154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL.

291, JUNE 26, 1998 155

Macasiray vs. People Macasiray vs. People
G.R. No. 94736. June 26, 1998. * the time it is formally offered, not earlier.” Thus, it has
MELECIO MACASIRAY, VIRGILIO GONZALES, and been held that the identification of the document before it is
BENEDICTO GONZALES, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer of
OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, the document as evidence for the party presenting it.
Objection to the identification and marking of the document
and ROSALINA RIVERA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA,
is not equivalent to objection to the document when it is
respondents.
formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the
Pleadings and Practice; Evidence; Formal Offer of
objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as
Evidence;Objection to evidence must be made after the
an exhibit.
evidence is formally offered.—Objection to evidence must be
Same; Same; Same; Objections to the admissibility of
made after the evidence is formally offered. In the case of
documents may be raised during trial and the court may rule
documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses
on them then, but, if this is not done, the party should make
of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the
the objections when the documentary evidence is formally
purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at
offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the
this time, and not at any other, that objection to the
other party.—It may be mentioned in this connection that in
documentary evidence may be made.
one case, objection to the admissibility of a confession on the
Same; Same; Same; A party is not deemed to have
ground that no meaningful warning of his constitutional
waived objection to admissibility of documents by his failure
rights was given to the accused was raised as soon as the
to object to the same when they were marked, identified, and
prosecution began introducing the confession, and the trial
then introduced during the trial—objection to documentary
judge sustained the objection and right away excluded the
evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered, not
confession. This Court, through Chief Justice Fernando,
earlier.—In this case, petitioners objected to the
upheld the action of the trial court over the dissent of Justice
admissibility of the documents when they were formally
Aquino, who argued that the trial court’s ruling was
offered. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court,
premature, considering that the confession was merely being
petitioners did not waive objection to admissibility of the said
identified. It was not yet being formally offered in evidence.
documents by their failure to object when these were
On the other hand, Justice Barredo, concurring, while
marked, identified, and then introduced during the trial.
agreeing that objection to documentary evidence should be
That was not the proper time to make the objection.
made at the time of formal offer, nonetheless thought that to
“Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at
________________
faithfully carry out the constitutional mandate, objections
based on the Miranda right to counsel at the stage of police
*SECOND DIVISION. interrogation should be raised as early as possible and the
155 ruling on such objections made just as soon in order not to
create prejudice in the judge, in the event the confession is
found inadmissible. But the ruling in that case does not denied he ever gave the answers attributed to him in the
detract from the fact that objections should be made at the TSN allegedly taken during the preliminary investigation.
stage of formal offer. Objections to the admissibility of The defense did not really have to ask Gonzales questions
documents may be raised during trial and the court may rule regarding his confession inasmuch as the court had already
on them then, but, if this is not done, the party should make declared both the confession and the transcript of
the objections when the documentary evidence is formally stenographic notes to be inadmissible in evidence, but
offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for certainly the defense should not be penalized for exercising
the other party. Indeed, before it was offered in evidence, the an abundance of caution. In fact, the defense did not mark
confession in this case cannot even be considered as evidence the confession as one of its exhibits, which is proof of the fact
to which the accused should object. that it did not adopt it as evidence. There is, therefore, no
Same; Same; Same; Extrajudicial Confessions; Where basis for the appellate court’s ruling that because the defense
the trial court had earlier sustained the defense’s objection to adopted the confession by introducing it in evidence, the
the admission of defense waived any objection to the admission of the same in
156 evidence.
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Macasiray vs. People Court of Appeals.
the extrajudicial confession and statements given by the
accused, the defense, in subsequently asking the accused The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
questions regarding his confession for the purpose of denying Crispulo S. Esguerra for petitioners.
their contents, could not be considered as having introduced Jose C. Felimon private prosecutor.
the confession—the defense should not be penalized for 157
exercising an abundance of caution.—Nor is it correct to say VOL. 291, JUNE 26, 1998 157
that the confession was introduced in evidence by Benedicto Macasiray vs. People
Gonzales himself when it was his turn to present evidence
for the defense. What happened is that despite the fact that MENDOZA, J.:
in its order of April 14, 1988 the court sustained the objection
to the admissibility of the confession and the statements Petitioners seek a review of the decision of the Court of
given by Benedicto Gonzales at the preliminary Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 16106, reversing the ruling
1

