G.R. No. 205333 , February 18, 2019
MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, Petitioner, vs. ROLANDO N. MAGSINO, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a petition filed by Rolando Magsino to fix his parental rights pendente lite. The spouses have two children. In 2005, petitioner Ma. Melissa Magsino suspected respondent was sexually molesting their young children and left the conjugal home with them. During the pre-trial, respondent presented Dr. Cristina Gates as an expert witness. She testified, based on clinical hypnosis and other methods, that respondent could not have molested the children, attributing the children’s sexualized behavior to accidentally witnessing their parents’ intercourse.
Petitioner’s counsel did not object during Dr. Gates’ direct testimony. However, before cross-examination, counsel moved to strike her testimony, challenging her expertise and the admissibility of hypnotically-induced recollections. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, ruling the objection was untimely and that cross-examination constituted a waiver. The RTC also denied a subsequent motion to suppress the related psychological evaluation report as premature, as it had not been formally offered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Expunge testimony and the Motion to Suppress evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the motion to expunge testimony, the Court held that objections to the qualifications of an expert witness or the admissibility of testimonial evidence must be made at the time the testimony is offered during direct examination. Failure to raise a timely objection constitutes a waiver. Petitioner’s counsel only objected after the direct examination and before cross-examination, which was not the proper time. Furthermore, counsel proceeded with extensive cross-examination, which reinforced the waiver of any objection to the admissibility of the testimony.
On the motion to suppress the psychological report, the Court ruled that such a motion was premature. Objections to documentary evidence must be made at the time of its formal offer, not during its identification or marking. A motion to suppress is essentially an objection made in advance of the offer, which is not allowed under the rules. The proper recourse is to object when the document is formally offered as an exhibit. The Court clarified that admissibility is distinct from probative value; evidence may be admitted but later assigned little weight. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as it correctly applied procedural rules on the timeliness of objections.