Contents of judicial
Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit shall
be prepared in the language known
to the witness and, if not in English
or Filipino, accompanied by a
translation in English or Filipino,
and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or
business address, and occupation of
the witness;
(b) The name and address of the
lawyer who conducts or supervises
the examination of the witness and
the place where the examination is
being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is
answering the questions asked of
him, fully conscious that he does so
under oath, and that he may face
criminal liability for false testimony
or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness
and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under
which the witness acquired the
facts upon which he testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts
which are relevant to the issues
that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached
documentary and object evidence
and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness
over his printed name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the
notary public who administers the
oath or an officer who is authorized
by law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the
lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit
shall contain a sworn attestation at
the end, executed by the lawyer
who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness, to the
 effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused
to be recorded the questions he
asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person
then present or assisting him
coached the witness regarding the
latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject
the lawyer mentioned to
disciplinary action, including
disbarment.

Comments:

1)     Formal Offer v. Marking, Identification and Authentication. Pursuant to

Section 34, Rule 132, evidence must be “formally offered” in order for it to
merit consideration by the trial court. However, mere marking, identification
and authentication should not be equated with formal offer.

-        “There is a distinction between identification of a documentary evidence and

its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is
accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit, while the second is
done only when the party rests its case.[1]”

-        TIMELY OBJECTION-

-        Rule when party is represented by several lawyers. – “It has been held that
where a party is represented by two attorneys, the fact that the examination
in chief of a witness has been conducted by one of them does not warrant the
court in refusing to receive objections by the other to questions asked on
cross-examination”[2].

-        Evidence ORALLY OFFERED- Immediately after the offer is made

-        OBJECTION to Question Propounded in the course of examination of a

witness- as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent

NOTE: “Reasonably Apparent” means as a GENERAL RULE that “An objection

to the form of a question as leading must be interposed before the question is
answered”.[3]

“The rule that objection is to be made when the question is propounded to the
witness and before he gives his testimony must be reasonably applied. Its
object is to prevent a party from ‘gambling on his answer’ by withholding his
 objection until he discovers the effect of the testimony, and then interposing
his objection if the testimony is unfavorable”[4].

-        Evidence OFFERED IN WRITING- Shall be objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the offer UNLESS a different period is given by the Court.

PREMATURE OBJECTION- “An objection to evidence cannot be made in

advance of the offer of the evidence sought to be introduced.”[5]

OBJECTION MUST BE SPECIFIC. Grounds.

a)    Question is Leading

b)   Calls for Hearsay Evidence
c)    Lack of Basis, or Assumes a Fact Not in Established
d)   Question invades field of confidential communication
e)    Vague
f)     Calls for conclusion of law
g)   Calls for conclusion of fact
h)   Argumentative
i)      The proper foundation has not been laid
j)      Calls for opinion of witness
k)    Misleading
l)      Already answered
m) Witness is incompetent
n)   Inadmissible under the Parol Evidence Rule
o)   Question attempts to elicit self-serving evidence
p)   Document offered is self serving; e.g. diary
q)   Question seeks to elicit evidence which is not the best evidence
r)     Question calls for parol evidence of an alleged agreement under the Statute of
Frauds
s)    Question is improper on cross-examination
t)     Question is improper in re-direct examination
u)   Question is improper in re-cross examination

2)    When and How to Formally Offer.

2.1. Under the Rules of Court:

       Testimonial Evidence: “At the time the witness is called to testify”.
       Documentary or Object Evidence: : “After the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence”.

How? “Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing”.

2.2. Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule-

       Testimonial Evidence: Rules of Court apply because there is no conflict
       Documentary & Object Evidence:

NOTE: “upon termination of testimony of LAST WITNESS, documentary and

object must be ORALLY OFFERED piece by piece CHRONOLOGICALLY

3)    Effect of Failure to Formally Offer Evidence.

In the case of Heirs of Pedro Pasag rep. by Eufremio Pasag et al., v. Sps.
Lorenzo and Florentina Parocha et al.,[6] the Supreme Court instructed on
the effect of inordinate delay in complying with the Rule on Formal Offer of
Evidence, to wit:

“Waiver of the Offer of Evidence

The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered.[9] A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their
findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties
at the trial.[10] Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for
which the proponent is presenting the evidence.[11] On the other hand, this allows opposing
parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review
as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by
the trial court.[12]

Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The Court in Constantino v.
Court of Appeals[13] ruled that the formal offer of ones evidence is deemed waived after failing
to submit it within a considerable period of time. It explained that the court cannot admit an
offer of evidence made after a lapse of three (3) months because to do so would condone an
inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage
needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice.[14]

Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, we find that the trial court had
reasonable ground to consider that petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of
documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions of time to make their formal
offer, petitioners failed to comply with their commitment and allowed almost five months to
lapse before finally submitting it. Petitioners failure to comply with the rule on admissibility
of evidence is anathema to the efficient, effective, and expeditious dispensation of
justice. Under the Rule on guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court
in the conduct of pre-trial and case of deposition and discovery measures, [15] it is provided
that:

On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his formal offer of
evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to
immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the judge shall make the ruling on the
offer of evidence in open court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of
evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132[.]

