Objection

Objection | Offer and Objection (RULE 132) | EVIDENCE

Below is a detailed discussion of “Objection” under Philippine law, particularly under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (on the Presentation of Evidence). This includes the relevant provisions, guiding principles, procedural requirements, and pertinent jurisprudence. While we refer to the latest amendments to the Rules of Court (including the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence), the core principles governing objections remain largely the same.

I. Legal Basis and Overview

  1. Source of Rules

    • The rules on objections in Philippine courts primarily stem from Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, specifically the sections on how evidence is offered, how objections are made, and how the court rules upon them.

  2. Purpose and Function of Objections

    • An objection serves to call the attention of the court to the introduction of evidence that is inadmissible, irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent, or otherwise improper under the Rules.
    • It ensures that the court does not consider or admit evidence that does not meet the established rules on admissibility.
    • Prompt and proper objections protect parties from prejudice that may arise if inadmissible or improper evidence is allowed to enter the record.

  3. General Principle

    • If no timely and proper objection is raised, the questionable evidence is typically deemed admitted and may be considered by the court in deciding the case, unless the rules allow the court to disregard it motu proprio (on its own initiative) under certain grounds (e.g., evidence that is absolutely inadmissible like unlawfully obtained confessions, or evidence in violation of a constitutional right).

II. Key Provisions Under Rule 132

  1. Section 36 (Objection)

    • “Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the ground therefor becomes reasonably apparent.”
    • This is the central provision that emphasizes the timely manner in which objections must be raised.

  2. Section 34 (Offer of Evidence)

    • Although directed toward the offer of evidence, it has a bearing on objections because it provides that evidence not formally offered is not to be considered by the court.
    • At the same time, any objection to the admission of evidence must be presented when the offer is made, or when the ground for objection becomes apparent (for instance, in a question-and-answer situation during direct or cross-examination).

  3. Section 37 (Ruling)

    • This provision requires the court to rule promptly on objections to evidence. A ruling must be stated either immediately or later, provided it does not prejudice the parties in presenting further evidence.

  4. Section 38 (Striking out an answer)

    • If a question is proper but the answer is improper or not responsive, an objection may be raised to strike out the improper answer.

  5. Section 39 (Tender of Excluded Evidence)

    • If the objection is sustained, the proponent may still make a tender of excluded evidence (also called an “offer of proof”) for purposes of preserving it for review in case of appeal. The tender can be made orally or in writing, depending on the circumstances.

III. When and How to Object

  1. Timeliness

    • Objection must be made at the earliest opportunity—as soon as the ground for the objection becomes evident.
    • If you object too late (e.g., after the witness has already answered the question, or after you have already allowed the exhibit to be marked and discussed without objection), the court may consider the objection waived.

  2. Form of Objection

    • Typically, an oral objection is made in open court at the moment the objectionable evidence is offered or the question is asked.
    • A written objection may also arise in the context of documentary or object evidence at the time it is formally offered for admission.

  3. Stating the Grounds for Objection

    • The grounds for objection must be specific and clearly stated. “Objection, your Honor,” without stating the basis, is generally insufficient; the court may ask for clarification.
    • Common grounds include:
      • Hearsay
      • Irrelevancy (evidence not related to any fact in issue)
      • Incompetency (evidence from an incompetent witness, or incompetent due to privileged communication, etc.)
      • Violation of Best Evidence Rule
      • Leading Question (on direct examination)
      • Speculative or Conjectural
      • Repetitive or Asked and Answered
      • Misleading
      • Calls for Opinion/Testimony by Non-Expert
      • Calls for a Legal Conclusion
      • Prejudicial, Confusing, or Cumulative evidence

IV. Grounds for Objection (Detailed)

  1. Hearsay

    • An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, with certain exceptions (e.g., declaration against interest, dying declaration, business entries, etc.).
    • If the statement does not fit any recognized exception, it is inadmissible, and an objection should be raised immediately.

  2. Irrelevancy or Immateriality

    • Evidence that does not relate to a fact in issue or does not make a fact in issue more or less probable may be deemed irrelevant.

  3. Incompetency of Witness or Evidence

    • Certain witnesses or certain types of evidence may be deemed incompetent by law (e.g., privileged communication, disqualified witnesses under the Rules).

  4. Best Evidence Rule Violations

    • When the content of a document is in dispute, the original document is generally required, unless an exception applies (e.g., the original is lost or destroyed without bad faith).

  5. Leading Questions

    • A question that suggests an answer is generally not allowed during direct examination, except for preliminary matters or for certain categories of witnesses (e.g., a child witness, or a hostile/adverse witness).

  6. Speculative or Conjectural Questions

    • Questions that ask the witness to guess, speculate, or form a conjecture on facts outside his or her personal knowledge are objectionable.

  7. Misleading, Repetitive, or Asked and Answered

    • The court discourages needless repetition, or questions that may confuse the witness and the court.

  8. Opinion/Conclusion

    • Non-expert witnesses are generally confined to testifying about facts, not opinions. Experts, however, may state their opinions on matters within their specialized field.

  9. Privilege

    • Attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, physician-patient privilege, and other privileged communications are protected. Any question infringing such privilege is objectionable.

V. Effect of Failure to Object

  1. Waiver

    • As a general rule, the failure to timely object to inadmissible evidence amounts to a waiver of the objection. The evidence then forms part of the records and may be considered by the court in its decision.

