c. Tender of Excluded Evidence

Tender of excluded evidence

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 to properly preserve 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.

Purpose:

• To inform the court of what is expected to be proved.
• To enable a higher court to determine from the record whether the proposed evidence is competent.

Rule on Tender of Excluded Evidence

• If the excluded evidence is documentary or object - the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)
• 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)

The non-inclusion of the controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot, under the facts of this particular case, be considered a fatal procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising the defense of prescription. (PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434, 1992)

The reason for requiring that evidence be formally introduced is to enable the court to rule intelligently upon the objection to the questions which have been asked. As a general rule, the proponent must show its relevancy, materiality and competency. Where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. But such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. (Catuira v. CA, G.R. No. 105813, 1994)

In Inter-pacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, we had the occasion to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. We said that 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 and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same. (Vda. de Oñate v. CA, G.R. No. 116149, 1995)

Rule on Offer of Payment of Expenses occasioned by injury (Good Samaritan Doctrine)

An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

The offer of compromise which naturally, under the general rules of evidence, must be excluded, except that as the amounts named in the offers to accept certain sums in settlement appear to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, they are relevant. (El Veradero v. Insular, G.R. No. 21911, 1924)

The accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under the consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth and admission of guilt, or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. (People v. Godoy, G.R. No. 115908-09, 1995)

The weight of authority sustains the rule which admits evidence of offers to compromise, in criminal cases, but permits the accused to show that such offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt and an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would originally ensue therefrom. (US v. Maqui, G.R. No. L-8931, 1914)

A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, 1996)

An offer of compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the accused or his representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved. (People v. Yparraguirre, G.R. No. 117702, 1997)