The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the testimony of the private complainant was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when she was called to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that while the prosecution failed to formally offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not doing so when the witness began testifying. The Court held that substantial justice should not be denied based on technicalities, and the testimony was admissible. The proposed amendments to the rules of evidence codified this ruling by requiring objections for lack of a formal offer be made when the witness begins testifying.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the testimony of the private complainant was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when she was called to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that while the prosecution failed to formally offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not doing so when the witness began testifying. The Court held that substantial justice should not be denied based on technicalities, and the testimony was admissible. The proposed amendments to the rules of evidence codified this ruling by requiring objections for lack of a formal offer be made when the witness begins testifying.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the testimony of the private complainant was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when she was called to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that while the prosecution failed to formally offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not doing so when the witness began testifying. The Court held that substantial justice should not be denied based on technicalities, and the testimony was admissible. The proposed amendments to the rules of evidence codified this ruling by requiring objections for lack of a formal offer be made when the witness begins testifying.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the testimony of the private complainant was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when she was called to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that while the prosecution failed to formally offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not doing so when the witness began testifying. The Court held that substantial justice should not be denied based on technicalities, and the testimony was admissible. The proposed amendments to the rules of evidence codified this ruling by requiring objections for lack of a formal offer be made when the witness begins testifying.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
24) Catuira v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
105813, 12 September 1994
Facts:
Two (2) Informations for estafa were filed against Catuira in the RTC for having issued two (2) checks in payment of her obligation to private complainant Maxima Ocampo which were dishonored upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds.
Evidence offered by proponent:
The prosecution presented private complainant Maxima Ocampo’s testimony that Catuira had no sufficient funds to cover her obligations
Ground/s relied upon by adverse party
After the prosecution had presented its evidence, Catuira filed a Motion to Dismiss (by way of Demurrer to Evidence). The testimony of private respondent Ocampo was inadmissible in evidence since it was not properly introduced when she was called to testify citing as basis Sec. 35, Rule 132, of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Petitioner could not have waived her right to object to the admissibility of the testimony of private respondent since the rule requires that it must be done only at the time such testimony is presented. The opportunity for petitioner to object only came when the prosecution attempted to offer the testimony after it has rested its case.
Issue:
Whether or not the testimony of a witness is admissible in evidence if not formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify when there is an absence of objection from the adverse party
Ruling:
Yes, it is admissible. While the prosecution failed to offer the questioned testimony when private respondent was called to the witness stand, petitioner waived this procedural error by failing to object at the appropriate time, i.e., when the ground for objection became reasonably apparent the moment the private respondent was called to testify without any prior offer having been made by the proponent.
Catuira should have objected to the testimony of the complaining witness when it was not first offered upon calling her and should not have waited in ambush after she had already finished testifying.
Even if the offer was belatedly made by the prosecution, there is no reason for the testimony to be expunged from the record. On the contrary, the unoffered oral evidence must be admitted if only to satisfy the court's sense of justice and fairness and to stress that substantial justice may not be denied merely on the ground of technicality.
EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The addition to Rule 132, Sec. 36 of the proposed new rules reflects the doctrine in this case. Thus, it specifically mentioned that “[o]bjection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify.”
