The oral offer
Any evidence which a party desires to submit to the consideration of the
court must be formally offered by the proponent. Offer is necessary because
it is the duty of the judge to rest the findings of facts and judgment only on
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Offer must
now be made orally, to show that the party is ready and willing to submit the
evidence in court. Absent any formal offer, no evidentiary value can be given
to the evidence that was merely introduced by a party.
In every trial of an adversary or responsory nature, the first general line of
division in the presentation of evidence will have reference to the whole
mass of evidence as shared between the opposing parties. Each must have
his turn. It its immaterial under what system of pleading the trial is conducted;
it is assumed that the law of pleading has prescribed whether one or more
than one plea may be at issue, and that the law of procedure has prescribed
whether one or more than one issue may be investigated at the same trial. In
any case, the party sustaining the burden of affirmation (proponent) will first
come forward with his evidence in support, the party sustaining the opposite
(opponent) will then come forward in denial, and each in turn may need to
present further evidence. The apportionment of the whole evidential material
between the parties is thus the first problem.
Next, since almost all evidential material comes before that tribunal through
assertions of witnesses, and since every witness is subject to examination by
the opposing as well as by calling the calling party, to extract the whole of his
further line of division in the examination for each witness; he may need to be
examined first by the calling party, then by the opposite party, and so again
by each in turn. The apportionment of the order and topics of examination for
each witness, as between the parties, thus presents the second problem.
Evidence not formally offered before the trial court cannot be considered on
appeal, for to consider it at such stage will deny other parties to their right to
rebut it.
Thus, there must be the offer of evidence which involves three kinds of
questions on the time of offer, the form of the offer and its tenor.
Function of offer
To inform the court what the party making the offer intends to prove, so that
the court may rule intelligently upon the objections to questions which have
been asked, and may be necessary in order to preserve an exception to a
ruling of the trial court excluding evidence.
As a GR, a party offering evidence must show its relevancy, materiality, and
competency, and when he seeks to introduce evidence which does not
appear to be relevant or competent, he should make a formal offer of proof
showing what testimony he proposes to adduce, and when necessary, his
intention to prove other facts which will render the evidence competent; the
purpose for which apparently irrelevant or incompetent evidence must be
disclosed.
Specific offer
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified since the
evidence may be admissible for a specific purpose but not admissible
generally; or may be admissible for one purpose but not for another; or it may
be admissible against one joint defendant but not against another.
Whether the offer is general, and the evidence is admissible for one purpose
but inadmissible for another, the evidence should be rejected. Likewise,
where the offer is made for 2 or more purposes and the evidence is
incompetent for one of them, the evidence should be excluded. The reason is
that “it is the duty of the party to select the competent from the incompetent
of offering testimony, he cannot impose this duty upon the trial court.”
When a party offers a particular documentary instrument as evidence he
must specify the purpose for which the document or instrument is offered. He
must also describe and identify and offer the same as an exhibit so that the
other party may have the opportunity of objecting to it.
Absence or flaw of and oral offer
Certain instances can avert the formal offer of evidence or ratify a faulty offer
a. Matters which need not be proved
 - A party can be relieved of the formal offer of his evidence if the
court takes judicial notice thereof, or a disputed fact or evidence
is judicially admitted.
b. Civil case under summary procedure
- in a civil case covered by summary procedure, no trial unfolds
and there can hardly be any occasion to speak of formal offer of
evidence therein.
- Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan v Comorposa reiterated the
principined involving a civil case for unlawful detainer:
o The certification was not formally offered, however,
because respondents had not been able to file their
position paper. Neither the rules of procedure nor
jurisprudence would sanction the admission of evidence
that has not been formally offered during the trial. But
this evidentiary rule is applicable only to ordinary trials,
not to the cases covered by the rules of summary
procedure.
- Chinatrust Commercial Bank v Turner also acknowledged that a
pwrcivil case covered by the rule on summary procedure does
not require any trial and thus, there can be no presentation of
witnesses during actual trial.
c. Common exhibit
- If the documentary evidence becomes a common exhibit after it
has been adopted by the adverse party, the absence of a formal
offer by the adverse party of the evidence that has been
admitted by the court after its formal offer by the proponent is of
no moment. (People v Cabodoc)
d. Waiver
- People v Java- absence of formal offer of testimonial evidence
may be cured by the lack of objection to it during trial and when
the exception to the defect was aired only on appeal.
