G.R. No. 94736 June 26, 1998 MELECIO MELECIO MACASIRA MACASIRAY Y, VIRGILIO VIRGILIO GONZALES, GONZALES, an !ENE"IC# !ENE"IC#O O GONZALES, petitioners,
vs. $EO$LE $EO$LE O% #&E $&ILI$$INES $&ILI$$INES,, &ON. CO'R# O% A$$EALS A$$EALS,, an ROSALINA RIVERA V"A. "E VILLAN'EVA, respondents.
MEN"OZA, J.:
Petitioners seek a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 16106, 1 reversin the rulin of the Reional !rial Court and orderin orderin the ad"ission ad"ission in evidence evidence of petitioner petitioner #enedicto #enedicto Gon$ales Gon$ales e%tra&udi e%tra&udicial cial confession confession and the transcript transcript of the proceedins proceedins of the preli"ina preli"inar' r' investiat investiation ion of the case, durin which which #enedicto #enedicto alleedl' "ade state"ents affir"in the contents of his e%tra&udicial confession. !he facts are as follows( Petitioners )elecio )acasira', *irilio *irilio Gon$ales, and #enedicto Gon$ales are the accused in Cri"inal Case No. ++-6 of the Reional !rial Court of San /ose Cit', presided over ' /ude Pedro C. adinon. !he case is for the "urder of /ohnn' *illanueva, husand of private respondent Rosalina Rivera *illanueva, on 2eruar' 3, 13-6. 4t appears that in the course of the trial of the case, the prosecution introduced in evidence, as 5%hiit #, an e%tra&udicial confession e%ecuted ' petitioner #enedicto Gon$ales on )arch 7, 13-6, in which he ad"itted participation in the cri"e and i"plicated petitioners )elecio )acasira' and *irilio Gon$ales, his co8accused. Also presented in evidence, as 5%hiit 9, was the transcript of stenoraphic notes taken durin the preli"inar' investi investiation ation of the case on April -, 13-6 efore the fiscal:s fiscal:s office. office. !his transcript contained state"ents alleedl' iven ' #enedicto in answer to ;uestion of the fiscal, in which he affir"ed the contents of his e%tra&udicial confession. n cross8 e%a"ination, he was ;uestioned not onl' aout his e%tra&udicial confession ut also aout answers answers alleedl' alleedl' iven ' hi" durin the preli"inar preli"inar' ' investi investiation ation and recorded recorded in the transcript transcript of the proceedin. proceedin. As he denied the contents of oth docu"ents, the prosecution presented the" as reuttal reuttal evidence, alleedl' alleedl' to i"peach i"peach the crediilit' crediilit' of Gon$ales. Gon$ales. Petitioners once "ore o&ected and the trial court aain denied ad"ission to the docu"ents. >rder, dated >ct. 17, 13-- Private respondent then souht the nullification of the trial court:s orders and succe succeede eded. d. !he Court Court of Appea Appeals ls declar declared ed the the two two docu"e docu"ents nts ad"issile in evidence and ordered the trial court to ad"it the". ?ence, this petition for review of the appellate court:s decision. !here is no dispute that the e%tra&udicial confession and the state"ents recorded in the transcript in ;uestion were taken without the assistance of counsel. Petitioner #enedicto Gon$ales was infor"ed of his constitutional rihts in a ver' perfunctor' "anner. No effort was "ade to drive ho"e to hi" the seriou seriousn sness ess of the situat situation ion he was facin. facin. 2 ?e ?e waived waived the assi assist stan ance ce of coun counse sel, l, ut ut did did so with without out coun counse sel:l:s s advi advice ce and and assistance. 3 #oth his confession and his state"ent efore the fiscal were thus inad"issile under Art. 4*, @0 of the 137+ Constitution. !he ;uestion is wheth whether er petiti petitione oners rs waived waived o&ect o&ection ion to the ad"iss ad"issii iilit lit' ' of the docu"ents, either ' failin to o&ect to their introduction durin the trial or
' usin the" in evidence. 4n declarin the" to e ad"issile, the Court of Appeals said( !he !he docu docu"e "ent nts s in ;ues ;uesti tion on Ann Anne% e% A and and # to Petition, which were denied ad"ission ' respondent /ude, were "arked for identification as 5%h. # with su8"arkin and 5%h. 9 with su8"arkin on 108 118-6 or >ctoer , 13-6 as appear on their face. !hos !hose e "ark "arkin in show show that that the the docu docu"e "ent nts s were were introduced durin the prosecution:s evidence8in8chief( and, and, nece necess ssar aril' il',, the' the' were were test testif ifie ied d on ' a prosecution witness not clear fro" the record who. !he fact that the prosecutio prosecution n proposed proposed to for"all' for"all' offer the" in evidence at the close of trial i"plies that when the docu"ents were first introduced throuh the prosecution witness at the trial, the defense did not o&ect to their introduction. To prevent the introduction of such such kind kind of eviden evidence ce,, the practice practice is for the defense to move for its exclusion at any time before commencement of trial. Such failure of the defense may therefore be taken as a waiver of their objection — and the waiver waiver was made at the trial trial by said accused who was in fact assisted by counsel . !hus !hus,, eca ecaus use e of such such fail failur ure e to o&e o&ect ct,, the the prosec prosecuti ution on succee succeeded ded to introd introduce uce the su&ec su&ectt docu docu"e "ent nts s and and caus cause e the" the" to e "ark "arked ed for for identification as 5%hiits # and 9 . . . . . . 