G.R. No. 131588 - People vs. De los Santos

Ma. Melissa V. Magsino (petitioner) and Rolando N. Magsino (respondent) married on December 6, 1997; they have two children born in 2002 and 2003.
In 2005, petitioner began to suspect that respondent was sexually molesting their young children (ages 3 and 2) after observing them playing with their genitalia and attributing it to “Papa.”

To protect the minors, petitioner left the conjugal dwelling and took the children to her parents’ home.
In July 2008, respondent filed a Petition to Fix the Rights of the Father Pendente Lite with Prayers for the Issuance of a Temporary Protection Order and Hold Departure Order in RTC Quezon City, Branch 102 (Civil Case No. Q-0862984).
Petitioner filed an Answer with Prayer for Protection Order.

Respondent designated Dr. Cristina Gates as an expert witness on mental fitness; Gates testified on direct, confirming her qualifications and describing her psychological evaluation of respondent using clinical hypnosis.
Petitioner’s counsel moved in open court to strike Gates’s direct testimony for lack of established expertise and inadmissibility of hypnotically-induced recollection; the RTC retained the testimony subject to continuing objection.
Petitioner cross-examined Gates, then on June 5, 2010 filed a Motion to Expunge her testimony and to Suppress the psychological evaluation report derived from hypnosis.

RTC Order (Oct. 11, 2010): denied the Motion to Expunge (waiver for failure to timely object) and denied the Motion to Suppress as premature. Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.
CA Decision (Sept. 28, 2012, CA-G.R. SP No. 119205): dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, ruling no grave abuse of discretion—petitioner failed to object during direct testimony and cross-examined Gates (implied waiver), and objections to documentary evidence must await formal offer.

Petitioner contended (a) she timely objected before cross-examination, (b) hypnosis-induced memory is inadmissible violating due process, and (c) a Motion to Suppress differs from an objection to evidence offer.

Whether petitioner waived her right to object to Dr. Gates’s qualifications and to evidence derived from hypnotically-induced recollection by failing to object at the proper time.
Whether the psychological evaluation report containing hypnotically-induced recollection is inadmissible and should have been suppressed despite premature filing of the motion.
Whether objections to documentary evidence may be raised before formal offer or only at the time of offer.