This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is well settled that courts will consider as evidence only that which has been formally offered,[55] otherwise, the opposing party would be denied due process of law.[56] Thus, the Court explained in one case that A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and object to its admissibility. The appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below.[57] Petitioners, however, contend that they could have presented the said documents during the rebuttal stage of the proceedings before the trial court. It bears stressing, however, that a plaintiff is bound to introduce all evidence that supports his case during the presentation of his evidence in chief.[58] A party holding the affirmative of an issue is bound to present all of the evidence on the case in chief before the close of the proof, and may not add to it by the device of rebuttal.[59] After the parties have produced their respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only.[60] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with the respondents-prosecutors that the Sandiganbayan may allow the reopening of a case for the reception of additional proofs before judgment. The Rules of Court does not contain any provision prohibiting the trial court from allowing a party to offer additional proofs on the evidence-in-chief or rebuttal evidence after it had rested its case, or even after the case has been submitted for decision but before the rendition thereof. Neither does the Rules of Court contain a specific rule allowing the reopening of a case to allow a party to adduce additional proofs. However, the reopening of a case by the court either on its own motion or on motion of a party, allowing him or them to present additional proofs, is a recognized procedural recourse or device, deriving validity and acceptance from long-established usage.[22] The matter of the trial court's allowing the reopening of a case for additional proof by a party or by the parties is addressed to the court's discretion provided that, by reopening the case, the court does not commit a grave abuse of its discretion. The trial court may allow the reopening of a case and the presentation of additional proofs for the orderly administration of justice or where evidence has been omitted by a party, through inadvertence or mistake, or oversight.[23] | |||||