FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. No. 192024, July 1, 2015.
“Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If documents or
things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances
of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
The rule is that evidence formally
offered by a party may be admitted or excluded by the court. If a party's
offered documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request that
it be attached to form part of the records of the case. If the excluded
evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. These
procedures are known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are
made for purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered
against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the
excluded evidence.”
PHILIP S. YU, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second
Division, and VIVECA LIM YU, Respondents. G.R. No. 154115, November 29, 2005.
“Section 40, Rule 132 provides:
Sec.40. Tender of excluded evidence.—If documents or things
offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the
offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
It is thus apparent that before tender of excluded evidence
is made, the evidence must have been formally offered before the court. And
before formal offer of evidence is made, the evidence must have been identified
and presented before the court. While private respondent made a "Tender of
Excluded Evidence," such is not the tender contemplated by the
above-quoted rule, for obviously, the insurance policy and application were not
formally offered much less presented before the trial court. At most, said
"Tender of Excluded Evidence" was a manifestation of an undisputed
fact that the subject documents were declared inadmissible by the trial court
even before these were presented during trial. It was not the kind of plain,
speedy and adequate remedy which private respondent could have resorted to
instead of the petition for certiorari she filed before the Court of Appeals.
It did not in any way render the said petition moot.”
