PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle

---vs--Pacifico Junior Barellano, accused-appellant

R132 S34 Offer of Evidence
FACTS:
1. This is a case for murder against herein accused Barellano for the killing of Epifanio
Cabales.
a. Prosecutions version is as follows: One of its eyewitness, Felix Timkang, friend of
the deceased Cabales, testified that he and the deceased along with several other
friends were drinking beside the barangay auditorium after he went to the
marketplace. It was during their drinking session that the accused appeared and
shot the deceased multiple times at the back, and again after the deceased fell.
Autopsy revealed that the cause of death is the gunshot wounds.
b. Defenses version is mainly alibi; he alleges that he was at his in-laws at the time
the crime was committed and he could not have been at the scene of the crime.
He also insist that Felixs testimony is uncorroborated, and that the autopsy
report is only a photocopy and not the original, therefore should not be admitted
even if his counsel let the document be admitted during trial.
2. RTC convicted him. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the autopsy report should be admitted
HELD: YES. Conviction is upheld.
Side issues: Felixs testimony alone, as an eye witness, may be enough to sustain a conviction of
murder if credible and trustworthy. Likewise, it is not true that Felixs testimony is
uncorroborated. It was in fact corroborated by one of the other drinking buddies.
Main issue: It is already too late for the accused to assail the admissibility of said photocopy
autopsy report. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally
offered, not earlier. Objection to the identification and marking of document is not equivalent to
objection to the document when it is formally offered. In this case, no such timely objection was
ever made.
Accused likewise claims that the failure of prosecution to present a certain Jose Dayola (another
drinking buddy), raises the presumption that if produced, his testimony would not be favorable
to prosecution. SC disagrees, Prosecution has the discretion to decide who to call as a witness
during trial, and failure to do so would not constitute as suppression. In fact, Dayola is also
available to the defense as their witness if they indeed believe that his testimony will be against
prosecution.