9urin the defense turn to present their evidence8 in8chi in8chief, ef, the' the' calle called d said said accuse accused d to the the witnes witness s stand, then throuh hi" introduced the ;uestion8and8 answer state"ent 5%h. # that had previousl' een denied ad"ission ' respondent /ude, and on direct e%a"ination asked hi" to testif' on said state"entB of course, accused denied the contents in the state"ent. 4n other words, not only did the defense waive their objection to the introduction of this statement when first introduced during the prosecution's evidencein chie chieff as well well as when when intr introd oduc uced ed thro throug ugh h the the testimony of !pl. "enato #autista given during the prosecution evidenceinrebuttal, evidenceinrebuttal, the defense themselves — including the counsel for accused — introduced such statement as part of their evidence inchief . ?ence, respondent /ude co""itted a rave ause ause of discr discreti etion on in den'in den'in ad"iss ad"ission ion of this this state state"en "entt 5%h. 5%h. # when when the the prosec prosecuti ution on aain aain proposed to for"all' offer it as their evidence after the defense had rested.
part of their evidence. As reards the transcript taken durin the preli"inar' investiation of the co"plaint aainst said accused and co8accused 5%h. 9, this too was dee"ed ad"itted, not ' a positive act of the defense ut ' their default for failure top o&ect to its introduction at the trial durin the cross8e%a"ination of said accused who was assisted ' counsel. 5"phasis added &ection to evidence "ust e "ade after the evidence is for"all' offered. 4 4n the case of docu"entar' evidence, offer is "ade after all the witnesses of the part' "akin the offer have testified, ( specif'in the purpose for which the evidence is ein offered. 6 4t is onl' at this ti"e, and not at an' other, that o&ection to the docu"entar' evidence "a' e "ade. 4n this case, petitioners o&ected to the ad"issiilit' of the docu"ents when the' were for"all' offered. Contrar' to the rulin of the appellate court, petitioners did not waive o&ection to ad"issiilit' of the said docu"ents ' their failure to o&ect when these were "arked, identified, and then introduced durin the trial. !hat was not the proper ti"e to "ake the o&ection. >&ection to the docu"entar' evidence "ust e "ade at the ti"e it is for"all' offered, not earlier. 7 !hus, it has een held that the identification of the docu"ent efore it is "arked as an e%hiit does not constitute the for"al offer of the docu"ent as evidence for the part' presentin it. >&ection to the identification and "arkin of the docu"ent is not e;uivalent to o&ection to the docu"ent when it is for"all' offered in evidence. n the other hand, /ustice #arredo, concurrin, while areein that o&ection to docu"entar' evidence should e "ade at the ti"e of for"al offer, nonetheless thouht that to faithfull' carr' out the constitutional "andate, o&ections ased on the %iranda riht to counsel at the stae of police interroation should e raised as earl' as possile and the rulin on such o&ections "ade &ust as soon in order not to create pre&udice in the &ude, in the event the confession is found inad"issile. 11 #ut the rulin in that case does not detract fro" the fact that o&ections should e "ade at the stae of for"al offer. >&ections to the ad"issiilit'
of docu"ents "a' e raised durin trial and the court "a' rule on the" then, ut, if this is not done, the part' should "ake the o&ections when the docu"entar' evidence is for"all' offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the other part'. 4ndeed, efore it was offered in evidence, the confession in this case cannot even e considered as evidence to which the accused should o&ect. Second . Nor is it correct to sa' that the confession was introduced in evidence ' #enedicto Gon$ales hi"self when it was his turn to present evidence for the defense. R5, the decision of the Court of Appeals is R5*5RS59 and S5! AS495 and the orders dated April 1=, 13-- and >ctoer 17, 13-- of the Reional !rial Court of San /ose Cit' are R54NS!A!59. S> >R95R59.
