a. When Evidence Offered

When Evidence Presented after entering a Plea of Guilty to a Non-Capital Offense

For non-capital offenses, the reception of evidence is merely discretionary on the part of the court. If the information or complaint is sufficient for the judge to render judgment on a non-capital offense, he may do so.

If the accused is permitted to present evidence after his plea of guilty to a non-capital offense and such shows that the accused is not guilty of the crime charged, the accused must be acquitted, for there is no rule which provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of the plea may be considered to convince the judge that it was intelligently made.

Elements<br>

• During their marriage
• The marriage must be valid and existing at the time of the offer of the testimony
• The husband or the wife cannot testify against the other
• The “other” spouse must be a party to the action, either as a plaintiff or defendant
• Note: 2019 Revision removed the words “for or”
• Without the consent of the affected spouse [Sec. 23, Rule 130]

Except: Spouse may testify against the other even without the consent of the latter

• In a civil case by one against the other; or
• In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants/ascendants [Sec. 23, Rule 130]

The Deposition May be Used for the Following Purposes

• For the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as witness by any party;
• If the deponent is a party or anyone who was at the time of the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership or association which is a party, his/her deposition can be used by an adverse party for any purpose.
• If the deponent is a witness, whether or not a party to the case, his/her deposition may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds that:
• The witness is dead; or
• The witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines (UNLESS it appears that his/her absence was procured by the party offering the deposition); or
• The witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity or imprisonment; or
• The party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
• Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice to allow the deposition to be used.

If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him or her to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts. (Rule 23, Sec. 4(d))

Lack of Formal Offer of Evidence During Trial

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. (Heirs of Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007).

Offer of evidence

The offer of evidence, the comment/objection thereto, and the Court’s ruling shall be made orally. A party is required to make the oral offer on the same day as the presentation of the last witness, and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose any comment or objection. The Court shall make a ruling on the offer in open court.

The counsel shall cite the specific page numbers in the court record where the exhibits being offered are found. The Court shall ensure the exhibits offered are submitted to it on the same day as the offer. If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party making the offer must submit the same during the offer in open court.

Requirements for party intending to offer such evidence:

• Written motion filed at least 15 days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered
• Exception: if the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial
• Motion served on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least 3 days before the hearing of the motion

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. (Rule 132, Sec. 34)

Exceptions:

• Evidence not formally offered can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and
• They have been incorporated in the records of the case. (People v Libnao, G.R. No. 13860, 2003)

When to make an offer

Note: The Rules of Court now mandate that all evidence be offered orally. (Rule 132, Sec. 35)

NOTE: 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. (JAR Sec. 6)

Declaration against interest

The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons.

A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness of the statement. (Rule 130, Sec. 40)

Note: The second sentence of this rule is an addition to the old rule concerning declarations against interest

Consider this factual scenario: the alleged declarant Zoilo Fuentes Jr., a cousin of accused-appellant Alejandro Fuentes Jr., supposedly verbally admitted to the latter, and later to their common uncle Felicisimo Fuentes, that he (Zoilo) killed the victim because of a grudge, after which he disappeared. One striking feature that militates against the acceptance of such a statement is its patent untrustworthiness. Zoilo who is related to accused-appellant had every motive to prevaricate. The same can be said of accused-appellant and his uncle Felicisimo (Fuentes v. CA, G.R. No. 111692, 1996)