Scribd
Upload
212 views1 page

Catuira vs. Court of Appeals

The document discusses a case where the petitioner argued that testimony from a witness was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when the witness was called to testify. The court ruled that while the prosecution failed to properly offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not objecting when the testimony was given and instead waiting until after to raise the issue.

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
212 views1 page

Catuira vs. Court of Appeals

The document discusses a case where the petitioner argued that testimony from a witness was inadmissible because it was not formally offered when the witness was called to testify. The court ruled that while the prosecution failed to properly offer the testimony, the petitioner waived the right to object by not objecting when the testimony was given and instead waiting until after to raise the issue.

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Catuira vs.

Court of Appeals

236 SCRA 398, G.R. No. 105813 September 12, 1994

Doctrine: Objection to evidence orally offered is a mere privilege which can be waived. Petitioner waived
the procedural error by failing to object at the appropriate time.

Facts: After the prosecution had presented its evidence, petitioner Concepcion M. Catuira filed a Motion
to Dismiss (by way of Demurrer to Evidence) under Sec. 15, Rule 119, of the 1985 Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure.3 Petitioner contended that the testimony of private respondent Ocampo was
inadmissible in evidence since it was not properly introduced when she was called to testify as amended
in Sec. 35, Rule 132, of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Petitioner also argued that even if the testimony
of private respondent was considered, the evidence of the prosecution still failed to prove that the
checks were issued in payment of an obligation.

On 26 July 1991, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. On 18 October 1991, it
likewise denied the motion to reconsider its denial of the motion to dismiss.

On 4 November 1991 petitioner elevated her case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. In a similar move, the appellate court rejected her petition and
sustained the trial court in its denial of the motion to dismiss. Hence, this recourse seeking to annul the
decision of the Court of Appeals rendered on 27 February 1992 as well as its resolution of 1 June 1992.

Issue: Is the testimony of a witness inadmissible in evidence if not formally offered at the time the
witness is called to testify, as required in Sec. 35, in relation to Sec. 34, Rule 132, of the Revised Rules on
Evidence?

Ruling: While it is true that the prosecution failed to offer in evidence the testimony of the complaining
witness upon calling her to testify and that it was only after her testimony and after the petitioner
moved that it be stricken that the offer was made, the respondent Court did not gravely err in not
dismissing the case against the petitioner on the ground invoked. For, she 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. By so doing she did not save the time of the
Court in hearing the testimony of the witness that after all according to her was inadmissible. And for
her failure to make known her objection at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was waived.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy