Offer of evidence

In Mato v. CA,[1] which referred to People v. Napat-a,[2] citing People v. Mate,[3] the Supreme Court relaxed the application of Section 34, Rule 132[4] of the Rules of Court by allowing the admission of evidence not formally offered. To be admissible, however, two essential conditions must concur: 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.[5]As regards to the case of Medina v. People,[6] the acknowledgment receipt was not considered by the trial court because it was not formally offered in evidence. While it was duly identified by the defense testimony that was duly recorded, the receipt itself was not incorporated in the case records. For its part, the CA opined that nowhere from the case records does Medina's acknowledgment receipt appear. Yet, upon examination, it appears that the July 25, 2002 acknowledgment receipt was attached as Annex "3" of Medina's Appellant's Brief. Accordingly, the CA should have mulled over this piece of document, especially so since the prosecution even prayed, and was granted, during the trial proper that said receipt be marked as Exhibit "C."

Nevertheless, even if the Supreme Court admitted in evidence the acknowledgment receipt, the same would still not exonerate Medina. This is due to his admission that Bardiaga, Pascual, and Bautista did not actually see him remove the alternator, starter, battery, and tires with rims from the jeep and put the same to the pick-up. Likewise, while Medina asserted that Mendoza came to his place and was shown that the missing auto parts were transferred from the jeep to the pick-up, the latter was not presented as a hostile witness to confirm such expedient claim.

[1] Supra note 11, at 350; Vda. de Oñate v. Court of Appeals, supra note 11, at 287.
[2] 258-A Phil. 994 (1989).
[3] 191 Phil. 72(1981).
[4] SEC. 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.
[5] See also Barut v. People, G.R. No. 1674,54, September 24, 2014; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014; Heirs of Romana Saves, et al. v. Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et al., 646 Phil. 536, 544 (2010); and Ramos v. Spouses Dizon, 529 Phil. 674, 688-689 (2006).
[6] G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015.