1.

To be able to establish that indeed the subject cardboard receipts are

something of value to the Private-Complainant, she should have established
that the goods indicated in the receipt were in fact delivered
2. Private-Complainant admitted that her business is observing a policy of
leaving the cardboard receipt to the buyer/customer once the price is
already paid, the possession of the three receipts in the pocket of the
accused and twenty nine more in her bag does not ipso facto tantamount to
the crime of theft, instead, it creates a legal presumption that it was already
paid by the accused. (Art 1272)

The only logical conclusion and interference based on the facts and evidence
presented by the prosecution is that the creditor voluntarily delivered to the
debtor the subject receipts and that the corresponding value of these receipts
have already been paid or settled in full.

3. Text messages are considered documentary evidence since it is offered as

proof of the contents of the text messages. Hence, the best evidence rule
apply. The best evidence for the text messages are the text messages found
in the cellphone of the Private Complainant, however, according to her, the
cellphone was one of the items taken from her when she was held up
sometime in 2008. (Rule 130 Sec 3 (a))
Settled is the rule that secondary evidence may be presented in lieu of the
best evidence when the offeror, to the satisfaction of the court presents proof
of its execution or existence and cause of its unavailability without bad faith
on his part
Failure to produce the police blotter regarding the robbery incident, hence,
the loss of the said documents remains dubious.
4. During presentation of Rosita Balanos, the prosecution attempted to present
the photocopy of the Letter of Admission but the defense counsel timely
objected as it is not the Best Evidence.

Under the Best evidence Rule, when the subject of the inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself. Despite several opportunities granted by the Court, the
Private Complainant failed to present the original of the alleged Letter of
Admission signed by the accused, hence, incompetent.
It is also worth noting, that the said Letter of Admission was not among the
evidence formally offered by the Prosecution in their Formal Offer of
Evidence, dated August 16, 2016, hence cannot be given any credence or
weight by the Court.
G.R. No. 194128 December 7, 2011

WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., CECILIA ZAMORA, BENJAMIN FRANCIA, and PEARLBANK
SECURITIES, INC., Respondents.

Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence states that:

"The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which
the evidence is offered must be specified."

A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to
enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its
admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. Evidence not formally offered during the trial
can not be used for or against a party litigant. Neither may it be taken into account on appeal.

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a
considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it. Consequently, any evidence that
has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected.

Prescinding therefrom, the very glaring conclusion is that all the documents attached in the motion
for reconsideration of the decision of the trial court and all the documents attached in the defendant-
appellants brief filed by defendant-appellant Wincorp cannot be given any probative weight or
credit for the sole reason that the said documents were not formally offered as evidence in
the trial court because to consider them at this stage will deny the other parties the right to
rebut them.

The arguments of defendant-appellant Wincorp that the plaintiffs-appellees made an erroneous offer
of evidence as the documents were offered to prove what is contrary to its content and that they
made a violation of the parol evidence rule do not hold water.

It is basic in the rule of evidence that objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is
formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is
only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.

As to oral evidence, objection thereto must likewise be raised at the earliest possible time, that is,
after the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue
becomes apparent only after the answer was given.