Magsino v. Magsino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a Petition to Fix the Rights of the Father Pendente Lite with Prayers for the Issuance of a Temporary Protection Order and Hold Departure Order, filed by Rolando N. Magsino against his wife, Ma. Melissa V. Magsino. The Magsino couple married in December 1997 and have two children. The wife, Melissa, began to suspect in 2005 that her husband, Rolando, was sexually molesting their young children, then aged three and two. She observed the children engaging in inappropriate play, and when questioned, they reportedly attributed their actions to their father. Concerned for the minors' safety, Melissa left the conjugal home with the children. 2. Procedural History: Rolando Magsino filed his petition in July 2008, to which Melissa Magsino responded with her own Answer and Prayer for Protection Order. During pre-trial, Rolando indicated he would present Dr. Cristina Gates, an expert witness, to testify on his mental status and fitness to exercise parental authority. Dr. Gates testified, presenting findings from Rolando's psychological evaluation and opining, based on hypnotically-induced recollection, that Rolando could not have molested the children. Melissa's counsel moved to strike Dr. Gates' testimony, arguing her expertise was not established and that evidence from hypnotically-induced recollection is inadmissible. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially retained the testimony subject to a continuing objection. Melissa later filed a Motion to Expunge the testimony and suppress the psychological report. The RTC denied the motion to expunge, citing waiver of objection due to untimely questioning of qualifications, and deemed the motion to suppress premature as the report had not been formally offered. Melissa's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Melissa's petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA reasoned that Melissa's counsel waived objections by not raising them during Dr. Gates' direct testimony and by proceeding with cross-examination. The CA also held that the motion to suppress the psychological report was premature. Dissatisfied, Melissa filed the instant Petition for Review with the Supreme Court. She argues that the CA erred in holding she waived her right to object, as her objections were raised as soon as the grounds became apparent and before cross-examination. She further contends that cross-examination did not constitute a waiver and that the testimony involving hypnotically induced memory is inadmissible and violates due process. Finally, she asserts that a motion to suppress is distinct from an objection to a formal offer of evidence and was therefore not premature.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that petitioner waived her right to raise objections to the testimony of Dr. Cristina Gates. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the denial of petitioner's Motion to Expunge the testimony on the ground that cross-examination constituted a waiver of the right to object. Whether the testimony involving hypnotically induced memory may be suppressed for being inadmissible and violative of petitioner's rights. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the denial of the Motion to Suppress was proper on the ground that evidence may not be objected to before a formal offer is made.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 28, 2012, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the waiver of objection to the expert witness's testimony: The Court held that objections to the admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time and the grounds specified. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time are considered waived. Section 36 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that an objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. Petitioner should have objected during the course of Dr. Gates' direct testimony on her qualifications and the mechanics of the psychological examination. By waiting until after the expert witness had finished testifying, petitioner failed to make a timely objection, thereby waiving the procedural defect. The Court emphasized that allowing the testimony does not bind the court to adopt it, as the weight and sufficiency of expert testimony are within the trial court's discretion. On the denial of the motion to expunge testimony due to cross-examination: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that cross-examination did not constitute a waiver of the right to object, but rather, the failure to object before cross-examination was the issue. The objection should have been raised when the grounds became apparent during direct examination. The Court reiterated that objections must be timely made to save the court's time and allow for immediate rulings on admissibility. Petitioner's failure to object forthrightly to the inadmissibility of the respondent's testimonial evidence resulted in a waiver of the objection. On the suppression of testimony involving hypnotically induced memory: While the Court did not directly rule on the admissibility of hypnotically induced memory in this specific instance due to the procedural issue of waiver, it acknowledged that the admissibility of evidence is distinct from its probative value. The Court noted that the RTC's decision to retain the testimony subject to continuing objection allowed for further evaluation. However, the primary basis for denying the motion was the procedural lapse in timely objection. On the denial of the motion to suppress the psychological report: The Court agreed with the CA that the motion to suppress the psychological report was premature. Section 35 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court states that documentary evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, not earlier, as this is when the purpose of the offer is disclosed. While the objection was prematurely made, petitioner could still reiterate her objections when the formal offer of exhibits was made. The Court stressed that admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.
Main Doctrine
Objections to the admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time and the grounds specified. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived. For oral evidence, objection must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. For documentary evidence, objection must be made at the time it is formally offered.