- Catuira v CA- also applied the doctrine of waiver when the
adverse party adopted a sub silencio treatment anent the
absence of a formal offer of testimonial evidence.
e. Identification and integration
- If the evidence has been identified by the testimonial sponsor
and integrated in the record of the case, the absence of a formal
offer of evidence will not prevent its admissibility.
- Mato Vda. De Onate case, relaced the application of Sec 34,
Rule 132 as regards offer of evidence and allowed evidence not
formally offered to be considered by the trail court, the same was
subject to the presence of the following requirements: first, that
the evidence must have been duly identified by the testimony
duly recorded, second, that the same must have been
incorporated in the records of the case.
- People v Jose- given the gravity of the offense for complex crime
for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, SC took
cognizance of the birth certificate of the accused
- Co vs CA- involving a homicide perpetrated by a 14-year-old
accused, to prove the mitigating circumstance of minority albeit
the birth certificate was not presented nor offered in trial court.
- Bravo Jr v Borja- birth certificate to prove minority of the accused
was considered by the SC as part of the record.
f. Joint hearing
- When 2 or more cases are jointly heard, the offer of evidence in
one case is also an offer of evidence in the other case. Separate
offer is not required.
Time for oral offer
Aside from a formal and specific offer, the evidence must be offered at the
proper stage of trial (sec 35, Rule 132) depending on the type of evidence.
If testimonial, the oral offer made by calling the witness to the witness stand
with a preface as to the gist of his impending testimony and by subjecting the
witness to appropriate questions by the party presenting him.
If documentary and real evidence, the offer shall be made after the party’s
testimonial evidence.
The absence of the words “we are formally offering the testimony for the
purpose of” should be considered merely as an excusable oversight, since
the purpose of Sec 34m, Rule 132 is to inform the court of the purpose of the
testimony, to enable the judge to rule whether the said testimony is
necessary or is irrelevant, and since purpose of the subject testimony was
succinctly stated, the reason behind the requirement for its formal offer has
been substantially complied with.
Chua v Court of Appeals relayed how a document undergoes presentation
as evidence prior to formal offer:
1. Document should be authenticated and proved in the manner
provided by the ROC.
2. Document should be identified and marked for identification
3. It should be formally offered in evidence to the court and shown the
opposing party so that the latter may have opportunity to object
thereon.
General Enterprises, Inc v Lianga Bay Logging
The authentication and proof of documents are provided in Sec 20-24 Rule
132. Only private documents require proof of their due execution and
authenticity before they can be received in evidence. This may require the
presentation and examination of witnesses to testify on this fact. When there
is no proof as to the authenticity of the writer’s signature, such private
document may be excluded.
On the other hand, public or notarial documents, or those instruments duly
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented
as evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involve.
There is also no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to
documents the genuineness and due execution of which are admitted by the
adverse party.
If a sequential presentation and formal offer of evidence is expected, it is not
appropriate for the defendant to offer his evidence before the plaintiff has
rested, except in a reverse order of trial as permitted by the court in a
criminal case where the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint but interposes a lawful defense.
The One-Day Examination of Witness Rule, that is, a witness has to be fully
examined in one (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject to the
courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or
cross-examination for justifiable reasons. 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.
Constantino v CA – a formal offer made out of time may be rejected by the
court.
The trial court was correct in holding that petitioner waived the right
to formally offer his evidence. A considerable lapse of time, about
three (3) months, had already passed before petitioner's counsel
made effort to formally offer his evidence. For the trial court to grant
petitioner's motion to admit her exhibits would be to 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.
The objection
The initiative in excluding improper evidence is left entirely to the proponent-
so far at least as concerns his right to appeal on that ground to another
tribunal. Th judge may of his own motion deal with offered evidence; but for
all subsequent purpose it must appear that the opponent invoked some rule
of evidence.
The function of objection is to first signify that there is an issue of law, and to
give notice of the terms of the issue.
