Catuira v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two (2) Informations for estafa were filed against petitioner Concepcion M. Catuira for issuing two (2) checks in payment of an obligation to private complainant Maxima Ocampo, despite having insufficient funds to cover the checks, which were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. Procedural History: After the prosecution presented its evidence, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss by way of Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the testimony of private respondent Ocampo was inadmissible for not being formally offered when she testified, as mandated by Section 35, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Petitioner also argued that even if considered, the evidence failed to prove the checks were issued in payment of an obligation. The trial court denied the motion, as did the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals, claiming it erred in accepting the testimony despite the alleged failure to offer it at the proper time and in ruling that her objection was not timely made.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of a witness is inadmissible if not formally offered at the time the witness is called to testify. Whether the petitioner waived her right to object to the admissibility of the testimony by failing to object at the earliest opportunity.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the order of the Regional Trial Court denying petitioner's motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of testimony not formally offered at the time the witness is called: The Court reiterated that the reason for requiring formal introduction of evidence is to enable the court to rule intelligently upon objections. While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer the questioned testimony when private respondent was called to the witness stand, the petitioner waived this procedural error by failing to object at the appropriate time. The objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence operate as a waiver. The petitioner should have objected when the ground for objection became reasonably apparent, which was the moment the witness was called to testify without any prior offer. Waiting until after the witness had finished testifying constituted a waiver of the objection. On the waiver of the right to object: The Court found that the petitioner waived her right to object to the admissibility of the testimony by failing to make her objection at the proper time. The rule requires that objections to orally offered evidence must be made immediately after the offer is made, or as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. By failing to object when the witness was called to testify without a prior offer, the petitioner lost the opportunity to have the testimony excluded. The appellate court aptly observed that the petitioner should not have waited in ambush after the witness had already finished testifying. Her failure to make known her objection at the proper time resulted in the waiver of the procedural error or defect.
Main Doctrine
A procedural error in failing to formally offer the testimony of a witness at the time the witness is called to testify is deemed waived if the adverse party fails to interpose a timely objection at the earliest opportunity when the ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent. Substantial justice may not be denied on the ground of technicality.