You are on page 1of 60

Evidence Project Volumes

Volume 1: I. Admissibility of Evidence II. What Need Not Be Proved III. Real Demonstrative Evidence IV. Best Evidence Rule V. Parole Evidence Rule VI. Interpretation of Documents VII. Qualifications of Witnesses VIII. Privileged Communications IX. Admissions & Confessions X. Conduct & Character XI. Hearsay Rule XII. Opinion Rule XIII. Burden of Proof & Presumptions XIV. Presentation of Evidence (Part. A., B. , C. 1. to 7.) XIV. Presentation of Evidence (Part C. 8. to 10., D., E.) XV. Weight & Sufficiency of Evidence

Volume 2:

Volume 3:

Volume 4:

Volume 5:

Volume 6:

3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 1 -

Volume 1: Table of Contents
I. Admissibility of Evidence A. Rule 128, Sections 1-4. 1. Reyes vs. CA 2. People vs. Turco B. Relevance 1. Rule 128, Sections 3 & 4. 2. Bautista vs. Aperece 3. Lopez vs. Heesen 4. State vs. Ball C. Competence 1. Rule 128, Section 3. 2. Exclusionary Rules Under 1987 Constitution (a) Art. III, Sections 2 & 3. (b) Art. III, Section 12. (c) Art. III. Section 17. 3. Statutory Rules of Exclusion (a) Tax Reform Act of 1997, Section 201 (b) RA 1405, Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 7653, §135) (c) RA 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Act (i) Ganaan vs. IAC (ii) Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA (iii) Ramirez vs. CA II. What Need Not Be Proved A. Rule 129, Sections 1-4. Rule 10, Section 8. B. Cases 1. Judicial Notice (a) City of Manila vs. Garcia (b) Baguio vs. Vda. De Jalagat (c) Prieto vs. Arroyo (d) Yao-Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales (e) Tabuena vs. CA (f) People vs. Godoy
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 2 -

(g) BPI-Savings vs. CTA 2. Judicial Admissions (a) Lucida vs. Calupitan (b) Torres vs. CA (c) Bitong vs. CA III. Real and Demonstrative Evidence A. Rule 130, Sections 1 & 2. B. Cases 1. 2. 3. 4. IV.

People vs. Bardaje Sison vs. People Adamczuk vs. Holloway State vs. Tatum

Best Evidence Rule A. Rule 130, Sections 2-8 Rule 132, Sections 25 & 27. Electronic Commerce Act (RA 8792), Sections 5, 6-15. Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Sections 1, 3, 4. B. Cases 1. Air France vs. Carrascoso 2. Meyers vs. United States 3. People vs. Tan 4. Seiler vs. Lucasfilm 5. People vs. Tandoy 6. US vs. Gregorio 7. Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes 8. Vda. De Corpus vs. Brabangco 9. Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers 10. Villa Rey Transit vs. Ferrer 11. Michael & Co. vs. Enriquez 12. De Vera vs. Aguilar

3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 3 -

Eufrocina alleged that upon the death of her husband. 1-4 FACTS: Juan Mendoza. The lots are tenanted and cultivated by Julian de la Cruz. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Court of Appeals 216 SCRA 25 (1993) Rule 128. Parayao. SECTION 1-4: RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1. CASES: Reyes vs. are duly elected and appointed barangay officials of the locality. except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.4 - . (1) SECTION 2. – Evidence is the means. devoted to the production of palay. Evidence defined.I. Sec. Aguinaldo and Mananghaya. the husband of plaintiff Eufrocina de la Cruz. she succeeded him as bona fide tenant. except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 1 . ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE A. Olympio. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings. the father of defendant Olympio. Olympio in conspiracy with the other defendants prevented her daughter Violeta and her workers from entering and working on the farm lots. Defendants likewise refused to vacate and surrender the lots. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed. Admissibility of evidence. which prompted Eufrocina to file a case for the recover of possession and damages with a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in the meantime. Collateral Matters. sublease and mortgage of the farm lots without his consent. and non-payment of rentals as his defenses. is the owner of Farm Lots Nos. 46 and 106. (2a) SECTION 3. RULE 128. who denied their interference in the tenancy relationship existing between Olympio and Eufrocina. The petitioners in this case. Scope. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. sanctioned by these rules. the defendants Reyes. raised abandonment. Relevancy. In her complaint. for his part. (3a) SECTION 4. However.

the quantum of evidence required is no more than substantial evidence. Sec 1-4 FACTS: Rodegelio Turco. near the pig pen which was about 12 meters away from the victim’s house. The prosecution alleged that the victim. No.The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the agrarian court’s decision with modification. The CA likewise ruled that the petitioners are solidarily liable to pay to Eufrocina the value of cavans of palay until they have vacated the area. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.” Moreover. Then the accused bid the victim to walk.D. No. (a. 946 provides that the “Rules of Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character. Escelea heard a call from outside.5 - . Section 16 of P. since the affiants were not presented and subjected to cross-examination.” By: Frances Joanne D.k. this case is an application of the rule with regard the scope of the Rules on Evidence which states that “The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings except as otherwise provided by law (ex. the petitioners questioned the favorable consideration given to the affidavits of Eufrocina and Efren Tecson. 946) or these rules. the accused laid the victim on the grass. Section 16 of P. When they reached a grassy part. went on top of her an took off her short pants and panty. Thus. Miranda People vs. RULING: The judgment is affirmed.D. Turco 337 SCRA 714 (2000) Rule 128. On appeal. The accused succeeded in pursuing his evil design by forcibly inserting his penis inside the victim’s private parts. Escelea Tabada (12 yrs and 6 months old at the time of the incident) and accused Turco were neighbors. The victim tried to resist by moving her body but to no avail. covered the victim’s face. Jr. which ordered the defendants to restore possession of the farm lots to plaintiff Eufrocina. “Totong”) was charged with the crime of rape. She recognized the voice to be Turco’s since they have been neighbors for 4 years and are second cousins. When she opened the door.” The same provision states that “In the hearing. even if the affiant was not presented and subjected to crossexamination.a. On the night of the incident. affidavits and counter-affidavits may be allowed and are admissible in evidence. The trial court did not err when it favorable considered the affidavits of Eufrocina and Efren Tecson although the affiants were not presented and subjected to cross-examination. 1 . ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court erred when it gave favorable consideration to the affidavits of plaintiff. investigation and determination of any question or controversy. the accused with the use of a towel. in agrarian cases. upon reaching her home.

By: Frances Joanne D. although the medical certificate is an exception to the hearsay rule. the weight to be given to such evidence.6 - . reliance was made on the testimony of the victim herself. although the medico-legal officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify on it. Miranda B. they went to the Isabela Municipal Station and filed a compliant against the accused charging him with rape. Thus. admissibility is therefore. SECTIONS 3 AND 4. RULING: Conviction affirmed. Rule 128) or is competent. once admitted. an affair of logic and law. It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is proper. she kept to herself the harrowing experience. 1 . who in turn told the victim’s father about the rape of his daughter. In the instant case. which standing alone even without the medical examination. it has very little probative value due to the absence of the examining physician. the victim’s testimony alone is credible and sufficient to convict. the victim discovered that her short pants and panty were filled with blood. it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Thereafter. Nevertheless. After the issuance of the medical certificate. Appealing his conviction. evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception. However. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence. while evidence may be admissible. stating that the defense of “sweetheart theory” was a mere concoction of the accused in order to exculpate him from criminal liability. On the other hand. In fact.Upon reaching home. hence admissible as evidence. The trial court convicted the accused. depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the Court. We place emphasis on the distinction between admissibility of evidence and the probative value thereof. until she had the courage to tell her brother-in-law. RELEVANCE: 1. is sufficient evidence. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the medical certificate in evidence. the accused-appellant argues that the trial court erred because no actual proof was presented that the rape of the complainant actually happened considering that although a medical certificate was presented. they did not waste time and immediately asked the victim to see a doctor for medical examination. it cannot be said that the prosecution relied solely on the medical certificate. RULE 128 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules (Section 3. For almost ten days. the medico-legal officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to explain the same. Conversely. The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape.