investigation, the defense nonetheless asked him questions of the Regional Trial Court and ordering the admission
regarding his confession in reference to his denial of liability.
in evidence of petitioner Benedicto Gonzales’
It was thus not for the purpose of using as evidence the
extrajudicial confession and the transcript of the
confession and the alleged statements in the preliminary
investigation but precisely for the purpose of denying their proceedings of the preliminary investigation of the case,
contents that Gonzales was asked questions. Gonzales
during which Benedicto allegedly made statements 158
affirming the contents of his extrajudicial confession. 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The facts are as follows: Macasiray vs. People
Petitioners Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, jected to on the same ground. In its order dated April
and Benedicto Gonzales are the accused in Criminal 14, 1988, the trial court sustained the objections and
Case No. 33(86) of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose declared the two documents to be inadmissible.
City, presided over by Judge Pedro C. Ladignon. The It appears that when it was the turn of the defense
case is for the murder of Johnny Villanueva, husband of to present evidence, Gonzales was asked about his
private respondent Rosalina Rivera Villanueva, on extrajudicial confession (Exh. B). On cross-
February 9, 1986. examination, he was questioned not only about his
It appears that in the course of the trial of the case, extrajudicial confession but also about answers
the prosecution introduced in evidence, as Exhibit B, an allegedly given by him during the preliminary
extrajudicial confession executed by petitioner investigation and recorded in the transcript of the
Benedicto Gonzales on March 27, 1986, in which he proceeding. As he denied the contents of both
admitted participation in the crime and implicated documents, the prosecution presented them as rebuttal
petitioners Melecio Macasiray and Virgilio Gonzales, evidence, allegedly to impeach the credibility of
his co-accused. Also presented in evidence, as Exhibit Gonzales. Petitioners once more objected and the trial
D, was the transcript of stenographic notes taken court again denied admission to the documents. (Order,
during the preliminary investigation of the case on dated Oct. 17, 1988)
April 8, 1986 before the fiscal’s office. This transcript Private respondent then sought the nullification of
contained statements allegedly given by Benedicto in the trial court’s orders and succeeded. The Court of
answer to questions of the fiscal, in which he affirmed Appeals declared the two documents admissible in
the contents of his extrajudicial confession. evidence and ordered the trial court to admit them.
When the extrajudicial confession was offered at the Hence, this petition for review of the appellate court’s
conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the decision.
prosecution, petitioners objected to its admissibility on There is no dispute that the extrajudicial confession
the ground that it was given without the assistance of and the statements recorded in the transcript in
counsel. The transcript of the preliminary investigation question were taken without the assistance of counsel.
proceeding was similarly ob- Petitioner Benedicto Gonzales was informed of his
________________ constitutional rights in a very perfunctory manner. No
1 Per Justice Jesus M. Elbinias and concurred in by Justice Pedro
effort was made to drive home to him the seriousness of
A. Ramirez and Justice Regina G. Ordoñez-Benitez. the situation he was facing. He waived the assistance
2
of counsel, but did so without counsel’s advice and their objection—and the waiver was made at the trial by said
assistance. Both his confession and his statement
3 accused who was in fact assisted by counsel.
before the fiscal were thus inadmissible under Art. IV, Thus, because of such failure to object, the prosecution
