"Y", the evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript.Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35thereof as follows:EVIDENCE CASE DIGESTS | RULE 1297
Sec. 35. Offer of evidence.—The court shallconsider no evidence which has not beenformally offered. The purpose for which theevidence is offered must be specified.The mere fact that a particular document is marked asan exhibit does not mean it has thereby already beenoffered as part of the evidence of a party. It is true thatExhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the pre-trial ofthe case below, but this was only for the purpose ofidentifying them at that time. They were not by suchmarking formally offered as exhibits.2. It conceded that as a general rule "courts are notauthorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication ofcases pending before them, of the contents of therecords of other cases, even when such cases have beentried or are pending in the same court, andnotwithstanding the fact that both cases may have beenheard or are actually pending before the samejudge. Nevertheless, it applied the exception that:. . . in the absence of objection, and as a matterof convenience to all parties, a court mayproperly treat all or any part of the originalrecord of a case filed in its archives as read intothe record of a case pending before it, when,with the knowledge of the opposing party,reference is made to it for that purpose, byname and number or in some other manner bywhich it is sufficiently designated; or when theoriginal record of the former case or any part ofit, is actually withdrawn from the archives bythe court's direction, at the request or with theconsent of the parties, and admitted as a part ofthe record of the case then pending.It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable onlywhen, "in the absence of objection," "with theknowledge of the opposing party," or "at the request orwith the consent of the parties," the case is clearlyreferred to or "the original or part of the records of thecase are actually withdrawn from the archives" and"admitted as part of the record of the case thenpending." These conditions have not been establishedhere. On the contrary, the petitioner was completelyunaware that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327 wasbeing considered by the trial court in the case thenpending before it. G.R. No. 144570VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL, Petitioner, - versus JOSE J.CAFE, et al. Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Jumamilfiled before the Regional TrialCourt (RTC) of Panabo, Davao del Norte a petition fordeclaratory relief with prayer for preliminary injunctionand writ of restraining order against public respondentsMayor Jose J. Cafe and the members ofthe Sangguniang Bayanof Panabo, Davao del Norte. Hequestioned the constitutionality of Municipal ResolutionNo. 7, Series of 1989 (Resolution No. 7).