7 - . had no jurisdiction over the matter.SECTION 3. The test for the admissibility or inadmissibility of a certain document is whether or not it is relevant. He argued that the document was executed under duress. Relevancy. and recognized Aparece’s lawful ownership over the land. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting as evidence. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Valentin sold this property to Claudio Justiniani. While Aparece was in possession. material or competent. 1 . On appeal. and that the guerilla officer before whom it was executed. Aparece file a complaint with the guerilla forces then operating in the province of Bohol. Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter probable in ac action. and intimidation. claiming that the property belongs to him. Admissibility of evidence. When the case was called for hearing. Thus. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nJon-existence. except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. 1935. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed. a public document executed before an officer who had no jurisdiction over the matter. However. Nicolas Anasco sold the same to Valentin Justiniani. Bautista raised as defense the error of the trial court in admitting the public instrument which he executed as evidence. Bautista filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bohol. Hermogenes Bautista illegally entered a part of the land and took possession thereof. And evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings. and alleging that with the aid of armed men and pretending to be owner. possession of the land was restored to Aparece. and after inspection was made by a guerilla officer. (3a) SECTION 4. In the same year. usurped the land. Bautista executed a public instrument wherein he promised to return the land to Aparece in good will. The CFI rendered judgment declaring Aparece as owner of the land. In October 12. Thus. Collateral Matters. but is also material and competent to the issue of ownership between the parties litigants. The public document is not only relevant. while competent evidence is one that s not excluded by law in a particular case.G. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. RULING: This argument is beside the point. CASES: Bautista vs. Claudio Justiniani executed a public instrument whereby he sold the same property for P100 to Apolonio Aparece in whose name it was assessed since 1935. violence. 805 (1995) Relevance FACTS: As owner of the lot subject of the case. Aparece 51 O.

The rifle has a bolt action known as a “Mausser type action” with a “Class 1” safety mechanism. When he followed the deer. He likewise objected on the introduction of testimony on the “poundage pressure” required to move the safety levers from safe to fire position on the ground of irrelevance and immateriality. This occurred when he had come down a long hill covered with rocks and boulders. The public document. Lastly. immaterial or incompetent to the main issue raised in the pleadings. He placed a live cartridge in the chamber and placed the gun on safety position. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. we hold that the mere fact that the public document was executed before a guerilla officer does not make the same as irrelevant. who was nearby. He also included as party-defendant. 1 . he left the knoll and he was carrying the gun on his shoulder. Heesen left for a deer hunting trip in an area known as Ute Park. for allegedly negligently designing and manufacturing the rifle bought by Heesen. an air Force officer. Heesen 365 P. explaining the composition of the rifle and gave operating instructions. Lopez objected to this evidence on the ground that it was wholly immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in the case. Miranda Lopez vs. purchased a J. ISSUE(S): (1) Whether or not expert testimony on the general reputation of other firearms companies using the same safety device is material and relevant.With these criteria in mind.8 - . including the method to be pursued to make the gun “safe”. satisfies the Court that the portions of land in question really belong to defendant Aparece. the designer. By: Frances Joanne D. Defendants presented expert testimony on the general reputation of other firearms companies who use the same modified leaf safety device as the Higgins Model 51. Ten minutes before the accident began. he objected to the introduction of opinion evidence regarding the design of the safety mechanism. Heesen was not aware that the rifle moved from “safe to fire’ position at least twice before the shooting. he discovered the gun off safety position. manufacturer and seller of the rifle. Heesen was given an instruction pamphlet which he read.C. He traveled a good deal during the hours before the shooting and on one of two occasions.2d 448 (1961) Relevance FACTS: Appellee Heesen. on the ground that it was a subject which is within the province of the jury to determine. considered together with the other evidence. Higgins Model 51 30. the bullet hitting appellant Lopez. Lopez brought suit against Heesen for allegedly unlawfully assaulting him. Immediately after the purchase. his left foot went down hard on the ground on one side of a log and his right foot slipped on the grass. He later heard a rustle and saw a deer go between some trees. thereby inflicting dangerous and painful wounds. This brought the rifle down and the rifle discharged.06 rifle from the store of appellee Sears. documentary and oral. Sears. At the time of the purchase.

Miranda State vs Ball 339 S. entered the store. especially the taller man’s narrow-brimmed tall hat. one of them tall and the other short.(2) (3) Whether or not testimony on the “poundage pressure” required is relevant and material. Said opinion evidence is not binding on the jury. It does not usurp the functions of the jury as the latter may still reject these opinions. As the taller man looked at jewelry and made his purchase. the issue arose as to the “poundage pressure’ required to move the safety lever from safe to fire. Expert testimony is admissible because the expert testimony was upon the ultimate issue of whether or not the safety device was dangerous and defective. defective. Considering these principles. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.9 - . 1 . as John Krekeler was placing the rings and watches in the safe preparing for the closing of the store. the proper understanding of which. At about 2:30 in the afternoon. in that the safety mechanism moved re4adily from “safe” to “fire” position.m. requires knowledge or experience and cannot be determined independently merely from deductions made and inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge. entered the Krekeler Jewelry Store. convicting him of robbery.w2d 783 (1960) Relevance FACTS: Ball appeals from an order of the trial court. Later in the same day. and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. They were immediately recognized by Krekeler. in determining whether the tendency of the thing is dangerous.. (3) By: Frances Joanne D. (2) The testimony was introduced under Lopez’s contention that the Higgins model was unsafe and thus. brown jacket. Whether or not the design of the safety mechanism was a proper subject of expert testimony. gray short and particularly a scar on his face. It was then proper for Sears to show the amount of pressure required to move the safety lever as this was relevant to the issue posed. This is an issue. Moreover. the Court held that the testimony as to the reputation of other firearms companies using the same safety device is material and relevant to the issue of whether the safety device on the Higgins Model 51 was unsafe or safe. The allegations on the ultimate facts in issue involve whether the Higgins Model 51 rifle was in a dangerous and defective condition due to its negligent manufacture. two colored men. the two men who had been in the store at 2:30. at around 5:30 p. the conduct of others is proper evidence for a jury to consider. the shorter man looked in the cases and moved about in the store. or the reverse. It was the proper subject of expert testimony. RULING: (1) The expert testimony is admissible.

(2) In identifying Ball. and the hypothesis that the money found is the same as the money taken is too forced and extraordinary to be receivable. to indicate a consciousness of guilt. and the “jingle” of the car register.” By: Frances Joanne D. and $140 in cash. RULING: (1) Unexplained flight and resisting arrest even thirty days after the supposed commission of the crime is a relevant circumstance. The proof of the money here was evidently on the theory that Ball did not have or was not likely to have such a sum of money on his person prior to the commission of the offense. After hearing the door slam. gray shirt and shoes. With the gun on his back. a brownish windbreaker type jacket. Krekeler was not able to identify the money or any of the items on Ball’s person as having come from the jewelry store so that in fact. because in general all money of the same denomination and material is alike. the money is inadmissible. it was simply a total of $140. Three weeks later. However. Thereafter. The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. Krekeler was impressed with and remembered the brown ensemble. the man hit Krekeler on the face using a 0. since it was too remote from the date of the robbery (3 weeks later). then to the restroom. Here. Ball was arrested by Officers Powell and Ballard while walking in the street. Miranda 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Ball claims that this evidence of “flight” was not material or relevant.21 worth of watched and rings. (2) Whether or not the articles found in the person of the accused at the time of his arrest are inadmissible for being irrelevant and immaterial. they were not admissible in evidence. The officers ran after him and he was only pacified when the Officer’s fired a bullet which fell in his back. 1 . and $258. Ball shoved Officer Powell over and ran down the avenue.The shorter man walked behind the counter and as Krekeler tried to intercept him. nineteen days had elapsed. the two men directed Krekeler to go to the watch repair department. facing the wall.455. These items were of course relevant and admissible in evidence and there is no objection to them.10 - . Ball likewise objected to the admissibility of the following articles found in his person during the arrest on grounds of immateriality and irrelevance: a brown felt hat. He reported that the two men took $4. ISSUES(S) (1) Whether or not the evidence of flight is inadmissible for reason of remoteness to the time of the commission of the crime. he could hear jewelry being dumped in a bag. there was no proof that Ball had suddenly come into possession of the $258. Krekeler call the police.02 in currency and two pennies. particularly the tall brown hat.38 long barreled pistol. where he was positioned. trousers. However. There was no proof as to the denomination of the money in the cash register.02 and in all these circumstances “the mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself no indication that the possessor was the taker of the money charged as taken.

