Case Digest (94736)
Facts:
Petitioners Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, and Benedicto Gonzales were accused in Criminal Case No. 33(86) for the murder of Johnny Villanueva on February 9, 1986 in the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City. During the prosecution’s evidence, the State offered an extrajudicial confession executed by Benedicto on March 27, 1986 (Exh. B) and a transcript of stenographic notes from the preliminary investigation on April 8, 1986 (Exh. D), both allegedly confirming and affirming the confession, but both were taken without the assistance of counsel.When formally offered, petitioners objected for lack of counsel, and the trial court sustained the objections in orders dated April 14, 1988 and October 17, 1988, declaring Exhs. B and D inadmissible. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered their admission; hence, petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether petitioners waived their objection to the admissibility of the documents by failing t
Case Digest (94736)
Facts:
- Parties and charging information
- Petitioners Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, and Benedicto Gonzales were the accused in Criminal Case No. 33(86) of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, presided over by Judge Pedro C. Ladignon.
- The case charged murder of Johnny Villanueva, the husband of private respondent Rosalina Rivera Villanueva, committed on February 9, 1986.
- Prosecution evidence consisting of confession and preliminary investigation transcript
- The prosecution introduced as Exhibit B an extrajudicial confession executed by petitioner Benedicto Gonzales on March 27, 1986, admitting participation in the crime and implicating petitioners Melecio Macasiray and Virgilio Gonzales, his co-accused.
- The prosecution introduced as Exhibit D the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation on April 8, 1986 before the fiscals office.
- The transcript allegedly recorded Benedicto’s answers to fiscal questions in which he affirmed the contents of his extrajudicial confession.
- Initial defense objections for lack of counsel
- When the prosecution offered the extrajudicial confession at the conclusion of its evidence presentation, petitioners objected to its admissibility on the ground that it was taken without the assistance of counsel.
- Petitioners likewise objected to the transcript of the preliminary investigation on the same ground.
- In an order dated April 14, 1988, the trial court sustained the objections and declared both documents inadmissible.
- Defense cross-examination and rebuttal use by the prosecution
- When it was the defense’s turn to present evidence, Gonzales was asked about his extrajudicial confession (Exh. B).
- On cross-examination, Gonzales was questioned not only about his extrajudicial confession but also about alleged answers given during the preliminary investigation and recorded in the transcript (Exh. D).
- Gonzales denied the contents of both documents.
- The prosecution then presented the confession (Exh. B) and transcript (Exh. D) as rebuttal evidence, claiming it was to impeach Gonzales’s credibility.
- Petitioners objected again, and the trial court denied the admission on October 17, 1988.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals and the petition for review
- Private respondent sought the nullification of the trial court’s orders and succeeded.
- The Court of Appeals, in C.A. G.R. SP No. 16106, reversed and ordered admission of:
- petitioner Benedicto Gonzales’s extrajudicial confession; and
- the transcript of the preliminary investigation, including statements allegedly affirming the confession.
- Petitioners filed the present petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
- Constitutional infirmity found in the record
- There was no dispute that both the extrajudicial confession and the statements recorded in the transcript were taken without the assistance of counsel.
- Benedicto was informed of his constitutional rights in a perfunctory manner.
- The waiver of counsel, though made, was made without counsel’s advice and assistance...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioners waived their objections to the admissibility of Exh. B (extrajudicial confession) and Exh. D (transcript of preliminary investigation) by failing to object when the documents were marked, identified, and introduced as testimony
- Whether objection to documentary evidence must be made only after the documents are formally offered.
- Whether marking and identification constitute a sufficient occasion for an objection.
- Whether the defense waived the objection by later questioning Gonzales and by ostensibly using Exh. B and Exh. D during the defense evidence
- Whether the defense’s cross-examination or questions during defense should be treated as adoption of the confession and transcript as evidence.
- Whether the defense’s “abundance of caution” negated waiver.
- Whether...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)