Time and again, I have emphasized strict adherence to proper procedure in trial. Today, I wish to discuss when objections should be made. A party will certainly have objections to the testimonies and evidence of the other, but these must be timely. If made prematurely, objections have no effect. If made belatedly, they become futile and detrimental to the party objecting.

In the case I discuss here, a party in a marital case allowed a witness of the opposing party to testify. It was only after the latter’s testimony that the party moved to have the testimony stricken out. The trial court denied the request, and an appeal to the appellate court proved ineffective.

The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court, where the High Court made a thorough discussion on when and how objections may be made, whether to testimonies or documentary evidence.

The Court explained: “No error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it affirmed the Regional Trial Court in denying petitioner’s (a) Motion to Expunge the testimony of the expert witness for failure to timely question her qualifications and her (b) Motion to Suppress the psychological report containing hypnotically induced evidence, as the said motion is premature.

“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.      

“Thus, it is basic in the rule of evidence that an objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered. Section 35, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides when to make an offer of evidence, thus: Sec. 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. Such an offer shall be made orally unless allowed by the court to be made in writing.

“On the other hand, Section 36, Rule 132 of the same rules provides when objection to the evidence offered shall be made, thus: Sec. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. Objections to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.

“In other words, objection to oral evidence must be raised at the earliest possible time — that is, after the objectionable question is asked or after the answer is given if the objectionable issue becomes apparent only after the answer is given. In the case of documentary evidence, the offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.

“As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, 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 explained the mechanics of the psychological examination she conducted on the respondent. Petitioner should not have waited in ambush after the expert witness had already finished testifying. By so doing, the petitioner did not save the time of the court in hearing the testimony of the witness, which, 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 the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify and the objection thereto made is so that the court may right away rule on whether the testimony is necessary on grounds of irrelevancy, immateriality, or whatever grounds are available at the onset. Here, the petitioner allowed a substantial amount of time to be wasted by not forthrightly objecting to the inadmissibility of the respondent’s testimonial evidence.”

Now you know when to object — clear as day.

The facts and the quoted, redacted portion of the decision are from S.C. G.R. No. 205333 (18 February 2019).