(2) No torture. Article III (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court. Secret detention places. solitary. COMPETENCE: SECTION 3. 2. incommunicado. (b) SECTION 12. intimidation. ARTICLE III Section 12. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. threat. houses. Admissibility of evidence. 1. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Article III (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. (3a) 2. SEC. Article III The right of the people to be secure in their persons. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION (a) SECTIONS 2 AND 3. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel.C. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.11 - . he must be provided with one. violence. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. 1 . 3. force. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. ARTICLE III SEC. RULE 128 SECTION 3. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. papers. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

shall not be recorded. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined. 17.An instrument.1405. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. government official.(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices. and their families. 201. (c) SECTION 17. as amended AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO. (b) RA 1405. document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed. 1 . inquired or looked into by any person. TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997 SEC. . ARTICLE III SEC. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.12 - . accepted or transferred without being duly stamped. bureau or office.1 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines. DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR Section 1. nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. issued. Sec 2. Effect of Failure to Stamp Taxable Document. LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS Republic Act No. 3. except when the examination is made in the course of a special or general examination of a bank and is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. STATUTORY RULES OF EXCLUSION SECTION 201. 1.

It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a bank to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section Two hereof. Decree No. in the discretion of the court. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. or in cases of impeachment. The original Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. or when the examination is made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank. 135 of Rep. bureau or office. are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined." "Sec. official or employee authorized by the bank. NO. any information concerning said deposits. Any violation of this law will subject the offender upon conviction. Special Charters.1792. 1955. (As amended by PD No. January 16. Sec 5. its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities. 2 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines." (c) R. Act No. approved June 14. September 9. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits. or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.mission of the depositor. 3. inquired or looked into by any person.irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity. 4200 WIRETAPPING ACT 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 . (As amended by PD No. government official. or for an independent auditor hired by a bank to conduct its regular audit to disclose to any person other than a bank director. APPROVED.A. as follows: "Sec. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.1792) Sec 4. except upon written per. or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.1792. or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. All acts or parts of Acts. Rules and Regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. Act No. 1981. PD 1792 was expressly repealed by Sec. or in cases of impeachment.1405 are hereby reproduced for reference. Executive Orders.13 - .7653. 1993. 1981) Sec 3. __________ 1 This Section and Section 3 were both amended by Pres. issued January 16. Sec 6. to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both. or upon written permission of the depositor.

or to replay the same for any other person or persons. 1 . shall not be covered by this prohibition. conspiracy to commit sedition. be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence. It shall also be unlawful for any person. espionage. and inciting to sedition. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3 hereof. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder. piracy. be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. or causes such violation shall. of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law. to tap any wire or cable. or by using any other device or arrangement. whether complete or partial. to knowingly possess any tape record. and violations of Commonwealth Act No. or aids. to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason. or to communicate the contents thereof. if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings. either verbally or in writing. however. Nothing contained in this Act. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. disc record. 4200 AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION. sedition. such 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. to any other person: Provided. sedition. shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer. and. rebellion. mutiny in the high seas. or to furnish transcriptions thereof. 616. Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid. or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder. or copies thereof. or any other such record. permit. It shall be unlawful for any person. inciting to rebellion. inciting to sedition. wire record. to secretly overhear. who is authorized by a written order of the Court. inciting to rebellion. permits. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. SECTION 2. conspiracy to commit sedition. That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion.14 - . or however otherwise described. intercept. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SECTION 1. punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided. That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided.REPUBLIC ACT NO. SECTION 3. upon conviction thereof. That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. however. kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war.

which shall not be granted except upon motion. within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order. or to the solution of. legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. any such crimes. The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications. discs. or used in evidence. or recorded and. with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded. be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package. or records included in the deposit. SECTION 5. intercepted. Any communication or spoken word. the number of tapes. that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. conversations. The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed. SECTION 4. (3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented. as the case may be.15 - . The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order.authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition. conversations. The envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened. and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made. quasi-judicial. discussions. All recordings made under court authorization shall. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended. (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear. discussions. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. the dates and times covered by each recording. and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for. and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made. or if made. intercept. or their contents revealed. effect. SECTION 6. or spoken words are to be overheard. or meaning of the same or any part thereof. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. purport. unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest. or the recordings replayed. contents. have actually been or are being committed. or to the prevention of. except upon order of the court. substance. or spoken words. in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications. the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location. 1 . or the existence. or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial. and (4) the period of the authorization. or record the communications.

Intermediate Appellate Court 145 SCRA 112 (1986) Competence (Anti-Wiretapping Act) FACTS: Complainant Atty. Pintor and his client Montebon. On the following day.CASES: Gaanan vs. Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the AntiWiretapping Act (R. Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. 4200.000 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Laconico agreed. Laconico attached the affidavit to the complaint for robbery/extortion which he filed against Atty. Pintor’s consent. Laconico insisted that Atty.A. or recording the communication. intercept. Pintor. such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line. 4200). discussing the terms from the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they filed against Laconico. Pintor called. When Atty. 1 . Pintor himself should receive the money. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear. Pintor made a phone call to Laconico. The decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) stating that the “extension telephone” which was used to overhear the telephone conversation was covered in the term “device” as provided in R. No. Laconico requested Atty. ISSUE(S): Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited device in Section 1 of the Anti-Wiretapping Act. he was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.” The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing. Atty. Pintor charged Atty. Pintor demand P8. Pintor’s wife at the office of the Department of Public Highways. Atty. Since Atty. when Atty. Gaanan and Laconico were found guilty by the trial court.16 - . No. Atty. Atty. intercepting. That same morning. Gaanan executed an affidavit that he heard complainant Atty. Gaanan to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case. or record the spoken words. After they decided on the conditions. Pintor received the money. Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without Atty. However. Twenty minutes later. An amount of P5. RULING: The main issue revolves around the meaning of the phrase “any other device or arrangement.A. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. He was instructed to give the money to give the money to Atty. were in the living room of complainant’s residence. Pinto called up again to ask Laconico if he was agreeable to the conditions. However. Laconico telephoned Atty.000 as settlement money was agreed upon.

An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other device enumerated un Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. The phrase “device or arrangement”, although not exclusive to that enumerated, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting, or recording a telephone conversation. An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place to place within a radius of a kilometer or more. An extension telephone is not among such device or arrangements covered by Section 1 of R.A No. 4200. By: Frances Joanne D. Miranda

Salcedo-Ortañez vs. Court of Appeals 235 SCRA 111 (1994) Competence (Anti-Wiretapping Act)

FACTS: Rafael Ortañez filed a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against his wife Teresita Salcedo-Ortañez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of Teresita. Among the exhibits offered by Rafael were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between Teresita and unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made and obtained when Rafael allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone. Teresita objected to Rafael’s oral offer of the said tapes. However, the Regional Trail Court (RTC) of Quezon City admitted the tapes into evidence. Teresita filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA upheld the lower court’s order for two reasons: (1) Tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. hey are admissible depending on how they are presented and offered and how the trial judge utilizes them and (2) Certiorari is inappropriate since the order admitting the tape into evidence is interlocutory. The order should be questioned in the appeal from the judgment on the merits and through the special civil action of certiorari. Hence, Teresita filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (SC). ISSUE(S): (1) Whether or not the recordings of Teresita’s phone conversations, made and obtained through wiretapping are admissible as evidence (not per se inadmissible)
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 17 -

(2)

Whether or not a petition for certiorari is the appropriate remedy to question an order admitting the tapes into evidence