Two-fold function of objection
1. Tell the court that the party does not wish the evidence admitted
2. To inform the court why it is believed that the evidence is improper
and thus give the court an opportunity to determined whether the
reason for exclusion is sufficient.

Time for objection
When a party desires the court to reject evidence offered, he must state so in
form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the
first time on appeal. Objection to evidence that is not yet offered is
premature.
Sec 26, Rule 132 provides that objection to testimonial evidence for want of
formal offer must be expressed at the commencement of testimony, and if
the reservation refers to the question propounded as soon as the grounds
become reasonably apparent.
For documentary or real evidence, the specific objection must be effected
after the offer thereof, or following the party’s presentation of all testimonial
evidence.
Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time
such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its
admissibility shall have become apparent; otherwise, the objection shall be
treated as waived.
Chief Justice Shaw of Massachusetts said: “The right to except is a privilege,
which the party may waive; and if the ground for exception (objection) is
known and not seasonably taken, by implication of law it is waived.
If a question is put which is leading or otherwise objectionable in form, or
which plainly calls for inadmissible testimony in answer thereto, objection
should be made to such question before it is answered. When no objection is
made, a motion to strike out the answer would ordinarily be too late, except
where the objector did not have time to object the question because the
witness answered it immediately. If the question be one which does not
necessarily call for incompetent testimony, but such testimony is in fact given
in reply thereto, objection should be made not to question but to answer or
such part thereof as may be incompetent or irrelevant as soon as such
incompetency or irrelevancy shall become apparent.
Waiver of objection
An objection may be expressly waived. Of implied waver, the usual instance
is that of failure to make the objection at the proper time. Another instance is
the curing of an error of admission by the opponent’s subsequent use of
evidence similar to that already objected to; and perhaps the prior use of
similar inadmissible evidence may be dealt with on the theory of waiver in
advance. No doubt other conduct of various sorts may require in fairness to
be deemed a waiver. Failure to object to any evidence tending to prove facts
outside the issues joined amounts to an implied consent to try issues not
raised in the pleadings nor listed in the pre-trial order.
Silence, when there is an opportunity to speak out, may operate as a waiver
of objections. Hence, failure to object will render admissible a relevant
evidence which is otherwise incompetent. The court cannot on its own
motion disregard the evidence.
Right to object is a mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if the
ground for objection is known and not reasonably made, the objection is
deemed waived.
Form of the objection
An objection must be positive, not hypothetical or contingent; hence, it
cannot be reserved or postponed by notifying the Court, at the time when it
should be made, that it will possibly be made in the future; unless through the
length of a deposition, for example, or a compilation of relevancies, it is not
practicable for the opponent to know whether there is ground for objection.
The test is whether he at the time of offer knows or could know the grounds ;
if he does, his decision must be absolute, not contingent.
The trial court is not bound to wait for objections; he may exclude improper
testimony of his own motion.
Court cannot reject motu proprio documentary evidence. With reference to
testimonial evidence, People v Moralde was categorical that the judge need
not wait for an objection to bar an immaterial question.
Tenor of objection
An objection to offer of evidence is either general or specific but the last
paragraph of Section 36, Rule 132 requires specific objection.
General objection- when the grounds therefor are not stated or are generally
stated.
- An objection that the evidence is “irrelevant.” “incompetent” or “
inadmissible is a general one.
Specific objection- where it states where or how or why the evidence is
irrelevant or incompetent.
The general rule is that an objection must be specific. The object of requiring
the grounds of objection to be stated, which may seem to be a technicality, is
really to avoid technicalities and prevent delay in the administration of justice.
When evidence is offered to which to which there is some objection,
substantial justice requires that objection be specified so that the party
offering the evidence can remove it. If it is objected that the question is
leading, the form may be changed; if that the evidence is irrelevant,
incompetency may be removed; if that it is immaterial, its materiality may be
established; if to the order of instruction, it may be withdrawn and offered at
another time – and thus appeals could be saved, delays avoided and
substantial justice administered.
If domestic law mandates a specific objection, the objection stating he
proffered evidence is irrelevant or immaterial or improper is insufficient as an
objection to the competency of the witness or that the testimony will
contradict or vary a written contract. Nor is a mere general objection a
sufficient attack on a secondary evidence.
