Rule 132

Section 9. Recalling witness. After the examination of a witness by both sides

has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The
court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice
may require.

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified. (35)

Section 35. When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer
must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a

party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the
court to be done in writing.

------

G.R. No. 98376 August 16, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. BAYANI S. RIVERA, Judge, Branch 129 , Regional
Trial Court of Kalookan City, and WILFREDO L. EMBRANO

There is no doubt that a Trial Court has discretion to grant leave for the recall
of a witness. This is clear from a reading of Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, as amended,9 viz.:

SEC. 9. Recalling witness. After the examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The
court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice
may require.

But obviously that discretion may not be exercised in a vacuum, as it were,

entirely, isolated from a particular set of attendant circumstances. The discretion
to recall a witness is not properly invoked or exercisable by an applicant's mere
general statement that there is a need to recall a witness "in the interest of
justice," or "in order to afford a party full opportunity to present his case," or
that, as here, "there seems to be many points and questions that should have been
asked" in the earlier interrogation. To regard expressed generalities such as these
as sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would make the recall of witness no
longer discretionary but ministerial. Something more than the bare assertion of the
need to propound additional questions is essential before the Court's discretion
may rightfully be exercised to grant or deny recall. There must be a satisfactory
showing of some concrete, substantial ground for the recall. There must be a
satisfactory showing on the movant's part, for instance, that particularly
identified material points were not covered in the cross-examination, or that
particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness whose
recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a
manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. Absent such particulars, to
repeat, there would be no foundation for a trial court to authorize the recall of
any witness.

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 159275, Aug. 25, 2010

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, when allowed. - After the parties have produced their
respective direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only, but,
it has been held, the court, for good reasons in the furtherance of justice, may
permit them to offer evidence upon their original case, and its ruling will not be
disturbed in the appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. So,
generally, additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it
has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the
evidence is to correct evidence previously offered.[28]

----
The second motion of the order of respondent court of May 3, 1974, which is
assailed by petitioner directs the recall of Bienvenida Ting for further cross-
examination. We believe that this order is unwarranted. As claimed by petitioner,
the motion to recall the witness is intended merely to delay the proceedings and to
harass and inconvenience the witness sought to he recalled. We particularly note
that the direct examination of the witness was completed on March 27, 1973, and
that her cross-examination was conducted on June 4, 1973, or after more than two
months since the direct examination. That interval of time was long enough for
private respondents' counsel to scrutinize and dissect the direct testimony of the
witness and prepare himself for cross-examination. That the counsel had all the
time to himself when he conducted his cross-examination on June 4, 1973, and that
he concluded such cross-examination when more time was alloted for it, showed that
he had asked all the questions he could possibly ask. Had the witness been cross-
examined right after she gave her direct testimony, there might be reason to
believe the claim that counsel unintentionally forgot to ask some material
questions. But that was not so. Under those circumstances, where it was shown that
a witness had been previously cross-examined extensively, it was more in consonance
with justice and equity for respondent court to have denied the recall of the
witness concerned.6 More so, when the motion to recall failed to mention the
matters sought to be established in the additional cross-examination.

-----
SEC. 35. When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must
be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a partys
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court
to be done in writing.