1

EVIDENCE
El Greco Ship Maning and Management Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R.
No. 177188, December 4, 2008
It does not apply to administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings as administrative bodies are not
bound by the technical niceties of the rules obtaining in the court of law.

People vs. Marti (193 SCRA 57)

The forwarder, who discovered leaves from a box sent to it by Marti, sent a request to the NBI
to subject the leaves to a laboratory testing which later turned out to be marijuana leaves. The
Court held that there was no violation of constitutional rights because the rights granted by the
Constitution are protection from arbitrary exercise of power by the government, and not by third
parties, in this case, the forwarder.

Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111

Ortanez presented three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between his wife
and unidentified persons. The Court held that the cassette tapes are not admissible since absent a
clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same,
the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

Ogawa v. Menigishi, 676 SCRA 14, 21, July 9, 2012

The burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right. In a counterclaim, the burden of
proving the existence of the claim lies with the defendant.

Morales v. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., 664 SCRA 110

In administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings like those conducted before the NLRC, the
standard of proof is substantial evidence which is understood to be more than just a scintilla or
such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.

Calamba Steel Center, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 151857, April
28, 2005
Court of Appeals ignored the existence of the tax return extant on the record. As a general rule,
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records in other cases tried or
pending in the same court, even when those cases were heard or are actually pending before the
same judge. However, an exception is when reference to such records is sufficiently made
without objection from the opposing parties.
People vs. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96. October 12, 2000
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsels
admission. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is
required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact.

Latip v. Chua, G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2009

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must
be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
court. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is
that of notoriety.

Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v. Central Colleges of the Philippines, 666

SCRA 540
It is an established principle that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who
is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, absent any showing that this was
made through palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it.

CIR vs. Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 185568, 21 March 2012

CIR and Petron jointly stipulated before the CTA that Petron did not participate in the
procurement and issuance of the Tax Credit Certificates. This stipulation of fact by the CIR
amounts to an admission and, having been made by the parties in a stipulation of facts at pretrial,
is treated as a judicial admission.

NEDLLOYD LIJNEN B.V. ROTTERDAM AND THE EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD. vs.
GLOW LAKS ENTERPRISES, LTD. G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014
It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. To prove a foreign law, the party
invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court. Under the rules of private international law, a foreign law must be
properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of the
foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law. This is
known as processual presumption. While the foreign law was properly pleaded in the case at bar,
it was, however, proven not in the manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules of Court. While a photocopy of the foreign statute relied upon by the court a quo to relieve
the common carrier from liability, was presented as evidence during the trial, the same however
was not accompanied by the required attestation and certification.
ALBERTO ALMOJUELA y VILLANUEVA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R.
No. 183202, June 2, 2014
Although based on the evidence adduced by both parties, no direct evidence points to
Almojuela as the one who stabbed Quejong. A finding of guilt is still possible despite the
absence of direct evidence. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient
circumstances, proven and taken together, create an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable
conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, was the author of the crime.
People v. Yau, G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014
It has been an established rule in appellate review that the trial courts factual findings, such as
its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and
the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded great respect and have even
conclusive effect. Such factual findings and conclusions assume even greater weight when they
are affirmed by the CA. In the case at bench, the RTC gave more weight and credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses compared to those of the accused appellants. After a
judicious review of the evidence on record, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the
factual findings of the RTC and the CA, and their respective assessment and calibration of the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
People v. Larrahaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005
An object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility, becomes

evidence of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than witnesses put together. The
presence of the victims ravished body in a deep ravine with handcuffs on her wrist is a physical
evidence that bolsters the testimony of the witness.

People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192

A rape-slay case of a 9-year old girl, admitted in evidence the DNA samples of the victim which
were found in the bloodstained garments of the accused. Vaginal swabs taken from the victim
were also admitted and were found to show the DNA profile of the accused who was
subsequently convicted.

People vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342. March 21, 2012

Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the
custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that
can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is essential is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

People vs. Tan, 105 Phil. 1242 (1959)

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing
of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby,
produces facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same
stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on
are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such
without accounting for the nonproduction of the others.

Pacasum vs. People, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009

Only a photocopy of the Employee Clearance was presented in evidence. The Court held that the
photocopy is admissible as evidence since an exception to the best evidence rule is when the
document sought to be presented is in the possession of the person against whom it is to be
offered and such party fails to present it even after reasonable notice.
National Power Corporation vs. Codilla, G.R. No. 170491. April 3, 2007
The evidence offered by NAPOCOR were photocopies. The Court held that the photocopies
were not equivalent to the original documents based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The
information contained in the photocopies submitted by NAPOCOR will reveal that not all of the
contents therein, such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the documents,
may be recorded or produced electronically.
MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633. October
17, 2007

The Court held that the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are not electronic
evidence. Thus, it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the functional
equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.