§20 of the 1973 Constitution. The question is whether succeeded to introduce the subject documents and cause
them to be marked for identification as Exhibits B and D . . .
petitioners waived objection to the admissibility of the
. . . During the defense turn to present their evidence-in-
documents, either by failing to object to their
chief, they called said accused to the witness stand, then
introduction during the trial or by through him introduced the question-and-answer statement
________________
(Exh. B) that had previously been denied admission by
2 People v. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980); People v. Ochavido, 132
respondent Judge, and on direct examination asked him to
SCRA 304 (1986); People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 (1986); People v. testify on said statement; of course, accused denied the
Duhan, 142 SCRA 100 (1986). contents in that statement. In other words, not only did the
3 People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985); People v. Sison, 142 SCRA
defense waive their objection to the introduction of this
219(1986). statement when first introduced during the prosecution’s
159
evidence-in-chief as well as when introduced through the
VOL. 291, JUNE 26, 1998 159 testimony of Cpl. Renato Bautista given during the
Macasiray vs. People prosecution evidence-in-rebuttal, the defense themselves—
using them in evidence. In declaring them to be including the counsel for accused—introduced such
admissible, the Court of Appeals said: statement as part of their evidence-in-chief. Hence,
The documents in question (Annexes A and B to Petition), respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in
which were denied admission by respondent Judge, were denying admission of this statement (Exh. B) when the
marked for identification as “Exh. B” with sub-markings and prosecution again proposed to formally offer it as their
“Exh. D” with submarkings on “10-11-86” (or October 22, evidence after the defense had rested.
1986) as appear on their face. Those markings show that the With respect to the transcript (Exh. D), however, the
documents were introduced during the prosecution’s defense did not introduce it as part of their evidence-in-chief.
evidence-in-chief; and, necessarily, they were testified on by Although the prosecution introduced this exhibit during the
a prosecution witness (not clear from the record who). The cross-examination on which said accused was confronted
fact that the prosecution proposed to formally offer them in during the latter’s cross-
evidence at the close of trial implies that when the 160
documents were first introduced through the prosecution 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
witness at the trial, the defense did not object to their Macasiray vs. People
introduction. To prevent the introduction of such kind of examination, the same cannot serve as an independent
evidence, the practice is for the defense to move for its evidence for the prosecution. The exhibit may be admitted as
exclusion at any time before commencement of trial. Such prosecution evidence only for the purpose of
failure of the defense may therefore be taken as a waiver of impeachment, i.e., as a means to test the credibility of said
accused and/or his testimony. Therefore, respondent Judge 4 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, §36.
should not have rejected such transcript (Exh. D) when 5Id., Rule 132, §35.
6Id., Rule 132, §34.
formally offered by the prosecution for that limited purpose
161
of impeachment. In denying this exhibit admission,
respondent Judge also committed a grave abuse of discretion.
VOL. 291, JUNE 26, 1998 161
In fine, the introduction and admission of the two Macasiray vs. People
documents in question per se was not violative of Sec. 20, Art. the objection. “Objection to the documentary evidence
IV of the 1973 Constitution nor of Sec. 12, Art. III of the 1987 must be made at the time it is formally offered, not
Constitution. As stated above, with respect to the sworn earlier.” Thus, it has been held that the identification of
7