RULING: (1) The tape recordings are inadmissible. Relevant provisions of R.A. 4200 (AntiWiretapping Act) provides that: Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all parties to any private conversation or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone, or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described x x x Section 4. Any communication, or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained, or secured by any person in violation of the preceding section of this Act shall not be admitted in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative hearing or investigation. Hence, absent any clear showing that both parties consented to the recording, the inadmissibility of the tapes is mandatory under R.A. No. 4200 (2) Certiorari was the appropriate remedy. Generally, the extraordinary writ of certiorari is not available to challenge interlocutory orders of a trial court. The proper remedy is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment, incorporating in the said appeal the grounds fro assailing the interlocutory order. However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress. By: Aaron Roi B. Riturban

Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals 248 SCRA 590 (1995) Competence (Anti-Wiretapping Act) FACTS: Ester Garcia filed a criminal case for violation of R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) against Socorro Ramirez, for secretly taping their confrontation. Socorro filed a Motion to Quash the Information, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay granted, agreeing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense under R.A. No. 4200 since the law refers to the taping of a communication by a person other than a participant to the communication. After which, Ester filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the ruling of the lower court. Hence, Socorro filed this instant petition where she raised three ISSUES: (2) That R.A. No. 4200 does not apply to the taping of the conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that R.A. 4200 only refers to
3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 18 -

unauthorized taping of a conversation of a person other than those involved in the conversation. (3) That the substance or contents of the cnvesation must be alleged in the information; otherwise, the facts charged will not constitute a violation of R.A. No. 4200. (4) That R.A. No. 4200 penalizes the taping of “private communication” not a “private conversation” and that, consequently, her act of secretly taping her conversation with Ester was not illegal under the said Act. RULING: (1) R.A. No. 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties to the conversation. Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute’s intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier “any”. Consequently, the CA was correct in concluding that “even a person privy to a communication, who records his private conversation with another without knowledge of the latter, will qualify as a violator under R.A. No. 4200.” A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports such conclusion. (2) The substance of the conversation need not be alleged in the information. The nature of the communication is immaterial. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 As the Solicitor General pointed out, “Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed.” “Private communication” includes “private conversation”. The word communicate comes from the Latin word communicare, meaning “to share or to impart”. In its ordinary signification, communication connotes an act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation (“process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols”). These broad definitions are likely to include the confrontation between Socorro and Ester. Moreover, any doubts about the legislative body’s meaning of the phrase “private communication” are put to rest by the fact that Senator Tañada in his Explanatory Note to the Bill used “communication” and “conversation” interchangeably.

(3)

By: Aaron Roi B. Riturban

3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 - 19 -

the law of nations. SECTIONS 1-4.II. the measure of time. Judicial Admissions. and the geographical divisions. 1 . However. Judicial notice. their political history. of the existence and territorial extent of states. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. the official acts of the legislative. or on the request of a party. – During the trial. admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader. (1a) SECTION 2. on its own initiative. Effect of amended pleadings. (2a) RULE 10. Judicial notice. Judicial notice. or are capable of unquestionable demonstration. SECTION 8 SECTION 8. After trial. may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED A. when discretionary. the laws of nature. without the introduction of evidence. and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. the court.20 - . the proper court. – A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge. the political constitution and history of the Philippines. RULE 129 WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED SECTION 1. verbal or written. made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. executive and judicial departments of the Philippines. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals. or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (1a) SECTION 3. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. when mandatory. An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. and before judgment or on appeal. – A court shall take judicial notice. RULE 129. does not require proof. – An admission. (n) SECTION 4. forms of government and symbols of nationality. when hearing necessary. on its own initiative or on request of a party.

000 had been set aside in Ordinance 4566. the trial judge could have well taken – because he was duty bound to take judicial notice of Ordinance 4566. Hence. for the construction of an additional building of the elementary school. Garcia 19 SCRA 413 (1967) Judicial Notice FACTS: Finding that it was necessary to expand the school grounds of Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila favored the plaintiff. thus. The defendants refused to vacate.21 - . the Supreme Court will not reopen the case solely for this purpose. The said document was originally deemed inadmissible. The defendants’ remedy was to bring the attention of the court to its contradictory stance. For in reversing his stand. It is beyond debate that a court of justice may alter its ruling while the case is within its power. Anyway. The certification recites that the amount of P100. Not having done so. elimination of the certification as evidence would not benefit the defendants. the squatters appealed and questioned the lower court’s finding that the city needs the premises for school purposes. ordered the illegal occupants/squatters (defendants) to vacate the property contiguous to the school. subsequently. By: Aaron Roi B Riturban 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 . RULING: The CFI of Manila properly found that the city needs the premises for school purposes.CASES: 1. to make it conformable to law and justice. pursuant to the Mayor’s directive. Consequently. but was. JUDICIAL NOTICE City of Manila vs. The city’s evidence on this point was the certification of the Chairman Committee on Appropriations of the Municipal Board. admitted into evidence by the lower court. Such was done here. The reason being that the city charter of Manila requires that all courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the municipal board of Manila. Manila’s City Engineer. the 1962-63 Manila City Budget. prompting the City of Manila to file a suit to recover possession over the land. the defendants appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Manila had properly found that the City of Manila needs the premises for school purposes (considering that it had a contradictory stance regarding the admissibility of the evidence of the City on this point).

Vda de Jalagat 42 SCRA 337 (1971) Judicial Notice FACTS: GABRIEL BAGUIO filed for the quieting of title to real property against TEOFILA JALAGAT and her minor children with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Oriental. 1 . It ought to be clear even to the appellant that under the circumstances.22 - . the same cause of action. Arroyo 14 SCRA 549 (1965) Judicial Notice FACTS: ZEFERINO ARROYO and GABRIEL PRIETO were registered owners of adjoining lots in Camarines Sur. Consequently. The Supreme Court quoted Chief Justice Morgan. such an order is not contrary to law. . Certainly. RULING: THE CFI OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL WAS CORRECT IN TAKING JUDICIAL OF ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT. the lower court dismissed the present complaint on the ground of res judicata. He claimed that for the ground of res judicata to suffice as a basis for dismissal it must be apparent on the face of the complaint. The Jalagats filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the present complaint is barred by a previous judgment rendered by the same court. The previous case was terminated with the court dismissing Baguio’s complaint. and was less in area by 157 square meters. who said: “Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not the previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration.” By: Aaron Roi B Riturban Prieto vs. the heirs discovered that the technical description set forth in their transfer certificate of title and in the original certificate of title did not conform with that embodied in the decision of the land registration court (which registered the land in Zeferino’s name). They. Subsequently. filed a petition 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. That was all that was done by the lower court in decreeing the dismissal. therefore. The previous case involved practically the same property. ISSUE: Whether or not the CFI of Misamis Oriental was correct in finding that there was res judicata by taking judicial notice of its previous judgment.Baguio vs. with Melecio Jalagat (Teofila’s deceased husband and predecessor in interest) as the defendant. After Zeferino died. the lower court certainly could take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. and the same parties. Baguio appealed the order of dismissal. his heirs had a new certificate of title registered in their names. Acting on the motion and taking judicial notice of its previous judgment.

which were well within the judicial notice and cognizance of the court. courts are not authorized to take judicial notice. RULING: THE CFI OF CAMARINES SUR WAS CORRECT IN NOT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE RECORDS THE LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS. the dismissal on the ground of res judicata must be sustained. died intestate. Thereafter. However. Besides. 1 .23 - . By: Aaron Roi B Riturban Yao-Kee vs. Gabriel filed a petition to annul the order granting the correction claiming that the 157 square meters were unduly taken from his lot. Thus. making the dismissal for failure to prosecute erroneous. and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or actually pending before the same judge. even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court. if Gabriel really wanted the court to take judicial notice of such records. his petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute. As expected. He claimed that the lower court should have not dismissed his first petition for failure to prosecute because “no ‘parole’ evidence need be taken to support it. thus. the matters therein alleged being part of the records land registration proceedings. He insisted that there was no res judicata since the dismissal of his first petition was erroneous. Gabriel appealed to the Supreme Court to question the dismissal of his second petition. Sy-Gonzales 167 SCRA 736 (1988) Judicial Notice FACTS: Sy Kiat. leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines. the court issued an order directing the correction of the technical description of the land covered by their title. the court dismissed his second petition on the ground of res judicata. the dismissal of the first petition is now valid and binding on him. The probate court sustained the validity of Yao’s marriage to Sy. he should have presented the proper request or manifestation to that effect. in the adjudication of the cases pending before them. For failing to do so in the appropriate time. As a general rule. a Chinese national. YAO KEE filed her opposition to the petition claiming that she is the legitimate wife of Sy. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The CA ruled that the marriage between Yao and Sy was not proven to be valid under the Chinese laws. Hence. Thus.” ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur (in dismissing the first petition of Gabriel) erred in not taking judicial notice of the parts of the records of the land registration proceedings that would have supported Gabriel’s allegations. but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower court’s decision and held that the petitioner’s and Yao’s children were all of illegitimate status. AIDA SY-GONZALES and the other children of Sy with Asuncion Gillego filed a petition for the settlement of his estate.for the correction of the said description in their titles. Gabriel filed a second petition containing similar allegations. of the contents of other cases.