Cruz vs. CA, 192 SCRA 209

The parol evidence rule is predicated on the existence of a document embodying the terms of an
agreement. A receipt is not such a document as it merely attests to the receipt of money and it is
not and could have not been intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their agreement.

Maulini vs. Serrano, 28 Phil 640

Serrano introduced parol evidence to prove that he was merely acting as an agent without any
consideration. The Court held that Serrano can introduce such parole evidence because the case
at bar is not one where the evidence offered varies, alters, modifies, or contradicts the terms of
indorsement admittedly existing.
Heirs of Lacsa vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 234 (1991)
The ancient document rule applies to the two Spanish documents and should thus be admitted
without the need for evidence on its authenticity and execution. They meet the 3 requisites of the
ancient document rule, namely: (1) be at least thirty (30) years old (2) found in the proper
custody and is unblemished by alterations and is otherwise free from suspicion and (3) that it is
produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine.

Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 122 (1988)
Respondent Rances failed to submit any attestation issued by the proper Dubai official having
legal custody of the original of the decision of the Dubai Court that the copy presented by said
respondent is a faithful copy of the original decision, which attestation must furthermore be
authenticated by a Philippine Consular Officer having jurisdiction in Dubai. The transmittal
letter, signed by Mohd Bin Saleh, Honorary Consul for Philippines' does not comply with the
requirements of either the attestation under Section 26 nor the authentication envisaged by
Section 25.

People vs. Burgos, 200 SCRA 67 (1991)

The Order disallowing the printing of the material encoded in the diskettes is void. There was
neither testimonial evidence nor any physical evidence on the diskettes that might indicate they
had actually been tampered or their contents altered in order to secure the conviction of the
accused. The mere fact that the diskettes had been in the possession of the prosecution does not
necessarily imply that it had tampered with the evidence to suit its prosecutorial objectives.

People vs. Solomon, 229 SCRA 402

The acceptance of a witness depends on the quality of his perceptions and the manner he can

make them known to the court. The testimony of Soria was positive, clear, plain, coherent and
credible despite her slurred speech and the use of leading questions.

People vs. Mendoza, 254 SCRA 18

Paul, a five-year-old boy, testified that Rolando boxed his wife then burned her. The testimony of
Paul shows that he is of above average intelligence, that he is capable of giving responsive
answers, of recalling events, and of relating his recollections. For a child witness to be
competent, it must be shown that he has the capacity of (1) observation, (2) of recollection, and
(3) of communication.
Ordono vs. Saquigan, 62 SCRA 270
When an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes
within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a
criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other. Using the criterion, it can
be concluded that in the law of evidence the rape perpetrated by the father against his daughter is
a crime committed by him against his wife (the victim's mother).
People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694
By his testimony imputing the commission of the crime against his wife, the husband is
considered to have waived all his objections to the testimony of his wife. It is to be expected that
after giving such a testimony, it is but normal for his wife to rebut the allegation.

APOLONIO GARCIA, in substitution of his deceased mother, Modesta Garcia, and

CRISTINA SALAMAT v. DOMINGA ROBLES vda de CAPARAS. G.R. No. 180843,
April 17, 2013.
Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from
testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the
undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction. Thus, the alleged admission of the deceased Pedro Caparas that he entered into a
sharing of leasehold rights with Modesta Garcia and Cristina Salamat cannot be used as evidence
against Dominga Caparas as the latter would be unable to contradict or disprove the same.
Lichauco vs. Atlantic Gulf, 84 Phil. 330
The Dead Mans Statute disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties; officers and/or
stockholders of a corporation, therefore, are not disqualified from testifying for or against the
corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased
person, as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such person.

People vs. Carlos 47 Phil. 626 (1925)

Where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the hands of a third
party, whether legally or not, without collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of
the spouses, the privilege is thereby extinguished and the communication, if otherwise

competent, becomes admissible.

Uy Chico vs. Union Life, 29 Phil. 163 (1915)

It will be noted that the evidence in question concerned the dealings of the plaintiff's attorney
with a third person. A communication made by a client to his attorney for the express purpose of
its being communicated to a third person is essentially inconsistent with the confidential relation.
Such communication is between the third person and the client, the attorney being merely an
agent.

