This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents not offered. 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. Neither can such unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight and value. It must be stressed that there is a significant distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the pre-trial, and trial is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is done only when the party rests its case.[19] The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence.[20] It must be emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally be offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.[21] | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that witnesses can testify only with regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise, their testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay.[34] In the present case, neither of the said witnesses had personal knowledge of the second to the fourth circumstances considered by the appellate court, or of the rest of the statements made by the declarants in their respective Written Statements. The witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due execution of the Bontias' respective extrajudicial confessions. Thus, insofar as the substance of those confessions is concerned, the testimonies of the police witnesses are mere hearsay.[35] | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Despite his familiarity with accused-appellant's figure, he still failed to identify the assailant of Angeles. He only based his statement on what he heard from his townmates. In short, Buddih did not have first-hand knowledge of the identity of the assailant. Therefore, his testimony that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime was purely hearsay and merits no evidentiary weight at all.[8] | |||||