On the other hand, Section 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that
documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a partys testimonial
evidence. It requires that such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the Court to be
done in writing.
The pre-trial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is made clear
that the party who terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral offer of
evidence on the very day the party presented the last witness. Otherwise, the court may
consider the partys documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec. 35 of Rule 132 says
that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing, this can only be tolerated in
extreme cases where the object evidence or documents are large in numbersay from 100 and
above, and only where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer.

The party asking for such concession should however file a motion, pay the filing fee, set the
date of the hearing not later than 10 days after the filing of the motion, [16] and serve it on the
address of the party at least three (3) days before the hearing.[17] In short, it is a litigated
motion and cannot be done ex parte. Counsels for parties should not however rely on the
benevolence of the trial court as they are expected to have thoroughly and exhaustively
prepared for all possible pieces of evidence to be presented and the purposes for which they
will be utilized. As a matter of fact, the draft of the offer of evidence can already be prepared
after the pre-trial order is issued, for, then, the counsel is already fully aware of the
documentary or object evidence which can be put to use during trial. Remember that under
the pre-trial guidelines, the trial court is ordered to integrate in the pre-trial order the
following directive:

No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a
partys evidence-in-chief other t
han those that had been identified below and pre-marked during the pre-trial. Any other
evidence not indicated or listed below shall be considered waived by the parties. However, the
Court, in its discretion, may allow introduction of additional evidence in the following cases:
(a) those to be used on cross-examination or re-cross-examination for impeachment purposes;
(b) those presented on re-direct examination to explain or supplement the answers of a
witness during the cross-examination; (c) those to be utilized for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal
purposes; and (d) those not available during the pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on
the part of the party offering the same.[18]

It is apparent from the foregoing provision that both parties should obtain, gather, collate, and
list all their respective pieces of evidence whether testimonial, documentary, or object even
prior to the preliminary conference before the clerk of court or at the latest before the
scheduled pre-trial conference. Otherwise, pieces of evidence not identified or marked during
the pre-trial proceedings are deemed waived and rendered inutile. The parties should strictly
adhere to the principle of laying ones cards on the table. In the light of these issuances and in
order to obviate interminable delay in case processing, the parties and lawyers should closely
conform to the requirement that the offer of evidence must be done orally on the day
scheduled for the presentation of the last witness.

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. [19] 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.[20] 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]

Dismissal of the Complaint on a Demurrer to Evidence

Having established that the documentary evidence of petitioners is inadmissible, this

Court is now tasked to determine the propriety of the dismissal of the Complaint on a
demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is an instrument for the expeditious termination of an action;

[22]
 thus, abbreviating judicial proceedings.[23] It is defined as an objection or exception by one
of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced
is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue.
 [24]
 The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a verdict. [25] In
passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required
to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to
support a verdict of guilt.[26]

In the present case, we have thoroughly reviewed the records and are convinced that
petitioners have failed to sufficiently prove their allegations. It is a basic rule in evidence that
the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. [27] However, petitioners did
not substantiate their allegations and merely argued that the Complaint should be threshed out
in a full blown trial in order to establish their respective positions on issues [which are] a
matter of judicial appreciation.[28]

-WHEN FORMAL OFFER NOT REQUIRED.

a.       Summary Proceedings because documentary pieces of evidence are only

attached to Position Papers
b.      Small Claims
c.       Quasi Judicial Bodies
d.      Documents Judicially Admitted or Taken Judicial Notice of

4)   Court’s Ruling on Objections-

5.1.Best Practice in Ruling Upon Objections- “In the course of long experience-
said the Supreme Court- “we have observed that justice is most effectively and
expeditiously administered in the courts where trivial objections to the
admission of proof are received with least favor. The practice of excluding
evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objection to the
form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it is
impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development
of proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and,
where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney offering
the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later.
Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the battle over which he
presides a judge of first instance may possibly fall into error in judging of the
relevancy of proof where a fair and logical connection is in fact shown. When
such a mistake is made and the proof is erroneously ruled out, the Supreme
Court, upon appeal, often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to
correct the effects of the error without returning the case for a new trial- a
step which this court is always very loath to take. On the other hand, the
admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its
form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much harm to
either litigant, because the trial judge is supposed to know the law; and it is his
duty, upon final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant and
material from the irrelevant and immaterial.”

