11 homicide In his Brief, he capitalized on the inconsistency of Javier’s testimony relative to the

physical evidence as shown by the medical and autopsy findings to exculpate himself from criminal
liability

It is a well-established principle that when the identification is doubtful, inconclusive, or unreliable, an

acquittal is called for. The doubtful identification of petitioner herein, when taken with the absence of
any other evidence showing his guilt, justifies his acquittal.26

Corroborative evidence may be resorted to when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the
witness falsified the truth or that his observations had been inaccurate.27

Javier had unequivocally testified that petitioner stabbed victim on the right armpit.28 This does not
correspond with the autopsy report. Of the twenty-six (26) stab wounds, not a single wound was
found at the right armpit.

Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and rates highly in the hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence. It enjoys a far more superior probative weight than corroborative
testimonies.29 In the instant case, the autopsy report negates the lone witness’s account of the
participation of petitioner in the stabbing of the victim.

The inconsistency between the positive testimony of Javier and the physical evidence, particularly
the autopsy report, further diminishes the credibility of the lone eyewitness.

The Court has ruled that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies in important details are found
in a witness's testimony, his/her testimony may be disregarded. Also, when discrepancies pervade
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses such that the totality of the prosecution evidence fails to
constitute a coherent account, the conviction of petitioner cannot be justified.

A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means
a moral certainty that petitioner is guilty.33 The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
assailant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we cannot sustain petitioner’s conviction.
Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.

12or accredited by the PNP forthe supply of office and construction materials and
equipment, and for the delivery of various services such as printing and rental,
repair of various equipment, and renovation of buildings, facilities, vehicles, tires,
and spare parts.[5]

One test to determine if there exists a question of fact or law in a given case is whether the Court can
resolve the issue that was raised without having to review or evaluate the evidence, in which case, it is a
question of law; otherwise, it will be a question of fact. Thus, the petition must not involve the
calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented
 ection 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the guidelines in
determining preponderance of evidence:

SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined.

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with
the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible
evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last
analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.[66]

13 NAULIT

14 Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of

Possession and Ownership,

he 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, as in this case, any evidence that has not been offered
shall be excluded and rejected.
Waiver of the Offer of Evidence

The Rules of Court provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered.[9] 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.[10] Its function is to enable the trial judge to know
the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence.[11] 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.[12]
Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The Court
in Constantino v. Court of Appeals[13] ruled that the formal offer of ones evidence is
deemed waived after failing to submit it within a considerable period of time. It
explained that the court cannot admit an offer of evidence made after a lapse of three
(3) months because to do so would condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-
compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and
derail the speedy administration of justice.
The pre-trial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is made
clear that the party who terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral
offer of evidence on the very day the party presented the last witness. Otherwise, the
court may consider the partys documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec.
35 of Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing, this
can only be tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence or documents are
large in numbersay from 100 and above, and only where there is unusual difficulty
in preparing the offer.

No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a partys
evidence-in-chief other than those that had been identified below and pre-marked during the pre-
trial. Any other evidence not indicated or listed below shall be considered waived by the
parties. However, the Court, in its discretion, may allow introduction of additional evidence in the
following cases: (a) those to be used on cross-examination or re-cross-examination for impeachment
purposes; (b) those presented on re-direct examination to explain or supplement the answers of a
witness during the cross-examination; (c) those to be utilized for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes; and
(d) those not available during the pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party
offering the same.[18]

t 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.[2

15 Facts: Efren Teodoro is a Citibank Card credit card holder. Bt 1995 his outstanding
obligation ballooned to 191,693.25 inclusive of interest and service charges. During the
trial, Citibank presented several sales invoices or charge slips, which added up to only
P24,388.36. Although mere photocopies of the originals, the invoices were marked in
evidence as Exhibits F to F-4. Because all these copies appeared to bear the signatures of
respondent, the trial court deemed them sufficient proof of his purchases with the use of the
credit card. MTC decided in favour of Citibank. Teodoro appealed to RTC and affirmed MTC
decision. CA reversed.
Issue: WON CA erred in holding that petitioner failed to prove the due execution and the
cause of the unavailability and non-production of the charge slips marked in evidence as
Exhibits F to F-4
Decision: SC affirmed CA decision.
The original copies of the sales invoices are the best evidence to prove the alleged
obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary evidence.

Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original
sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of
the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction
in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of proof is as
follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.

The loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the search for them were conditions
that were not met, because the sales invoices might have been found by
Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to
show that he had subsequently followed up the request.

When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any
one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals.
Triplicates were produced, although the cardholder signed the sales invoice only once.
During the trial, Hernandez explained that an original copy had gone to respondent, another
to the merchant, and still another to petitioner.

Each of these three copies is regarded as an original in accordance with Section 4 (b) of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to show that all three original copies were
unavailable, and that due diligence had been exercised in the search for them.

16