Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 452 views

    Macasiray Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    The petitioners were accused of murdering Johnny Villanueva. During trial, the prosecution introduced an extrajudicial confession by one petitioner and a transcript from the preliminary investigation as evidence. The petitioners objected to the admissibility of these documents. The Court of Appeals ruled the documents were admissible, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Objection must be made when evidence is formally offered, not earlier. The petitioners properly objected when the documents were formally offered, so their objection was not waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Macasiray Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    452 views2 pages
    The petitioners were accused of murdering Johnny Villanueva. During trial, the prosecution introduced an extrajudicial confession by one petitioner and a transcript from the preliminary investigation as evidence. The petitioners objected to the admissibility of these documents. The Court of Appeals ruled the documents were admissible, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Objection must be made when evidence is formally offered, not earlier. The petitioners properly objected when the documents were formally offered, so their objection was not waived.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Macasiray vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were accused of murdering Johnny Villanueva. During trial, the prosecution introduced an extrajudicial confession by one petitioner and a transcript from the preliminary investigation as evidence. The petitioners objected to the admissibility of these documents. The Court of Appeals ruled the documents were admissible, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Objection must be made when evidence is formally offered, not earlier. The petitioners properly objected when the documents were formally offered, so their objection was not waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    452 views2 pages

    Macasiray Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    The petitioners were accused of murdering Johnny Villanueva. During trial, the prosecution introduced an extrajudicial confession by one petitioner and a transcript from the preliminary investigation as evidence. The petitioners objected to the admissibility of these documents. The Court of Appeals ruled the documents were admissible, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Objection must be made when evidence is formally offered, not earlier. The petitioners properly objected when the documents were formally offered, so their objection was not waived.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. No. 94736.

    June 26, 1998]


    MELECIO MACASIRAY, VIRGILIO GONZALES, and BENEDICTOGONZALES,
    petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and
    ROSALINA RIVERA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, respondents.

    DOCTRINE: Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered.
    In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
    making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being
    offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary
    evidence may be made.

    FACTS: Petitioners Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, and Benedicto Gonzales are
    the accused for the murder of Johnny Villanueva, husband of private respondent
    Rosalina Rivera Villanueva, on February 9, 1986.

    It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution introduced in evidence, as
    Exhibit B, an extrajudicial confession executed by petitioner Benedicto Gonzales on
    March 27, 1986, in which he admitted participation in the crime and implicated
    petitioners Melecio Macasiray and Virgilio Gonzales, his co-accused. Also presented in
    evidence, as Exhibit D, was the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
    preliminary investigation of the case on April 8, 1986 before the fiscals office. This
    transcript contained statements allegedly given by Benedicto in answer to questions of
    the fiscal, in which he affirmed the contents of his extrajudicial confession.

    When the extrajudicial confession was offered at the conclusion of the presentation of
    evidence for the prosecution, petitioners objected to its admissibility on the ground that it
    was given without the assistance of counsel. The transcript of the preliminary
    investigation proceeding was similarly objected to on the same ground. In its order dated
    April 14, 1988, the trial court declared the two documents to be inadmissible.

    It appears that when it was the turn of the defense to present evidence, Gonzales was
    asked about his extrajudicial confession (Exh. B). On cross-examination, he was
    questioned not only about his extrajudicial confession but also about answers allegedly
    given by him during the preliminary investigation and recorded in the transcript of the
    proceeding. As he denied the contents of both documents, the prosecution presented
    them as rebuttal evidence, allegedly to impeach the credibility of Gonzales. Petitioners
    once more objected and the trial court again denied admission to the documents. The
    Court of Appeals declared the two documents admissible in evidence and ordered the
    trial court to admit them. Hence, this petition for review of the appellate courts decision.

    ISSUE: Did the petitioners waive the objection to admissibility of the said documents by
    their failure to object when these were marked, identified, and then introduced during the
    trial?

    RULING: NO.

    RATIO: Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered. In
    the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
    making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being
    offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary
    evidence may be made.
    In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents when they
    were formally offered. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners did
    not waive objection to admissibility of the said documents by their failure to
    object when these were marked, identified, and then introduced during the trial.
    That was not the proper time to make the objection. Objection to the documentary
    evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, not earlier. Thus, it has
    been held that the identification of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does
    not constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it.
    Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to
    objection to the document when it is formally offered in evidence. What really
    matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.

    Objections to the admissibility of documents may be raised during trial and the court may
    rule on them then, but, if this is not done, the party should make the objections when the
    documentary evidence is formally offered at the conclusion of the presentation of
    evidence for the other party. Indeed, before it was offered in evidence, the confession in
    this case cannot even be considered as evidence to which the accused should object.

    You might also like