                      The Court of Appeals, on its part, observed that ‘ as a matter of

practice, it is more advisable, in controversial questions, to err in favor of, then
against, an opportunity to introduce evidence thereon, because of the
 considerable delay which would result, if a higher court should believe that the
resolution should have been otherwise and, as a consequence, a new trial
held”.[7]

5.2. TIME FOR RULING ON OBJECTIONS. “A ruling on objections to evidence

should be made as soon as possible, either at the time the objection is made, or
during the trial and before judgment is rendered, in time to give the opposite
party is to rule positively, one way or the other, when the evidence is offered,
since if the court desires time to consider the objection, it may suspend the
introduction of evidence until it has reached a conclusion, and, in some cases, it
has been held error to admit evidence “subject to objection”[8].

-“In Lopez v. Valdez,[9]    the trial court’s ruling was that it “will be taken into
consideration”, on an objection to the introduction of secondary evidence
without first establishing the existence, due execution and eventual loss or
destruction of the originals, “The Supreme Court, held that such is
“prejudicial to the interests of a litigant since it deprives the party against
whom the ruling was made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by
the ruling. It was deemed as REVERSIBLE ERROR”.[10]

-“Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to

a ruling at the time the objection is made unless they present a question with
regard to which the court desires to inform itself before making its ruling. In
that event it is perfectly proper for the court to take a reasonable time to
study the questions presented by the objection; but a ruling should always be
made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom the
ruling is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.x x
x[11]”       

5)    Repetition of Objections. – Continuing Objections.

6)   STRIKING OUT EVIDENCE-

NOTE:
Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the time to properly object is at the time
when the witness is called to the stand and his testimony is offered. This is
because the Judicial Affidavit takes the place of Direct Testimony offered orally.

-However, note the requirements as to form and substance, IF THEREFORE, the

grounds for objection becomes apparent only at the time when the
examination is being made, e.g. there is no translation of the testimony which
was given in the local dialect and not English or Filipino, then it would be too
late to object under the rules. But it is submitted that the RIGHT TO MOVE TO
STRIKE OUT the portions of the JA or the entirety if necessary, may be done
still within reasonable time after the ground became apparent.
7)    TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE (OFFER OF PROOF)

NOTE: Effect of the Judicial Affidavit Rule Because the testimonial evidence
had been reduced to writing. The objectionable portions shall be bracketed
and marked as excluded evidence.

Tender of Excluded Evidence. Remedy in case Court denies Admission of

Evidence. In Catacutan v. People[12]the rule on Tender of Excluded Evidence
was discussed, thus:

Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard.[24] Due process is satisfied when the parties
are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.
[25]
 Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded,
there is no denial of procedural due process.[26]

Guided by these established jurisprudential pronouncements, petitioner can hardly claim denial of his
fundamental right to due process. Records show that petitioner was able to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him, argue his case vigorously, and explain the merits of his
defense. To reiterate, as long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course,
he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law for the opportunity to be heard is the better
accepted norm of procedural due process.

There is also no denial of due process when the trial court did not allow petitioner to introduce as
evidence the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 51795. It is well within the courts discretion to reject
the presentation of evidence which it judiciously believes irrelevant and impertinent to the proceeding
on hand. This is specially true when the evidence sought to be presented in a criminal proceeding as in
this case, concerns an administrative matter. As the Sandiganbayan aptly remarked:

The RTC committed no error in judgment when it did not allow the Accused-appellant to
present the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51795 (Jose R. Catacutan vs. Office
of the Ombudsman). The findings in administrative cases are not binding upon the court trying a
criminal case, even if the criminal proceedings are based on the same facts and incidents which gave
rise to the administrative matter. The dismissal of a criminal case does not foreclose administrative
action or necessarily gives the accused a clean bill of health in all respects. In the same way, the
dismissal of an administrative case does not operate to terminate a criminal proceeding with the same
subject matter. x x x[27]

This action undertaken by the trial court and sustained by the appellate court was not without legal
precedent. In Paredes v. Court of Appeals,[28] this Court ruled:

It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law that administrative cases are independent
from criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a
bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. One thing is administrative liability; quite another
thing is the criminal liability for the same act.

xxxx

Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure
followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and
conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Notably, the evidence presented in
the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases.
xxx

In Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan,[29] the Court reiterated:

 This Court is not unmindful of its rulings that the dismissal of an administrative case does not bar the
filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint and
that the disposition in one case does not inevitably govern the resolution of the other case/s and vice
versa. x x x

On the basis of the afore-mentioned precedents, the Court has no option but to declare that the
courts below correctly disallowed the introduction in evidence of the CA Decision. Due process of
law is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony of
an incompetent witness. It is not an error to refuse evidence which although admissible for certain
purposes, is not admissible for the purpose which counsel states as the ground for offering it.[30]

At any rate, even assuming that the trial court erroneously rejected the introduction as
evidence of the CA Decision, petitioner is not left without legal recourse. Petitioner could have availed
of the remedy provided in Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:

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.

As observed by the appellate court, if the petitioner is keen on having the RTC admit the CAs
Decision for whatever it may be worth, he could have included the same in his offer of exhibits. If an
exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask the courts
permission to have the exhibit attached to the record.

As things stand, the CA Decision does not form part of the records of the case, thus it has no
probative weight. Any evidence that a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must
be formally offered by him otherwise it is excluded and rejected and cannot even be taken cognizance
of on appeal. The rules of procedure and jurisprudence do not sanction the grant of evidentiary value
to evidence which was not formally offered.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended, provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public

officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.

xxxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative
or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

Under said provision of law, three essential elements must thus be satisfied, viz:

1.              The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

2.              He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and

3.              His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government or gave any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.[31]

All the above enumerated elements of the offense charged have been successfully proven by
the prosecution.
 First, petitioner could not have committed the acts imputed against him during the time
material to this case were it not for his being a public officer, that is, as the Officer-In-Charge
(Principal) of SNSAT. As such public officer, he exercised official duties and functions, which
include the exercise of administrative supervision over the school such as taking charge of personnel
management and finances, as well as implementing instruction as far as appointment of teachers.[32]

Second, petitioner acted with evident bad faith in refusing to implement the appointments of
private complainants. As the Sandiganbayan aptly remarked:

The records clearly indicate that the refusal of Catacutan to implement the subject promotion was no
longer anchored on any law or civil service rule as early [as] the July 14, 1997 letter of the CHED
Regional Director addressing the four issues raised by the Accused-appellant in the latters protest
letter. x x x In light of the undisputed evidence presented to the trial court that Catacutans reason for
not implementing the appointments was a personal dislike or ill feelings towards Posesano, this Court
believes that Catacutans refusal was impelled by an ill motive or dishonest purpose characteristic of
bad faith. x x x

xxxx

In the August 1, 1997 [m]emorandum issued by the CHED Regional Director, Catacutan was
once again directed, in strong words, to cease and desist from further questioning what has been
lawfully acted upon by competent authorities. Catacutan deliberately ignored the memorandum and
even challenged the private complainants to file a case against him. Such arrogance is indicative of the
bad faith of the accused-appellant.

Yet again, the [CSC] Regional Director wrote the Accused-appellant on September 5, 1997,
clarifying with finality the validity of the appointment. Still, Accused-appellant failed to implement
the subject promotions. This stubborn refusal to implement the clear and repeated directive of
competent authorities established the evident bad faith of Catacutan and belies any of his claims to the
contrary.[33]

While petitioner may have laudable objectives in refusing the implementation of private
complainants valid appointments, the Court fails to see how he can still claim good faith when no less
than the higher authorities have already sustained the validity of the subject appointments and have
ordered him to proceed with the implementation. It is well to remember that good intentions do not
win cases, evidence does.[34]

Third, undue injury to the private complainants was duly proven to the point of moral
certainty. Here, the private complainants suffered undue injury when they were not able to assume
their official duties as Vocational Supervisors III despite the issuance of their valid appointments. As
borne out by the records, they were able to assume their new positions only on November 19,
1997. So in the interregnum from June to November 1997, private complainants failed to enjoy the
benefits of an increased salary corresponding to their newly appointed positions. Likewise established
is that as a result of petitioners unjustified and inordinate refusal to implement their valid appointments
notwithstanding clear and mandatory directives from his superiors, the private complainants suffered
mental anguish, sleepless nights, serious anxiety warranting the award of moral damages under Article
2217 of the New Civil Code.

At this point, the Court just needs to stress that the foregoing are factual matters that were
threshed out and decided upon by the trial court which were subsequently affirmed by
the Sandiganbayan. Where the factual findings of both the trial court and the appellate court coincide,
the same are binding on this Court. In any event, apart from these factual findings of the lower courts,
this Court in its own assessment and review of the records considers the findings in order.