statement (Exh. B), this was introduced by the defense the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not
themselves at the trial as their evidencein-chief; hence, in constitute the formal offer of the document as evidence
effect this became part of their evidence. As regards the for the party presenting it. Objection to the
transcript taken during the preliminary investigation of the
identification and marking of the document is not
complaint against said accused and his co-accused (Exh. D),
equivalent to objection to the document when it is
this too was deemed admitted, not by a positive act of the
defense but by their default for failure to object to its formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the
introduction at the trial during the cross-examination of said objection to the document at the time it is formally
accused who was assisted by counsel. (Emphasis added) offered as an exhibit. 8

We think the Court of Appeals erred. It may be mentioned in this connection that in one
First. Objection to evidence must be made after the case, objection to the admissibility of a confession on the
9

evidence is formally offered. In the case of documentary

4 ground that no meaningful warning of his
evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the constitutional rights was given to the accused was
party making the offer have testified, specifying the
5 raised as soon as the prosecution began introducing the
purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is 6 confession, and the trial judge sustained the objection
only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to and right away excluded the confession. This Court,
the documentary evidence may be made. through Chief Justice Fernando, upheld the action of
In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility the trial court over the dissent of Justice Aquino, who
of the documents when they were formally offered. argued that the trial court’s ruling was premature,
Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners considering that the confession was merely being
did not waive objection to admissibility of the said identified. It was not yet being formally offered in
documents by their failure to object when these were evidence. On the other hand, Justice Barredo,
10

marked, identified, and then introduced during the concurring, while agreeing that objection to
trial. That was not the proper time to make documentary evidence should be made at the time of
________________ formal offer, nonetheless thought that to faithfully
carry out the constitutional mandate, objections based its order of April 14, 1988 the court sustained the
on the Miranda right to counsel at the stage of police objection to the admissibility of the confession and the
interrogation should be raised as early as possible and statements given by Benedicto Gonzales at the
the ruling on such objections made just as soon in order preliminary investigation, the defense nonetheless
not to create prejudice in the judge, in the event the asked him questions regarding his confession in
confession is found inadmissible. 11 reference to his denial of liability. It was thus not for the
But the ruling in that case does not detract from the purpose of using as evidence the confession and the
fact that objections should be made at the stage of alleged statements in the preliminary investigation but
formal offer. precisely for the purpose of denying their contents that
________________ Gonzales was asked questions. Gonzales denied he ever
7 Interpacific
gave the answers attributed to him in the TSN allegedly
Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, 186 SCRA 385, 389
(1990). Reiterated in Quebral v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA taken during the preliminary investigation.
353 (1996). The defense did not really have to ask Gonzales
8 Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, ibid.
questions regarding his confession inasmuch as the
9 People v. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980).

10 Id., at 21.
court had already declared both the confession and the
11 Id., at 16. transcript of steno-graphic notes to be inadmissible in
162 evidence, but certainly the defense should not be
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED penalized for exercising an abundance of caution. In
Macasiray vs. People fact, the defense did not mark the confession as one of
Objections to the admissibility of documents may be its exhibits, which is proof of the fact that it did not
raised during trial and the court may rule on them then, adopt it as evidence. There is, therefore, no basis for the
but, if this is not done, the party should make the appellate court’s ruling that because the defense
objections when the documentary evidence is formally adopted the confession by introducing it in evidence, the
offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence defense waived any objection to the admission of the
for the other party. same in evidence.
Indeed, before it was offered in evidence, the Third. Private respondent justifies the use of the
confession in this case cannot even be considered as confession and TSN on the ground that they are
evidence to which the accused should object. necessary for the purpose of impeaching the credibility
Second. Nor is it correct to say that the confession of Benedicto Gonzales and not for the purpose of
was introduced in evidence by Benedicto Gonzales presenting them as evidence-in-chief.
himself when it was his turn to present evidence for the 163
defense. What happened is that despite the fact that in VOL. 291, JUNE 26, 1998 163
 Macasiray vs. People to have waived his right against their admissibility.
But as already stated, there was really no need for (People vs. Diaz, 271 SCRA 504 [1997])
Gonzales to deny the contents both of the confession and
the TSN since they had already been excluded in ——o0o——
evidence. There was therefore no use for impeaching his
164
credibility. © Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals reserved.
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the orders dated
April 14, 1988 and October 17, 1988 of the Regional
Trial Court of San Jose City are REINSTATED. SO
ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Melo, Puno and Martine
z, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and set aside, decision of court a
quo reinstated.
Notes.—Although an exhibit was not formally
offered, such oversight could not be fatal to the cause of
the prosecution if its entire evidence had been recorded
and the witness who was competent to testify on the
matter had properly identified the challenged exhibit.
(People vs. Padilla, 233 SCRA 46 [1994])
A document, or any article for that matter, is not
evidence when it is simply marked for identification—it
must be formally offered. (Candido vs. Court of
Appeals, 253 SCRA 78 [1996])
The mere fact that a particular document is marked
as an exhibit does not mean that it has thereby already
been offered as part of the evidence of a party. (People
vs. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82 [1996])
Where the accused fails to object to the admissibility
of certain items during their formal offer, he is deemed