This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The CA's negative treatment of the declaration contained in Villas' extra-judicial sworn statement was in accord with prevailing rules and jurisprudence. Pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the RTC as the trial court could consider only the evidence that had been formally offered; towards that end, the offering party must specify the purpose for which the evidence was being offered. The rule would ensure the right of the adverse party to due process of law, for, otherwise, the adverse party would not be put in the position to timely object to the evidence, as well as to properly counter the impact of evidence not formally offered.[10] As stated in Candido v. Court of Appeals:[11] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Expounding on the office of the offer and statement of the purposes, the Court has cogently said in Candido v. Court of Appeals:[52] | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. There is a need to formally offer affidavits before the courts to afford the opposing party the opportunity to ascertain or refute the veracity of the contents of such statements. Courts will only consider as evidence that which has not been formally offered. If an affidavit was never formally offered, it cannot be considered as evidence. If petitioner neglected to offer her affidavit in evidence, however vital it may be, she only has herself to blame.[46] | |||||