Failure to offer evidence not fatal (2)

Delgado, whose expertise was admitted by Lourdes’s counsel, executed a judicial affidavit detailing her findings following her interviews with petitioner and his mother, his younger sister, the spouses’ house help, and two of the spouses’ common friends.

Although the psychological assessment report she prepared was not formally offered in evidence, Delgado’s judicial affidavit essentially explained and summarized the contents of the report. Furthermore, during her cross-examination, she identified the affidavit and affirmed the truth of its contents.

Apart from Delgado, petitioner presented two other witnesses: Esara, his mother, and Mary Cris, their house help. During the trial, respondent also presented a witness, Asuncion Magsalay Desamparado.

Judicial affidavits, such as the one executed by Delgado, and the testimonies of the witnesses may be considered by a judge in determining whether the totality of evidence gives sufficient ground to grant or deny the petition.

Thus, it was an error for the trial court to disregard the various pieces of evidence presented in ordering the dismissal of the case. Even in the absence of the psychological assessment report, the trial court had sufficient evidence to aid it in rendering a decision.

Petitioner’s contention that the psychologist’s evaluation report may be considered by the trial court in deciding the case, despite it not having been offered in evidence, is well taken.

The general rule under Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court is that a court can only consider evidence that has been formally offered. But this Court has previously “relaxed the application of that provision by allowing the admission of evidence not formally offered.”

Two requirements, however, must be met for the exception to apply: (1) the evidence ‘must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded’; and (2) it “must have been incorporated in the records of the case.”

Clearly, those requirements are satisfied in this case. Delgado’s judicial affidavit covered and explained the contents of the report. Then, during her direct examination, she identified the affidavit and affirmed the truth of its contents: Hence, the psychologist’s evaluation report may be considered as evidence, under the exception to Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court.

Judicial affidavits and the testimonies of the witnesses may be considered by a judge in determining whether the totality of evidence gives sufficient ground to grant or deny the petition.

All in all, petitioner sufficiently proved that respondent’s “psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code [is] characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., [respondent is] incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it [is] rooted in [respondent’s] history... antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations... emerge[d] only after marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it [is] incurable.”

This is really interesting jurisprudence. I learned something new again. Clearly, for as long as the two requisites discussed above are met, evidence now can be considered by the trial court even if it is not formally offered. No longer a super hard and fast rule that evidence not offered will be excluded. Not that you should intentionally not formally offer your evidence. But at least, in the remote event you inadvertently forget to, you have this landmark jurisprudence to rely on.

The facts and quoted provision of the decision are from Rahnill Buhain Zamora v. Lourdes Magsalay-Zamora and the Republic of the Philippines (G.R. 253993, 23 October 2023).