Continuing objection
Sec 37, Rule 132 – replication by a party of an objection is unnecessary,
irrespective of the court’s ruling to the previous exception to the same class
of evidence, for it is enough for a party to register a continuing objection.
Objection to the same class of evidence is sufficient without the necessity of
repeating the objection to every question. The court may treat the objection a
continuing one.
Trial court’s ruling
After the oral offer and the oral objection is made, the trial court is ordinarily
expected to also orally rule in open court on the admissibility of evidence
save when the trial court opts to defer its resolution to study the problem
during trial.
The reservation of a ruling made by the court on an objection to the
admissibility of evidence, without subsequently excluding the same, amounts
to a denial of objection.
Rulings should be unequivocal and so definite in character as to leave no
room for doubt as to what evidence is admitted and was excluded.
Failure to make a distinct ruling is not error where the Court’s statement
might be construed as a ruling an no request is made for a more distinct
ruling. Thus, failure to make a distinct ruling on a request to strike out
evidence is not error, where the court, on an inquiry whether the evidence
should be ruled out, stated “Yes, I reckon so” and no more distinct ruling was
requested.
If the court pronounces its ruling, it need not specify the reason therefor,
especially so if no objection is posed by the adverse party, unless the
exceptions are anchored on two or more grounds in which event the court
must specify the reason for sustaining an objection.
While the SC referred to the admission of borderline evidence for whatever it
is worth (por lo que puedo valer), it is belived that admission of evidence for
whatever it is worth appears to be antithetical to acknowledge dichotomy
between admissibility of evidence, and weight, which is the intrinsic worth of
evidence that was accepted. Indeed, it is improper to even speak of
evidentiary weight when the piece of evidence in question has not even been
admitted.
Striking out evidence
It incorporated additional foundations for expunging an answer, such as an
unresponsive answer, a witness who volunteers testimony even without a
question, or when a witness transcends court restrictions, or when a witness
narrates.
The remedy by way of objection to strike out the objectionable testimony may
be availed of by the aggrieved party where the answer of the witness is not
responsive to an unobjectionable question or where a witness has
volunteered statements in such a way that the party has not been able to
object thereto.
If a party elects to forego presentation of a witness, but the adverse party
believes that the omitted witness of the proponent is vital to its defense, the
opponent can insist for the presentation of the omitted witness as its own
witness or effect a tender of excluded evidence.
Effects of erroneous ruling of the trial court

Offer or proof
Where the court refuses to permit the counsel to present testimony which he
thinks is competent, material and necessary to prove his case, the method of
preserving the record to the end that the question may be saved for the
purposes of review, is through the making of an offer of proof or tender of
excluded evidence. This is a right given to the examining counsel for a two-
fold purpose, namely; (1) to inform the court what is expected to be proved,
and (2) procuring exceptions to the exclusion of the offered evidence so that
the upper court may determine from the record whether the proposed
evidence is competent.
If the rejected evidence is testimonial, the proponent must specify the
personal circumstances of the testimonial sponsor inclusive of the gist of the
abated testimony.
Whether a new trial will be granted because of an erroneous admission or
exclusion of evidence is a question which depends, of course, upon the
probative effect of the disputed item of evidence with relation to the other
matters of proof in the case. The application for a new trial will be denied, it is
said, where the court is of the opinion that the error in receiving or excluding
evidence was not prejudicial. Error being established, it is said that a new
trial will be granted unless it can be seen that the admission or exclusion of
the evidence can have had no influence upon the jury.
Justice Regalado – an erroneous admission or rejection of evidence by the
trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the decision if there are
other independent evidence to sustain the decision, or if the rejected
evidence, if it had been admitted, would not have chanced the decision.

If the discarded evidence is documentary or real evidence, the proponent

may ask the court to attach the documentary or real evidence to the record of
the case. If the evidence is rejected and is not attached to the record the
appellate court has to order a new trial upon a finding that the trial court has
made a mistake in excluding a piece of evidence.

The presence of a witness is necessary for the offer of proof. Without having
the witness present and calling them, or asking leave to call them, an offer of
proof is not sufficient.

People v Barellano