137 (1910)) to prove her case. thereafter. Yao claimed that the CA should have taken judicial notice of the Chinese laws on marriage which show the validity of her marriage to Sy. Upon Tabernilla’s return to the Philippines in 1934. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact. the CA was correct in considering that the validity of the marriage between Yao and Sy has not been established. Chinese laws on marriage). mother of Juan Peralta acting upon Juan’s instructions conveyed the land to Tabernilla. she was supposedly allowed by Tabernilla to remain in the said lot provided she paid the realty taxes on the property which she did do so. it was found that the lot was sold by Juan Peralta. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA should take judicial notice of foreign laws (i. After trial. the court ordered Tabuena to return the property to Tabernilla. meters in Makato. relieving Yao of her duty of proving the validity of her marriage under Chinese laws. 1 . Even assuming for the sake of argument that the court did take judicial notice of Chinese laws or customs on foreign marriages in that case. Sy Quia (16 Phil. in 1926 to Tabernilla while they were in the United States. the property was taken possession by Tabuena. The ruling that case did not show that the court took judicial notice of Chinese laws on marriages.e.24 - . Damasa Timtiman. Yao filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court claiming that the CA erred in holding that the validity of the foreign marriage between Yao and Sy had not been proven.Hence. Yao still failed to show that the law assumed to recognized in Sy Joc Lieng case (wherein the marriage was celebrated in 1847) was still applicable during the time of her marriage to Sy. At the trial. Aklan. This complaint was filed after a demand for Tabuena to vacate was made. To support this contention. she has failed to prove the Chinese laws on marriage that would show the validity of her marriage to Sy. Well-established is the rule that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs. Yao cannot rely on a the case of Sy Joc Lieng v. In 1973. and (2) the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence. Jr. Under the Philippine jurisprudence. Court of Appeals 196 SCRA 650 (1991) Judicial Notice FACTS: The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land of about 440 sq. which took place 84 years later. Hence. The trial court rejected his defense that the subject of the sale was a different lot and that he was the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of the inheritance he acquired 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Though Yao may have established the fact of marriage. an action for recovery of ownership was filed by the estate of Alfredo Tabernilla against Jose Tabuena. to establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact. Upon her request. By: Aaron Roi B Riturban Tabuena vs. She remained on the lot until her death and. RULING: COURTS CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS. thus. On this point.

In this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. In case they don’t. 1327. By: Frank John Abdon 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Tabuena was completely unaware that the court had taken judicial notice of Civil Case no. rejecting therein his claim that the trial court erred in taking cognizance of Exhibits “A”. These conditions however. 1 .” the case is clearly referred to or “the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives” and admitted as part of the record of the case then pending.” “B.” and “C” were marked at pre-trial but this was only for identifying them and not for making a formal offer. (2) Yes.” or “at the request or with the consent of the parties. It is during the trial that the party presenting the marked evidence decides whether to offer the evidence or not. even when such events have been tried or are pending in the same court. nor can they be given any evidentiary value. wherein the court ruled that evidence even if not offered can be admitted against the adverse party if: first. Napat-a.” “with the knowledge of the opposing party.from his deceased parent. it applied the exception that “in the absence of objection. The documents were indeed testified to but there was no recital of its contents having been read into the records. The Court of Appeals conceded that as a general rule. (1) No. “courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication of cases pending before them of the contents of the records of other cases. these requirements had not been satisfied. it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case. “B”. It is true that Exhibits “A. & “C’ which had been marked but not formally offered in evidence by Tabernilla.25 - . The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does not mean it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. were not established in this case. An exception was given in People vs. ISSUE(S): (1) Whether or not it was proper for the CA and trial court properly took cognizance of the exhibits even if they were not formally offered during trial? (2) Whether or not the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of Tabuena’s testimony in a case it had previously heard which was closely connected with the case before it? RULING: The SC reversed the decision and ruled in favor of Tabuena. such documents cannot be considered evidence. Thus. and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. the said act by the trial court was improper.” Nevertheless. it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and second.

she was not able to resist.26 - . Several witnesses were also presented including two former teachers of Mia who knew the handwriting on the two said letters as belonging to Mia having been their former student and where thus familiar with her handwriting particularly those made in her test papers. Godoy came by their house and asked the permission of her parents if she can join him in soliciting funds. To support his claim that they were lovers.” She and her mother Helen went to the police and executed sworn statements stating that the accused Godoy had raped and abducted Mia. Three guiding principles in the appellate review of the evidence of the prosecution for the crime of rape. Mia’s parents allowed her to go with Godoy and she was allegedly brought to the Sunset Garden Motel where she was repeatedly raped again. The next day. her Physics Teacher and a married man raped her first on Jan. After three days. During this time. 21. 1994 in her cousin’s boarding house wherein upon entering the back door. since Mia was a candidate for Ms. Complainant Mia Taha alleged that Godoy. As such. a knife was pointed at her neck. who was charged in two separate informations with rape and another for kidnapping with serious illegal detention.People vs. a police blotter had already been placed for the missing Mia. Godoy pointed a knife at her. Godoy 250 SCRA 676 (1995) Judicial Notice FACTS: This is an automatic review of the decision of the RTC in view of the death sentence imposed upon Danny Godoy. he presented two letters supposedly delivered to him in the provincial jail while he was detained by Mia’s cousin Lorna. He admitted having had sex with her and that they indeed stayed in Sunset Gardens and in Edward’s Subdivision. it must be borne in mind 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. It was after Mia’s return that her parents accompanied her to a medico-legal which found lacerations in her vagina concluding that “she just had sexual intercourse. prior to the said “kidnapping” and even during such. As Godoy removed her panties and brought out his penis to rape her. Other witnesses were presented by the defense attesting that they saw the two together in a manner that was affectionate and cordial. 1 . they transferred to Edward’s subdivision where she was kept in a lodging house and was again raped. The delivery of the letter was denied by Lorna but the defense presented the provincial jail guard on duty on the supposed date of the delivery and testified that indeed Lorna had visited Godoy on said date. but it was because they were lovers and that Mia had consented to their having sex. Palawan National School (PNS). There Mia explained that it was her parents who forced her to testify against him. Godoy denied that he raped Mia Taha. namely: a) while rape is a most detestable crime. ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused RULING: The Supreme Court acquitted Danny Godoy . She was later released by Godoy after a certain Naem interceded and only after her parents agreed to settle the case.

