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.”