REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

$anbiauhagau
kt Quezon City

SIXTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SB-19-CRM-0144

Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 8, in relation to
Section II of R.A. No. 6713

Present
- versus -
FERNANDEZ, SJ, .1.,
Chairperson
MIRANDA, J. and
ABUBACAR P. MAULANA, VIVERO, J.
Accused.

Promulgated:

J*a.uaAJ II, 1D2

H
RESOLUTION

FERNANDEZ, SJ, J.

This resolves the following:

1. The prosecution's Formal Offer of Rebuttal Evidence;'

2. Accused Abubacar P Maulana's Motion to Strike Out

Judicial Affidavit and Its Attachments With
Comment/Opposition to the Formal Offer of Rebuttal
Evidence; 2 and,

3. The prosecution's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion to

Strike Out Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Elmar S. Arellano 1 . 3

;611
'Dated October 21 2022 and flied on October 25, 2022
Dated October 25, 2022
Dated November 7, 2022 and flied by electronic mail on November 8, 2022
RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0 144

Page 2 of 7

x----------------x

In its Formal Offer of Rebuttal Evidence, the prosecution offers

the following as its rebuttal evidence:

Exhibit Document
H and sub- Certified True Copy (CTC) of Deed of Sale
markings between Eldon Buenaventura and Mary Grace
Cheng-Rosagas dated 24 May 2002
I Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle dated July 03,
2013
I-i and sub- Certified True Copy (CTC) of Community Tax
Certificate dated 2013 (Cedula)
1-2 and sub- CTC of the Identification Cards of accused
pjJns Maulana with his original signatures
1-3 CTC of the Identification card (ID) of Ms.
Rosagas
J rAffidavit of Change color dated July 03, 2013,
executed by accused Maulana
K Original Certification dated October 12, 2022

In his Motion, the accused prays that the Court strike out witness
Elmar S. Arellano's Judicial Affidavit and its attachments and/or
exclude the pertinent documentary exhibits as they were not properly
authenticated, identified and verified. He avers:

1. Sec. 10(c) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule4 provides:

(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that
do not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the
attestation requirement of Section 4 above. xxx

2. Sections 3 and 4 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule require that

questions and answers be conducted for the taking of the
judicial affidavit, and that the lawyer must faithfully record the
questions asked and the answers of the witness.

3. In the Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2022, witness

Arellano stated that his Judicial Affidavit was taken on October
12, 2022 in the form of Question and Answer. On the other hand,
the public prosecutor attested that the Judicial Affidavit was
properly recorded on said date, and no one dictated or coached
the witness.

4. During the hearing on October 20, 2022, however, witness

Arellano testified that on October 12, 2022, he stayed at his
office from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 PM, and did not go elsewhere.

4 A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC

RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0144

Page 3 of 7

x----------------x

After realizing that there was something wrong with his

declaration, witness Arellano testified that he allegedly left in
between the said times.

5. During the presentation of witness Arellano, it was clearly

established that he did not go to the Office of the Prosecutor for
the conduct of the question and answer. According to him, he
just went there and was asked to sign the document. This
shows that witness Arellano was not merely coached but his
entire testimony is supplied and prepared for him by the
prosecutor.

6. Because the subject Judicial Affidavit does not conform to the

requirements provided in the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the same,
as well as the pertinent documentary exhibits, must be stricken
out.

In his Comment/Opposition to the prosecution's Formal Offer of

Rebuttal Evidence, which is incorporated in his Motion, the accused
objects to the admission of Exhibits H, I, I-i, 1-2, 1-3 and K for being
irrelevant, improper and self-serving, and to the admission of Exhibit J
for being hearsay.

In its Comment/Opposition to the accused's Motion, the

prosecution counters:

1. Under Sec. 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the objection must

be raised when the judicial affidavit is offered.

2. The accused not only failed to object during the offer, but he
likewise stipulated that the witness can identify his judicial
affidavit, his signature appearing therein, and if asked, he will
affirm and confirm the contents of his judicial affidavit.

3. Furthermore, the accused has five (5) days to seek

reconsideration of the Court's order admitting Mr. Arellano's
Judicial Affidavit The accused's instant motion was filed
beyond the reglementary period.

4. Even assuming that the instant Motion was filed on time, it

should still fail because it does not have any legal or factual
basis. Mr. Arellano is testifying as a records custodian only.
During the additional direct examination, he brought the original
Land Transportation Office (LTO) files or documents for
comparison ip open court with the Certified True Copies (CTC)
he issued.
RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0 144

Page 4 of 7

x---------------- x

5. Several stipulations and manifestations made during the

hearing fully affirmed and confirmed the material aspects stated
in Mr. Arellano's Judicial Affidavit. Thus, the alleged minor
inconsistencies with Mr. Arellano's answers during the cross-
examination do not negate the material fact established during
his testimony in court and stated in his Judicial Affidavit.

