MACASIRAY v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES • The prosecution presented the denial as rebuttal evidence to impeach the
June 26, 1998 | Mendoza, J. | When Must Objection be Raised
PETITIONER: Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, Benedicto Gonzales
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines, Court of Appeals, Rosalina
Rivera Vda. De Villanueva
SUMMARY: Macasiray and the Gonzales’s were charged with the crime
of Murder. Throughout the course of the proceedings, there was an
extrajudicial confession and TSN which contains an admission of liability
and implication of the accused. This was however denied by Benedicto
(the person who allegedly made these two documents) and the other co-
accused. This was eventually ruled by the trial court to be inadmissible
as evidence. However, the CA reversed this on the basis that the
petitioners failed to object its admissibility when the documents are
identified and introduced to the trial. The SC ruled in favor of the
accused, ruling that they challenged the admissibility of the documents
in time.
DOCTRINE: Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is
formally offered.
FACTS:
• Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, and Benedicto Gonzales are
charged with the crime of Murder.
• In the course of the trial, the prosecution introduced two pieces of
evidence:
1. An extrajudicial confession executed by Benedicto in which he
admitted participation in the crime and implicated his co-
accused.
2. A Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) containing
statements affirming the contents of the extrajudicial confession.
• The co-accused objected to the admissibility of the two pieces of
evidence on the ground that it was given without assistance of counsel.
The trial court sustained the objections.
• When it was the turn of the defense to present evidence, Benedicto was
asked about his confession and the contents of the TSN. He denied the
contents of both pieces fo evidence.
credibility of Benedicto.
• The co-accused again objected to the admissibility of the pieces of
evidence. The trial court ruled in their favor and declared the same to be
inadmissible.
• The Court of Appeals reversed this and declared the pieces of evidence
to be admissible.
ISSUE/s:
WoN the extrajudicial confession and TSN are admissible as evidence - NO
RULING: SC reversed the declaration of the CA
RATIO:
• The extrajudicial confession and the TSN were taken without the
assistance of counsel. Therefore, the question now is whether the
petitioners waived objection to the admissibility of the documents.
• In ruling against the petitioners, the CA held that the petitioners waived
to the admissibility of the documents due to the failure to object when
these are marked, identified, and introduced to the trial. The CA also
held that it was Benedicto Gonzales himself who offered the documents
as evidence.
• Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally
offered. In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the
witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the
purpose for which the evidence is being offered.
• In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of evidence when
they were formally offered. The CA was incorrect.
• It has been held that identification of documents before it is marked as
an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of the document as
evidence for the party presenting it.
• It was also not correct for the CA to rule that it was Benedicto who
offered the documents as evidence. The presentation of Benedicto is not
for the purpose of using the confession and TSN as evidence, but for the
purpose of denying its contents.
• The defense did not have to ask Gonzales questions about his confession
as the court already declared both pieces of evidence to be inadmissible
as evidence.
1