This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, the CENRO certification attached by petitioner to her petition deserves scant consideration since it was not presented during the proceedings before the trial court or while the case was pending before the appellate court. Petitioner only presented the said certification for the first time before this Court. The genuineness and due execution of the said document had not been duly proven in the manner required by law.[42] Also, generally, additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered.[43] In the present case, petitioner did not offer any explanation why the CENRO certification was not presented and submitted during the proceedings before the trial court to justify its belated submission to this Court. | |||||