Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Macasiray v. People (G.R. No. 94736)

Macasiray v. People | G.R. No. 94736 | June 26, 1998 | J. Mendoza | Article III, Section 12 |

Petitioners: Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, Benedicto Gonzales 

Respondents: People of the Philippines, Hon. Court of Appeals, Rosalina Villanueva

Recit-Ready Summary
The petitioners in this case stand accused for the murder of Johnny Villanueva, husband of private respondent Rosalina Villanueva. The prosecution introduced in evidence two documents: A) an extrajudicial confession executed by Benedicto Gonzales, in which he ADMITTED participation in the crime and implicated his co-accused, and B) a transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, in which Benedicto AFFIRMED the contents of his extrajudicial confession. 

After the RTC declared the two documents to be inadmissible, on cross-examination, Benedicto DENIED the contents of both documents. The CA eventually reversed the RTC Decision and declared them admissible. 

In this case, the SC discussed that Objection to evidence must only be made AFTER the evidence is formally offered. When it comes to documentary evidence, offers can only be made after ALL the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It also reminded that objections to the admissibility of a document may be offered during trial, otherwise they can ONLY be offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence of the other party.

Here, the accused DID NOT waive objection to the admissibility of the two documents because it was not the proper time for them to offer evidence. The identification of the document before it is marked DOES NOT constitute a formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it. Thus, the RTC Orders declaring the two documents to be inadmissible were reinstated. 

FACTS:
The petitioners in this case stand accused for the murder of Johnny Villanueva, husband of private respondent Rosalina Villanueva. The prosecution introduced in evidence two documents: A) an extrajudicial confession executed by Benedicto Gonzales, in which he ADMITTED participation in the crime and implicated his co-accused, and B) a transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, in which Benedicto AFFIRMED the contents of his extrajudicial confession. 

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence (after the trial), the accused assailed the admissibility of the both the confession and the transcript on the ground that the former was given without assistance of counsel. The trial court sustained the objections and declared the documents to be inadmissible. 

However, on cross-examination, Benedicto DENIED the contents of both documents. Upon the objection of the accused to the prosecution’s use of this denial as rebuttal evidence, the trial court again reiterated their inadmissibility. Upon the prosecution’s appeal, the CA nullified the trial court’s orders and rendered them admissible. Hence, the present petition for certiorari.

Upon the prosecution’s appeal, the CA nullified the trial court’s orders and rendered them admissible. Hence, the present petition for certiorari. 

NOTES - RE: WAIVER OF OBJECTION 

  • If the prosecution proposes to introduce evidence at the close of a trial, the implication is that the prosecution DID NOT object to their introduction. Thus, in order to prevent the introduction of evidence in such manner, the defense can move for its exclusion at any time BEFORE the commencement of the trial.

ISSUES:
W/N the petitioners waived objection to the admissibility of the documents by either A) failing to object to their introduction during the trial, or B) using them in evidence?

HELD:
DOCTRINE: Objection to evidence must only be made AFTER the evidence is formally offered. When it comes to documentary evidence, offers can only be made after ALL the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. 

  • Here, the accused objected to the admissibility of the documents when they were offered à The objection was made AFTER the evidence was formally offered 
  • The identification of the document before it is marked DOES NOT constitute a formal offer of the document as evidence for the party presenting it (i.e., objection to the marking of the document ≠ objection when it is formally offered in evidence) 
  • Thus, the accused DID NOT waive objection to the admissibility of the two documents because it was not the proper time for them to offer evidence 

Objections to the admissibility of a document may be offered during trial, otherwise they can ONLY be offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence of the other party 

  • Here, the defense asked Benedicto questions regarding his reference to his denial of liability. The purpose WAS NOT for the purpose of using the two documents as evidence, but for the denial of their contents 

The defense did not really have to ask Benedicto their questions given that the two documents were already declared inadmissible. They have already been excluded from evidence.

DISPOSITION: CA Decision set aside and reversed. RTC Orders are REINSTATED.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more