00 being claimed as tax refund in this present controversy.00 will be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year. this Petition.492. The CA affirmed the CTA. 4897 involving its claim for refund for 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.492 inclusive of the P112. the claim of the complainant of having been threatened appears to be a common testimonial expedient and face-saving subterfuge. BPI declared in the same 1989 ITR that the said total refundable amount of P297. The CTA dismissed BPI’s petition on the ground that petitioner failed to present as evidence its Corporate Annual ITR for 1990 to establish the fact that BPI had not yet credited the amount of P297. but harder to be defended by the party accused. In taking judicial notice. b) the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.491. But it had not been duly corroborated by other evidence nor proved that the accused indeed always carried a knife.00.491. 1990. Great caution is observed so that their reputations shall remain untainted.that it is an accusation easy to be made. BPI filed a petition for review with the CTA. By: Frank John Abdon BPI-Savings vs. 1 .00 to its 1990 income tax liability. BPI’s 1989 Income Tax Return (ITR) shows that it had a total refundable amount of P297. hard to be proved. Hence. It could precisely be that complainant’s mother wanted to save face in the community where everybody knows everybody else. However. Court of Tax Appeals 330 SCRA 507 (2000) Judicial Notice FACTS: This case involves a claim for tax refund in the amount of P112. she had to weave the scenario of this rape drama. the petitioner called the attention of the Court to a Decision rendered by the Tax Court in CTA Case No. BPI filed a written claim for refund in the amount of P112. and c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. and in an effort to conceal her daughter’s indiscretion and escape wagging tongues of their small rural community.00 representing BPI’s tax withheld for the year 1989. though innocent.00 with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) alleging that it did not apply the 1989 refundable amount to its 1990 Annual ITR or other tax liabilities due to the alleged business losses it incurred for the same year.27 - .491.492.491. On October 11. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to their character humiliates their entire families. Mia claimed that the appellant always carried a knife but it was never explained how she was threatened with the same in such a manner that she was allegedly always cowed into giving in to his innumerable sexual demands. BPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CTA. Without waiting for the CIR to act on the claim for refund. The SC also takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas (such as in Palawan) young ladies are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. seeking the refund of the amount of P112. Before the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court said that it is not unaware that in rape cases.

and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. respondents do not claim at all that the said Decision was fraudulent or nonexistent. Lucido tendered the redemption price to Calupitan. Significantly. 4897 was attached to the Petition for Review filed before this Court. Indeed. urges the Supreme Court not to do so. Calupitan 27 Phil. from the date of the document. even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court. It is merely one more bit of information showing that the petitioner did not use its 1989 refund to pay its taxes for 1990. sold the properties to Calupitan via a public document. For failure of the latter to surrender the properties to Lucido. they do not even dispute the contents of the said Decision.28 - . 1903 to Rosales and Zolaivar.” Respondent. 48 (1914) Judicial Admissions FACTS: The properties of Leonardo Lucido were sold on auction on Feb. Respondents opted not to assail the fact appearing therein . 4897 is not the sole basis of petitioner’s case. this case was instituted. The Decision in CTA Case No. 1903. Calupitan and Lucido executed a document admitting the sale and that their real agreement was that redemption by Lucido can only be effected 3 years. On the same day. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.the year 1990 wherein the Tax Court held that “petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year 1990. "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. Section 2. This merely showed the weakness of the respondent’s case because they did not take steps to prove that BPI did not suffer any loss in 1990. Calupitan claimed that the sale was not one with a right to redeem." Be that as it may. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court may take judicial notice of the Decision by the CTA in deciding the present case? RULING: AS A RULE. the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA Case No.that petitioner suffered a net loss in 1990 – the same way that it refused to controvert the same fact established by petitioner’s other documentary exhibits. The lower court decided in favor of Lucido. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS Lucido vs. On March 30. In this case. 10. however. claiming merely that the Court cannot take judicial notice thereof. Rosales and Zolaivar with the consent of Lucido. 1 . By: Frank John Abdon 2.

1954. modern tendency was to treat pleadings as statements of real issues and herein. respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for forcible entry alleging that petitioner entered a portion of Lot no. 551 alleging that said lot was conjugal property and the she is the legitimated child of Margarita and Leon. Lot no. especially in view of the fact that it was signed by Calupitan himself. 1954. The Court held that its admission was proper. By: Frank John Abdon Torres vs. who. Leon paid the installments out of his own earnings. who was the actual occupant of the lot. 273) which stated that although pleadings were originally considered as inadmissible as admissions because it contained only pleader’s matter (fiction stated by counsel and sanctioned by the courts). admissions of the parties. Lot no. According to testimonial evidence. an urban lot.29 - . On Motion for 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. On June 8. 551 without their consent and constructed a house therein.ISSUE: Whether or not Calupitan’s original answer to the complaint may be used as evidence against him to prove that a sale with a right to redeem was in fact agreed to by both parties? RULING: Yes. was leased to Margarita. Leon sold and transferred all his rights to ½ portion of the lot in favor of petitioner Macaria. 1 . together with Vicente are the private respondents. 272. petitioner Macaria Torres was born. Margarita was married to Claro Santillan and out of this union were begotten Vicente and Antonina. The case was decided against the petitioner. Court of Appeals 11 SCRA 24 (1984) Judicial Admissions FACTS: This is a Petition for Review. 551 was originally owned by Margarita Torres. The Court cited Jones on Evidence (sec. Calupitan’s original answer to the complaint expressly stated that the transaction was one of sale with right to repurchase. Subsequently. The trial court ruled that the lot was paraphernal property of Maragarita and adjudicated 2/3 of the lot to respondents and 1/3 to petitioner Macaria. A title was then issued in the name of the legal heirs of Margarita (private respondents). Vicente executed an Affidavit claiming possession of Lot no. treated as a special civil action praying that the decision of the CA be set aside. 551 and petitioned the Bureau of Lands for the issuance of title in his name. who was acting as his own attorney. The ejectment case and the partition case was consolidated. A Sale Certificate was issued to Margarita by the Director of Lands. and out of this. N0. Claro died. Antonina married and had six children. Margarita cohabited with Leon Arbole. After Claro’s death. 551. petitioner instituted an action for Partition of Lot. On June 3. The purchase price was to be paid in installments. Before his death.

& Ms. the supposed admission was deleted and in fact the statement simply read. separate opinion: Such admission did not cease to be a judicial admission simply because respondents subsequently deleted the same in their amended complaint. not having been expunged therefrom. The admission adverted to appears in paragraph 3 of respondents’ original complaint in the Ejectment Case. 1 . there can be no estoppel by extrajudicial admission in the original complaint. Court of Appeals 292 SCRA 503 (1998) Judicial Admissions FACTS: Petitioner Nora Bitong. the amended complaint takes the place of the original.Reconsideration. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record. it has overlooked to include in its findings of facts the admission made by the respondents that she and Vicente and Antonina are brothers and sisters and they are the legal heirs and nearest of relatives of Maragarita.. Contrary to petitioner’s submission. for the failure to offer it in evidence. Having been amended. although replaced by an amended complaint. which was however subsequently amended. evident bad faith. the decision was amended with Macaria being entitled to 4/6 of the lot. “That plaintiffs are the legal heirs and nearest of kin of Margarita. and became merely an extrajudicial admission of which as evidence. The original complaint. claiming to be a former Treasurer and Member of the Board of Directors of Mr. conflict of interest and 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. By: Frank John Abdon Bitong vs. she should have offered it in evidence. in the Amended Complaint filed by respondents in the same ejectment case. On appeal to the CA. filed a derivative suit before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegedly for the benefit of private respondent Mr.30 - . which would have required no proof. does not cease to be part of the judicial record. Publishing Co. & Ms. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further function as a pleading. the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission. the CA changed Macaria’s share to ½ of the lot and declared that she is not a legitimated child. ISSUE: Whether or not said statement in the original complaint must be treated as a judicial admission despite the fact that the same statements no longer appears in the amended complaint? RULING: No. disloyalty. Teehankee. to hold respondent spouses Eugenia Apostol and Jose Apostol liable for fraud.” By virtue thereof. required its formal offer. Petitioner now alleges that although the CA is correct in declaring that she is not a legitimated child of the spouses. Publishing Co. misrepresentation. therefore. If petitioner had intended to utilize the original complaint. Inc.

owned by spouses Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and Cristina Ponce Enrile. & Ms. respectively of Mr. & Ms.000 shares of stock of Mr. JAKA. petitioner submits that in her Amended Petition in the SEC. Before the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the SEC En Banc and held that from the evidence in record.? RULING: The answer of private respondents shows that there was no judicial admission that petitioner was a stockholder of Mr. Magsanoc and Nyuda subscribed to Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) shares of stock. ISSUE: Whether or not there was judicial admission on the part of the respondents that petitioner is a stockholder of Mr. & Ms. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that respondents’ admission that she has 1. one of the reliefs prayed for was the dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioner did not have the legal interest to initiate and prosecute the same. The SEC En Banc reversed the decision of the Hearing Panel. and treated as receivables from officers and employees but no payments were ever received from respondents. & Ms. She contends that respondents did not deny the above allegations in their answer and are therefore conclusively bound by this judicial admission. Private respondents refuted the allegations of petitioner saying that she was merely a holder-in-trust of JAKA shares and only represented and continue to represent JAKA in the board. qualified and/or expanded by.088 total outstanding shares. the stock subscriptions were paid for by Mr. clearly raises an issue to the legal personality of the petitioner to file the complaint. the Amended Answer to the Amended Petition and even the Answer to the Amended Petition alone.31 - . She was merely an agent who cannot file a derivative suit in behalf of her principal. & Ms. The affirmative defenses of private respondents directly refute the representation of petitioner that she is a true stockholder of Mr. to entitle her to file a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. and that she was a member of the Board of Directors and treasurer of said company. In fact. is one of the original stockholders of Mr.The SEC Hearing Panel dismissed the derivative suit. & Ms. & Ms. Bitong testified at trial that she became the registered owner of 997 shares of stock of Mr. & Ms to its damage and prejudice and its stockholders. 1 . out of the latter’s 4. & Ms and disbursing any money or funds except for the payment of salaries and similar expenses in the ordinary course of business. she stated that she was a stockholder and director of Mr. & Ms. “insofar as they are limited.. and even declared that “she is the registered owner of 1. When taken in its totality. & Ms. by stating unequivocally that petitioner is not the true party to the case but JAKA which continues to be the stockholder of Mr. The petition principally sought to enjoin respondent spouses from further acting a president-director and director.” “the truth being as stated in the Affirmative Allegations/Defenses of this 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.mismanagement in directing the affairs of Mr. petitioner was not the owner of the shares of stock in Mr.000 shares of stocks registered in her name forecloses any question on her status and right to bring a derivative suit the Court said: Where the statements of the private respondents were qualified with phrases such as. & Ms. after she acquired them from JAKA through a deed of sale. She further alleged that respondents Apostol. The respondents averred that the real party-in-interest was JAKA and not petitioner. and therefore not a real party-in-interest to prosecute the claim.

– Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters.Answer” they cannot be considered definite and certain enough to be construed as judicial admissions. numbers. its probative value is to be determined from the whole statement and others intimately related or connected therewith. Documentary evidence. Object as evidence. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE SECTION 1. Bardaje 99 SCRA 388 (1980) Real and Demonstrative Evidence FACTS: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. A party whose pleading is admitted as an admission against interest is entitled to overcome by evidence the apparent inconsistency and it is competent for the party against whom the pleading is offered to show that the statements were inadvertently made or made under a mistake of fact. – Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. evidence aliunde can be presented to show that the admission was made through palpable mistake. 1 . By: Frank John Abdon III. it may be exhibited to. SEC. The rule is always in favor of the liberality in construction of pleadings so that the real matter in dispute may be submitted for judgment in the court.32 - . REAL AND DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE A. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. SEC. examined or viewed by the court. C. words. 1. Although acts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be contradicted. While an admission is admissible in evidence. symbols or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. 2 Rule 130 RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY B. Cases: People vs. figures. RULE 130. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SECTION 2.

the Five Others who stood guard outside while Adelino allegedly took advantage of her. his wife and seven children are all present. According to the medical findings. implies a special relationship between Marcelino and Adelino. Bardaje was holding her hands and removing her panties. and if it were intercourse.The accused. He claims that they eloped as previously planned. Would have taken turns in abusing her if rape indeed happen. The complainant Marcelina Cuizon claimed that she was dragged by the accused together with five other persons from the house of a certain Fernandez by means of force and intimidation and at nighttime. Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witness put together. if said lacerations had been caused by sexual intercourse. It is impossible that complainant could have been raped by the accused inside a small room occupied by a woman and two children and in a small hut where the owner. She was left with no choice but to charge Bardaje with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community. When Cuizon underwent physical examination. This is a case where a young girl could not admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse. The fact that they did not do so. ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of Bardaje was established beyond reasonable doubt? RULING: No.” Considering that complainant was allegedly “dragged. it could have occurred “two weeks or one month ago. the case is brought to the SC for automatic review. Also. Adelino admitted having had carnal knowledge of the victim but denied having raped her. Despite her struggle. The medical findings of “old healed lacerations” in the hymen which according to the testimony of the examining physician would have occurred two weeks or even one month before. Thus. Under the abovementioned circumstances.” During trial. “no evidence of external injuries was found around the vulva or any part of the body. Adelino Bardaje was convicted of Forcible Abduction with Rape and sentenced to death. the doctor found that there were “old healed lacerations” which may have been caused by possible sexual intercourse or other factors. “wrestled” with and criminally abused.33 - . This expert opinion bolsters the defense that Bardaje and Cuizon had previous amorous relations at the same time that it casts serious doubts on the charge of intercourse by force and intimidation. People 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon Sison vs. Bardaje succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her while his companions kept guard.” “slapped” into unconsciousness. she narrated that Bardaje slapped her rendering her unconscious and when she regained consciousness in a hut. 1 . Cuizon’s charge that she was forcibly abducted and afterwards raped was highly dubious and inherently improbable. It is improbable that she could have been sexually abused with so many within hearing and seeing distance.

3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. however. must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances which they were produced. and he was beaten and mauled. Despite their defense of alibis. The incident was also witnessed by photographers. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie. The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs. and directed their ire against Cory supporters. Several of the accused were photographed with Salcedo. All these were witnessed by Renato Banculo. the use of these photos by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. ISSUE: Whether or not the photographs should be admitted as evidence against the accused? RULING: Yes. Banculo and Sumilang (who was also a witness who tried to help Salcedo but to no avail) were principal witnesses for the prosecution. is not only the witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. the charge was qualified to murder. Salcedo. the loyalists started hurling stones toward the police officers at the scene. the trial court convicted several of the accused of homicide and acquitted the others. a supporter of Cory Aquino. therefore. and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The photographer.34 - . When he tried to get away from his attackers by running away. whose pictures ere published in major newspapers in Metro Manila and were presented as evidence as to the participation of the accused in the mauling.250 SCRA 58 (1995) Real and Demonstrative Evidence FACTS: Several informations were filed in court against eleven persons (Sison et al) identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Stephen Salcedo. He was dead upon arriving at the PGH. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original. wearing a yellow shirt was ganged upon by several men. when presented in evidence. either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses. for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same. can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. he was further beaten until he was knocked unconscious. In the SC. Even if the person who took the photographs was not presented to identify them. Upon appeal to the CA. a cigarette vendor. That the photos are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. which happened on the occasion of a rally held by the Marcos loyalists at Luneta. Photographs. the attackers ran after him and when they caught up with him. the accused question the admissibility of the photographs taken of the victims as he was being mauled at the Luneta. After being asked to disperse the crowd for not having with them the required permit. 1 .

wherein the court did not admit it. IT MUST BE VERIFIED. The rule is well settled that a photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if verified. he replied. if relevant. “the conditions represented by that picture truly represents the conditions of the crossing at the time of this accident except for the fact of daylight or dark. at the junction were Highway Route 6 meet with Bridgeville Road.m.35 - . Adamczuk’s motion for a new trial was refused and these appeals followed. in other words.” Then the exhibit was offered in evidence. If a witness is familiar with the scene photographed and is competent to testify that the photograph correctly represents it. be admitted. Holloway 13 A. The jury ruled in favor of Holloway.2d. The none admission of this evidence is the main issue asserted by the plaintiff in this appeal. Its verification depends on the competency of the verifying witness and as to that the trial judge must in the first instance decide. subject to reversal for substantial error. The court then sustained the objection to the picture’s introduction. Adamczuk was driving southwardly on the Bridgeville Road and Holloway was driving eastwardly on Route 6. ISSUE: Whether or not the Photograph (Exhibit no. He could not relate the circumstances at to how the picture was taken. 3) is admissible as evidence even if the taker is not presented to verify the picture? RULING: The court affirmed the decision. be made a part of some qualified person’s testimony. This can be done the court in such situations that there are far better photographs of the place taken than the photo offered or the jury had personally visited the place photographed.By: Raymond Joseph Ibon Adamczuk vs. it should. 3.2 (1940) Real and Demonstrative Evidence FACTS: Jack Adamczuk brought an action in trespass against defendants car owner Morris Cohon and driven by defendant Elmer Holloway for an incident arising out of the collision between the cars they were driving. “The question of the sufficiency of the preliminary proofs to identify a photograph and show that it is a fair 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The map or photograph must first. The accident took place at 9:30 p. to be admissible. it was disclosed that the witness did not know who took the picture or when it was taken. It does not have to be verified by the taker. Some one must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor. There is also a rule giving the trial judge discretion to reject a picture. on the ground that the evidence is cumulative or that the photograph is unnecessary.” a picture and when queried as to what it depicted. It was found that on trial. 1 . Jack Adamczuk was on the stand and he was shown “Exhibit no. On cross.