People vs. Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505 (1997)

The period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the
client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime
intended to be committed in the future. in other words, If the client seeks his lawyers advice
with respect to a crime that the former has theretofore committed, he is given the protection of a
virtual confessional seal which the attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the
attorney without the clients consent.

Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 273 (1992)

In order that the disqualification by reason of physician-patient privilege be successfully
claimed, the following requisites should concur: (1) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (2)
the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics; (3) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the
patient in his professional capacity; (4) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity; (5) the information was confidential and if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of
the patient.

Krohn vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 146 (1994)

Where the person against whom the privilege is claimed is the patients husband who testifies on
a document executed by medical practitioners, his testimony does not have the force and effect
of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and executed the report. Plainly, this
does not fall within the prohibition.

Banco Filipino vs. Monetary Board, 142 SCRA 523 (1986)

The privilege under Section 21, Rule 130 is intended not for the protection of public officers but
for the protection of public interest. Where there is no public interest that would be prejudiced,
this rule will not be applicable. The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to
communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to
show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure question.

Dela Paz vs. IAC, 154 SCRA 65 (1987)

The mere fact that the witness died after giving his direct testimony is no ground in itself for
excluding his testimony from the record so long as the adverse party was afforded an adequate
opportunity for cross- examination but through fault of his own failed to cross-examine the
witness. The right to cross-examine Loreto was waived by Petitioners through their repeated
absence and motions to postpone the cross- examination.
People vs. Del Castillo, 25 SCRA
Section 14, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that the court may grant or
withhold leave to recall a witness, in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require; and
We believe that it was the better part of discretion and caution on the part of the trial court to
have denied as it did, the request of the defense to recall Ceribo. The record is loaded with
circumstances tending to show insidious attempts, too obvious to be overlooked, to tamper with
the witnesses for the prosecution.
Under the circumstances, to allow such a procedure would only encourage the perversion of truth
and make a mockery of court proceedings.

Viacrusis vs. Court of Appeals, 44 SCRA 176(1972)

The testimony and the public document are declarations adverse to the interest of the Costelos
which is admissible in evidence. The previous recognition by a party in physical possession of
the property in dispute of the ownership in another constitutes a declaration against the interest
of the former and ay be received in evidence not only against such party who made the
declaration or his successors in interest but also against 3rd persons.

People vs. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979)

The silence of an accused (or in this case, the three appellants) under custody, or his failure to
deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither
asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit
confession of his participation in the commission of the crime.

People vs. Alegre, 94 Phil. 109 (1979)

As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not
admissible and does not have probative value against his co- accused. It is merely hearsay
evidence as far as the other accused are concerned.

People vs. Yatco, 97 Phil. 941 (1955)

The rule regarding statements made by a co-conspirator refers to statements made by one
conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful enterprises and in furtherance of its object and

not to a confession made long after the conspiracy had been brought to an end. Under the rule on
multiple admissibility of evidence, the confession of a co-accused may be inadmissible against
his co-accused for being hearsay but may nevertheless be admissible against the declarants own
guilt.

People vs. Wong Chuen Ming, 256 SCRA 182 (1996)

The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the exclusionary
rule because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend
to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The accused cannot be made to affix their signatures on
evidence without complying with the Bill of Rights. By affixing their signatures on the evidence,
the accused are in effect made to tacitly admit the crime charged for, in this case, mere
possession of prohibited drugs is a crime. These signatures amount to uncounseled extra-judicial
confession prohibited by the Bill of Rights and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

People vs. Irang, 64 Phil. 285 (1937)

While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a prosecution for robbery, it is
admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator
of the robbery charged, or tends to show his presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime
at the time charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime.

People vs. Soliman, 53 O.G. 8083 (1957)

While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or
improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder
through TREACHERY or EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (remember that the character of the
wounds show that the deceased was killed in a lying position). The proof of such character may
only be allowed in homicide cases to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent
danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
necessary.

U.S. Vs. Mercado, 26 Phil. 127 (1913)

Generally, a witness cannot be impeached by the party against whom he has been called, except
by showing: 1. that he has made contradictory statements; or 2. by showing that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad. The question to which the defendant objected
neither attempted to show that the witness had made contradictory statements nor that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity was bad.

