This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its Comment,[9] the prosecution counters, among others, that when the Sandiganbayan considered and gave value to the faxed and photocopied documents claimed by Valencerina as hearsay and incompetent, no mistake was committed inasmuch as all objections raised were duly considered and that no objection was made during the formal offer of evidence. It cites as reference the ruling of this Court in Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Rufo Aviles and Josephine Aviles,[10] where it was held that when secondary or incompetent evidence is presented and accepted without any objection on the part of the other party, the latter is bound thereby and the court is obliged to grant it the probative value it deserves. Moreover, the prosecution was of the view that even if the documents were inadmissible in evidence, conviction would still be inevitable as regards the act of giving undue advantage in favor of Ecobel because testimonial and documentary evidence overwhelmingly established his participation and [guilt]. As to his claim that the witnesses the prosecution presented in court had no personal knowledge of the matters testified upon, the prosecution argued that the testimonies procured were based on the authentic documents these witnesses themselves issued, seen, collated, gathered, reviewed, evaluated, investigated, and audited by reason of their office. | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Since petitioners did not object to the offer of said documentary evidence on time, it is now too late in the day for them to question its admissibility. The rule is that evidence not objected may be deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[33] This is true even if by its nature, the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time.[34] | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Pro Forma Invoice No. ST2-POSTS080-1 (Exhibit "X"), however, is a mere photocopy of its original. But then again, petitioner MCC does not assail the admissibility of this document in the instant petition. Verily, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[104] Issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned. | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that it is axiomatic that the court shall not consider evidence which has not been formally offered.[22] In this regard, they argue that Exhibits "1" to "7," inclusive of sub-markings, should not have been considered by the trial court in its Decision considering that the same were not formally offered in evidence. To support this assertion, petitioner quotes from our following pronouncement in Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles[23]:It is instructive at this point to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit. The second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean it will be or has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. The party may decide to formally offer it if it believes this will advance its cause, and then again it may decide not to do so at all. In the latter event, the trial court is, under Rule 132, Section 35 (sic) not authorized to consider it. | |||||