Thereafter, without being required to file the same, the accused

filed his Reply to Comment/Opposition (Re: Accused's Motion to Strike
Out Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Elmar S. Arellano). 5

THE COURT'S RULING

First, the accused's Motion must be denied. It is too late for him
to move for the exclusion of witness Arellano's Judicial Affidavit. The
accused should have moved for the same during the hearing on
October 20, 2022, before witness Arellano completed his testimony.

The pertinent provisions on when to make offer and objection,

under Rule 132 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules
on Evidence, 6 read:

Sec. 35. When to make offer - All evidence must be offered orally.

The offer of the testimony of a witness in evidence must be

made at the time the witness is called to testify.

The offer of documentary and object evidence shall be made

after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.

Sec. 36. Objection. - Obiection to offer of evidence must be made

orally immediately after the offer is made.

Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal

offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds
therefor become reasonably apparent.

The grounds for the objections must be specified.

(underscoring supplied)

Dated November 15, 2022 and filed by electronic mail on Novemb 16 022
A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC dated October 8, 2019
RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0144

Page 5 of 7

x----------------x

In Magsino v. Magsino, 7 the Supreme Court explained that to

exclude evidence, objection to the admissibility thereof should be
timely made, and the grounds specified. Grounds for objections not
raised at the proper time shall be deemed waived, even if the evidence
was objected to on some other ground. Viz.:

In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of

evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified.
Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be
considered waived, even if the evidence was objected to on some
other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate court may not
consider any other ground of objection, except those that were raised
at the proper time.

xxx

As correctly found by the CA, the objections interposed by

petitioner - as to both oral and documentary evidence - were not
timely made.

Petitioner should have objected during the course of Gates'

direct testimony on her qualifications as an expert witness and
explaining the mechanics of the psychological examination which
she conducted on respondent. Petitioner should not have waited in
ambush after the expert witness had already finished testifying. By
so doing, petitioner did not save the time of the court in hearing the
testimony of the witness that after all according to her was
inadmissible. And thus, for her failure to make known her objection
at the proper time, the procedural error or defect was waived. Indeed,
the reason why offer must be made at the time the witness is called
to testify and the objection thereto be made, so that the court could
right away rule on whether the testimony is necessary on the ground
of irrelevancy, immateriality or whatever grounds that are available
at the onset. Here, petitioner allowed a substantial amount of time
to be wasted by not forthrightly objecting to the inadmissibility of the
respondent's testimonial evidence.

Similarly, herein accused should have raised his objection at the

proper time, or immediately after the offer of witness Arellano's
Juidicial Affidavit in lieu of his direct testimony, or before he completed
his testimony at the latest.

Indeed, during the hearing on October 20, 2022, the accused

pointed out that witness Arellano's Judicial Affidavit states that it was

7
G.R. No. 205333, February 18, 2019
RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0144

Page 6 of 7

x ----------------x

taken on October 12, 2022, but he testified that on the said date, he
was in his office from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M . 8 However, the accused
only moved to strike out or exclude the subject Judicial Affidavit days
after witness Arellano completed his testimony. Because the accused
failed to move to strike out or exclude the subject Judicial Affidavit in a
timely manner, he is deemed to have waived his objection.

At any rate, the accused's objections refer more to the credibility

of witness Arellano and his testimony, rather than its admissibility, and
witness Arellano was able to explain the discrepancy in the dates in
the course of his testimony.

With respect to the prosecution's Formal Offer of Rebuttal

Evidence, the prosecution's documentary exhibits are admitted for the
purposes for which they are offered, over the accused's objection,
considering that the accused's objections refer more to the probative
value than their admissibility.

WHEREFORE, the Court rules as follows

1. The accused's Reply is merely NOTED, considering

that he was not required to file the same. 9

2. The accused's Motion is hereby DENIED.

3. The Court resolves to ADMIT the following exhibits,

including the sub-markings, offered by the prosecution
on rebuttal: Exhibits H, I, I-I, 1-2,11-3, J and K, for the
purposes for which they are offered, considering that
the accused's objections refer more to the probative
value than their admissibility.

With the admission of its documentary exhibits, the prosecution

is deemed to have rested its case on rebuttal.

The hearing for the presentation of the accused's sur-rebuttal

evidence is tentatively set on January 19, 2023. In the meantime, he is

2TSN, October 20, 2022, pp. 51-53

2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayari. Rule VII, Sec. 4. Period to comment and to resolve. -
xxx Reply and memorandum shall not be allowed.

let
 RESOLUTION
People vs. Maulana
SB-19-CRM-0144

Page 7 of 7

x----------------x

DIRECTED, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, to

manifest whether he will present his sur-rebuttal evidence.

SO ORDERED.

• JANET. FERN NDEZ

Associate Justice
Chairperson

We Concur:

.Ml NDA KVIN ARC B. VIVERO

As'seiate Justice Associate Justice