  2. Exceptions

    • The Supreme Court has recognized certain exceptions where the court may motu proprio exclude evidence even without an objection, particularly if the evidence offered is blatantly violative of due process, is patently illegal, or is absolutely inadmissible by reason of a constitutional or statutory prohibition (e.g., coerced confessions, or evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy).

VI. Ruling of the Court on Objections

  1. Prompt Ruling

    • Section 37 of Rule 132 mandates that the trial court shall rule on the objection “immediately” or “at the earliest practicable time.”
    • When the court defers ruling, it should not prejudice the parties or hamper them from making subsequent offers of evidence.

  2. Consequences

    • Sustained Objection: The evidence is disallowed or excluded.
    • Overruled Objection: The evidence is admitted and forms part of the record.

  3. Requesting the Court to Strike Out

    • Even if the question is proper but the witness’s answer is inadmissible, counsel must move to strike out that portion of the testimony if it does not conform to the rules of evidence.

VII. Continuing Objection

  1. Concept

    • A “continuing objection” is sometimes recognized by courts where an entire line of questioning or a particular piece of evidence (like a voluminous document) is objected to on the same ground.
    • The purpose is to avoid the need to object repeatedly to each question in the same line of questioning or to each portion of a document.
    • However, whether to allow a continuing objection is generally within the discretion of the trial court.

  2. Practical Consideration

    • If a continuing objection is granted, counsel should still be vigilant in monitoring the questions, as certain aspects of the line of questioning might open new and different grounds for objection.

VIII. Tender of Excluded Evidence

  1. Definition
    • Tender of excluded evidence (sometimes called an “offer of proof”) is a device whereby counsel places on record what the excluded evidence would have shown, had it been admitted.
  2. Purpose
    • Preserves the issue for appellate review by showing the appellate court the nature and substance of the excluded evidence.
    • Without a proper tender of excluded evidence, an appellate court has no basis to determine if the exclusion was prejudicial or constituted reversible error.
  3. Methods
    • Oral Offer: If the evidence was excluded during witness examination, counsel can summarize for the record what the witness would have testified.
    • Written Offer: Counsel may submit a written statement or document indicating the content, significance, and relevance of the excluded evidence.

IX. Objections Specific to Documentary and Object Evidence

  1. At the Time of Identification and Marking
    • While typically the formal objection to a document is reserved until the formal offer of evidence (usually after the presentation of all witnesses), counsel may raise preliminary objections (e.g., authenticity, best evidence rule, existence of spoliation).
  2. At the Time of the Formal Offer
    • After the party rests its case, it makes a formal offer of exhibits (documentary and object evidence). This is the critical stage for counsel to lodge their objections, specifying the ground for each document or object.

X. Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

  1. Failure to State Specific Grounds
    • A general objection without a specific ground is often overruled, or the court may treat it as waived.
  2. Late Objection
    • Objecting only after the witness has answered is generally too late, except where the answer itself reveals a new and previously unavailable ground for objection.
  3. Mixing Up Relevancy and Competency
    • Ensure the ground you invoke matches the nature of the defect you perceive in the evidence.
  4. Protracted Arguments
    • Counsel should avoid lengthy arguments on objections in open court, unless requested by the judge. State the ground succinctly; if the court requests, elaborate briefly or ask for leave to file a short written motion if the issue is complex.

XI. Notable Jurisprudence

  1. Heirs of Pedro Pasag vs. Spouses Parocha, G.R. No. 165644 (2007)

    • Emphasizes the importance of timely objections and how failure to object during trial precludes a party from raising the same issue on appeal.

  2. People vs. Cabural, G.R. No. 241447 (2021)

    • Highlights that an objection on the ground of hearsay must be specific and timely raised; otherwise, the testimony or document may be admitted into evidence.

  3. Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 216856 (2020)

    • Discusses the court’s broad discretion on rulings involving the admissibility of evidence and the standard of review on appeal for these rulings.

  4. People vs. Echavarria, G.R. No. 127421 (1999)

    • Reiterates that issues not objected to during trial are deemed waived and cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time on appeal.

XII. Legal Ethics Dimension

  1. Candor to the Court

    • Counsel must raise objections in good faith and not for the sole purpose of delay.
    • Frivolous objections may subject counsel to admonition or discipline by the court.

  2. Zealous Advocacy

    • A lawyer has a duty to protect the client’s interest by diligently objecting to inadmissible or prejudicial evidence. Failing to do so can amount to malpractice or negligence if it adversely affects the client’s case.

  3. Professional Courtesy

    • While vigorously objecting, maintain respect and decorum in addressing opposing counsel and the bench. Never argue with the judge in a disrespectful manner.

XIII. Conclusion

Objections are a crucial procedural mechanism to enforce the rules of admissibility, relevance, and competence in Philippine courts. They must be raised promptly and with specificity to be effective. The failure to timely object usually constitutes a waiver, admitting the contested evidence into the record. Counsel should thus be vigilant, well-versed in the grounds for objections, and adept at preserving issues for appeal through tenders of excluded evidence.

In practice, the strategic use of objections can significantly shape the evidence that the court ultimately considers in deciding a case. Counsel’s adherence to the rules governing objections not only reflects competent lawyering but also upholds the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that the factual record before the court is both accurate and reliable.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login