TAN vs PEOPLE

FACTS:
Herein petitioner was convicted as charged with the crime of Violation of BP22(6
counts). The complaint was initiated by herein private respondent Carolyn Zaragoza,
on
account of Tans issued checks as payment for a loan he entered with Ms.
Zaragoza in the amount of Php 1, 000,000 . As could be gleaned from the facts, Tan
issued checks in favor of Ms. Zaragoza to cover payment of said amount. However,
when same were presented before the bank, they were dishonored. A Demand Letter
was sent by Zaragozas lawyer to compel Tan to settle his obligations, but seemingly,
such just fell on deaf ears. Nonetheless, he denied having received mentioned demand
letter. As stated at the outset, Tan was found guilty as charged accordingly by the
MTC, RTC and the CA.
Before the High Court, Tan imputes error on the part of the Appellate Court for
its non consideration of his argument that no evidentiary weight should be accorded
the demand letter, because according to him, although included in the formal offer
of evidence by the prosecution, it was not presented during trial for proper
identification, hence it should not have been admitted in to evidence even if the
defense failed to object to the formal offer thereof.
ISSUE:
WON THE DEMAND LETTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN VIEW
OF THE PROSECUTION FAILURE TO PRESENT IT?
RULE:
YES.

It would be unreasonable to apply to the present case the general rule that
objection to the admissibility of evidence, if not made at the time such evidence is
offered, shall be deemed waived. As the demand letter was never presented during the
course of the trial, petitioner was never alerted to its possible inclusion in the
prosecution formal offer of evidence. Verily, therefore, petitioners failure to timely
object to this piece of evidence (the demand letter) is excusable. The prosecution
should not benefit from the anomalous inclusion of the demand letter in the records.
Said evidence should be deemed inadmissible and should not have been considered by
the MTC in arriving at its judgment.

JAY S. ARCILLA