Case Digest (G.R. No. 105813)
Facts:
Concepcion M. Catuira v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 105813, September 12, 1994, Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.On June 8, 1990, two Informations for estafa were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 35, charging Concepcion M. Catuira with issuance of two checks to private complainant Maxima Ocampo when funds were insufficient and the checks were subsequently dishonored. After the prosecution presented its evidence, petitioner moved for dismissal by way of a demurrer to evidence under Sec. 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, arguing among other things that the testimony of the complaining witness was inadmissible because it had not been formally offered when the witness was called, in violation of Sec. 35 read with Sec. 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
On July 26, 1991 the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, and on October 18, 1991 it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus) on November 4, 1991; the CA, in a decision penned by Justice Pedro A. Ramirez and concurred in by Justices Cezar D. Francisco and Angelina S. Gutierrez, denied relief and sustained the RTC in an opinion rendered February 27, 1992 (with a resolution dated June 1, 1992). Petitioner thereafter invoked the Supreme Court to annul the CA decision.
Petitioner argued before the courts below and before the Supreme Court that the testimony of Ocampo should have been stricken pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 132 because the prosecution failed to formally offer it when the witness was called; she contended she could not be required to object later because Sec. 36, Rule 132 requires objection immediately after an offer of evidence. The prosecution and the lower courts replied that t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Sec. 34 and Sec. 35, Rule 132, is the testimony of a witness inadmissible if it was not formally offered at the time the witness was called to testify?
- Did petitioner waive any objection to the admission of the complaining witness's testimony such that the trial court correctly denied the demurrer to evidence, and if not, would exclusion of that testimony require dismissal under...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)