U.S. Vs. Zenni, 492 F. Supp. 464 (1980)

A statement is not prohibited by the hearsay rule if it is merely offered for proving the fact that
the statement was made, and not as a means of proving the truth of the fact asserted therein.
Implied assertions, which are inferences that can be drawn from the conduct of persons, are not
covered by the hearsay rule unless they are intended to be an assertion concerning the matter in
inquiry. (Ex. Testimony that a person pointed to a person in a police line up)

Estrada vs. Desierto, 356 SCRA (2001)

The ban on hearsay does not cover independently relevant statements, which consist of
statements that are independently relevant of the truth asserted therein. They belong to two
classes: 1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue, 2. Those statements which are
circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. The second class includes the following: Statement
of a person showing his state of mind; Statement of a person showing his physical condition;
Statement of a person to infer a state of mind of another person; Statements which may identify
the date, place and person in question; Statements to show a lack of credibility of a witness.
People vs. Laquinon, 135 SCRA 91 (1985)
The declaration of the deceased is not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration since the
deceased was in doubt as to whether he would die or not. The declaration fails to show that the
deceased believed himself in extremist, "at the point of death when every hope of recovery is
extinct, which is the sole basis for admitting this kind of declarations as an exception to the
hearsay rule." It may be admitted, however, as part of the res gestae since the statement was
made immediately after the incident and the deceased had no sufficient time to concoct a charge
against the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANECITO ESTIBAL Y CALUNGSAG G.R. No.
208749, November 26, 2014
Res gestae means the things done. It refers to those exclamations and statements made
by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the
statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
statement. There are then three essential requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae,
namely: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements
were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
Tison vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 582 (1997)
Where a party claims a right to the part of the estate of the declarant, the declaration of the latter
that the former is her niece is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship,
notwithstanding the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof, the reason that

such declaration is rendered competent by virtue of the necessity of receiving such evidence to
avoid a failure of justice.

Fuentes vs. CA, 253 SCRA 430 (1996)

To admit declarations against interest as exceptions to the hearsay rule: (a) the declarant must not
be able to testify due to death, mental incapacity or physical incompetence rather than mere
absence from the courts;; (b) the declaration must concern a matter of fact cognizable by the
declarant;; (c) the circumstances render it improbable that a motive to falsify exists.

People vs. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (1993)

Entries in a police blotter, though regularly done in the course of performance of official
duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. They are only prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated since they would be incomplete or inaccurate.

THERESITA, JUAN, ASUNCION, PATROCINIA, RICARDO, and GLORIA, ALL

SURNAMED DIMAGUILA v. JOSE AND SONIA A. MONTEIRO. G.R. NO. 201011,
January 27, 2014
As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that
entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The rule provides that entries in official
records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of
performance of official duty. Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is
the department tasked to execute, supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. As
such, they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein.
People v. Lee, 382 SCRA 596
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in
determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the
issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the character or reputation of the
parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual
inquiry into the merits of the case.
Interpacific Transit vs. Aviles, 186 SCRA 385 (1990)
Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it was formally offered, and not
when the particular document is marked is identified and marked as an exhibit.
Vda. de Onate vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 283 (1995)
Evidence not formally offered may be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the
following requirements are present, first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony
duly recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN IBANEZ Y ALBANTE, ET AL. G.R. No.

197813, September 25, 2013

The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness specifies that every child is presumed qualified to
be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the
child's competence. Petitioners flimsy objections on Rachels lack of education and inability to
read and tell time carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of
Rachel as to who killed her father.
On the other hand, Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court explicitly provided that a
witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. Anicetas
testimony is mainly hearsay, especially on the purported fight between Wilfredo and Jesus that
ended in Wilfredos death. Anicetas testimony as such carries no probative weight. At best,
Anicetas testimony is an independent relevant statement: offered only as to the fact of its
declaration and the substance of what had been relayed to Aniceta by Marilou, not as to the truth
thereof.

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL and

CRISPIN I. OBEN v. CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. G.R.
No. 204700, April 10, 2013.
Under Section 17, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court, when part of a writing or record is given
in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached writing or record is given in evidence, any other writing or record necessary to
its understanding may also be given in evidence.

FEDERICO SABAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 192150, October 01,
2014
Section 34 of Rule 132 of our Rules on Evidence provides that the court cannot consider any
evidence that has not been formally offered. This rule, however, admits of an exception. The
Court, in the appropriate cases, has relaxed the formal-offer rule and allowed evidence not
formally offered to be admitted. Jurisprudence enumerated the requirements so that evidence, not
previously offered, can be admitted, namely: first, the evidence must have been duly identified
by testimony duly recorded and, second, the evidence must have been incorporated in the records
of the case. In the present case, we find that the requisites for the relaxation of the formal-offer
rule are present. As it is correctly observed, Godofredo identified the Certification to File an
Action during his cross-examination. Although the Certification was not formally offered in
evidence, it was marked as Exhibit 1 and attached to the records of the case.