2d 754 (1961) Real and Demonstrative Evidence FACTS: William Tousin received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. ISSUE: Whether or not the Regiscope films were authenticated sufficiently to warrant their admission into evidence? RULING: Yes. 1 . On appeal. The machine was designed to simultaneously photograph both the check and the person facing the machine. In February of 1960. testified that. It was discovered that Tousin’s check had been taken by Ralph Tatum who subsequently forged an endorsement on the check to his name and cashed the same at a food store. the initials appearing on the back of the check were hers. she had been instructed by the manager to initial it and then to insert it into a “regiscope” machine.representation of the objects which it purports to portray is a question committed to the discretion of the trial judge. and the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. an employee of the store. where and under what circumstances the photograph was taken. The processed film showed both the check and the person of Tatum with the food store in the background. Tousin did not receive his check which was normally mailed to him.” The court thus finds that the exclusion under the facts of this case amounted to reversible error because: a. Caroline Pentecost. But Dillard’s testimony stated that at the intersection he had an unobstructed view to the west of 793 feet. This caused him not to see the car coming from the west. Tatum questions the film’s admission into evidence.36 - . The negative and the print were admitted in evidence and Tatum was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Regiscope film of the transaction was then sent to the Regiscope distributor to be developed. be able to give some indication as to when.) the jury had the benefit of other photos of the intersection b. A criminal case was subsequently brought against Tatum for first degree forgery. She explained that whenever a check was presented to her for payment at the store. although she could not recall the specific transaction involving Tatum. During the trial.) Also. thus. The quantum of authentication required by the courts before a photograph may be admissible in evidence was stated thus: “that some witness. it would not support Adamczuk’s contention that he had his head turned at a 45 degree angle and. being able to see for 200 feet only.) the testimony of Herbert Dillard c. not necessarily the photographer. Tatum 360 P. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon State of Washington vs.

sufficed to establish a prima facie case of first degree of forgery. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.” The photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. But these arguments go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the exhibits in question. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. did not preclude appellant from attempting to prove that the individual portrayed was someone other than the appellant. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. iii. RULE 130. The authentication supplied by the testimony summarized above. symbols. and as already mentioned. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. When the original has been lost or destroyed. coupled with the other evidence produced by the state. Original document must be produced. or any other such defense. SECTION 2. except in the following cases: ii. In our opinion. Documentary Evidence – Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters. figures. Best Evidence Rule SECTION 3. the Regiscope exhibits. 2-8. Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the background shown in the picture as that of the food store. that the photograph was inaccurate in or more respects. 1 . of course. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon III. iv.illustrated. The testimony of these two witnesses taken together amounted to a sufficient authentication to warrant admission of the photograph into evidence. one Philip Dale testified at length concerning the Regiscope process. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. BEST EVIDENCE RULE A. exceptions.37 - . (n) 1. words. the appellant was somewhere else at the moment the photograph was taken. Also. numbers. SEC. she testified as to the store’s standard procedure of “regiscoping” each individual who cashed a check at the store. or cannot be produced in court.

its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. 25 AND 27.established from them is only the general result of the whole. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. he must have reasonable notice to produce it. – (a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. or cannot be produced in court. – A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. (4a) SECTION 6. (2a) SECTION 4. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. he fails to produce the document. SEC. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction. upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part. – If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. What attestation of copy must state. – Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed. (5a) SECTION 7. the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. may prove its contents by a copy.38 - . (6a) RULE 132. (3a) 2. – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. all such copies are equally regarded as originals. Secondary Evidence SECTION 5. When original document is unavailable. (2a) SECTION 8. 1 . (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. with identical contents. and v. Original of document. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. SECTION 25. the offeror.

as the case may be. attested by the legal custodian of the record. in substance. is capable of receiving. electromechanical or magnetic impulse. storing. 8792). (26a) SECTION 27.attestation must state. receiving. sending. by electronic. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. . transmitting. 1 . with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. e. or producing information. Definition of Terms. processing. if there be any.39 - . “Electronic Data Message” refers to information generated. characteristic and/or sound in electronic form. “Addressee” refers to a person who is intended by the originator to receive the electronic data message or electronic document. received or stored by electronic. or by a copy thereof. retrieving. b. d. the following terms are defined. sent. “Information and Communication System” refers to a system intended for and capable of generating. recording. optical or similar means. The term does not include a person acting as an intermediary with respect to that electronic data message or electronic document. or a specific part thereof. 5. – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record. or if he be the clerk of court having a seal. or by other means. data. under the seal of such court. SECTION 5. “Electronic Signature” refers to any distinctive mark. as follows: a. symbols or other modes of written expression according to mathematical and logical rules or of performing any one or more of those functions.A.For the purposes of this Act. c. “Computer” refers to any device or apparatus which. 6-15. SEC. representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. figures. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Public record of a private document. storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document. (28a) ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT (R.

digital or otherwise. the electronic document purports to have been created. i.f. Such service providers shall have no authority to modify or alter the content of the electronic data message or electronic document received or to make any entry therein on behalf of the originator. or on whose behalf. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. stored. and who shall retain the electronic document in accordance with the specific request or as necessary for the purpose of performing the services it was engaged to perform. g. j. or (ii) The necessary technical means by which electronic documents of an originator may be stored and made accessible to a designated or undesignated third party. which is received. “Electronic Document” refers to information or the representation of information. CHAPTER II LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC WRITING OR DOCUMENT AND DATA MESSAGES SECTION 6. or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message. h. generated and/or sent. receives and/or stores or provides other services in respect of that electronic document. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. of electronic documents of the user’s choosing. “Electronic Key” refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key. 1 . . “Intermediary” refers to a person who in behalf of another person and with respect to a particular electronic document sends. “Originator” refers to a person by whom. processed. addressee or any third party unless specifically authorized to do so. symbols or other modes of written expression. Legal Recognition of Data Messages.40 - . validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect. “Service Provider” refers to a provider of – (i) On-line services or network access. by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. retrieved or produced electronically. figures. data. between or among points specified by a user. or providing of connections for online communications.Information shall not be denied legal effect. The term does not include a person acting as an intermediary with respect to that electronic document. described or however represented. routing. including entities offering the transmission. transmitted. recorded. or the operator of facilities therefore.

Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures. and (a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing. in that (i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change. . that requirement is met by an electronic document if (i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first generated in its final form.41 - . an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity.An electronic signature on the electronic document shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if that signature is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure. SECTION 8.SECTION 7. storage and display. – Electronic documents shall have the legal effect. This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents. For evidentiary purposes. or any change which arises in the normal course of communication. not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document. 1 . 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing. (b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained in its original form. existed under which (a) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party’s access to the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature. (c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form. and (ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented: Provided. except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. that requirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference. and (ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

to have executed or provided the electronic signature. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal course of communication. and (d) The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same. . SECTION 11. (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not being presented or retained in its original form. it shall be presumed that (a) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates. as an electronic data message or electronic document is shown by evidence aliunde or otherwise. and (b) where it is required that information be presented. in order to proceed further with the transaction. Original Documents. Authentication of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents.42 - . and (b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances. SECTION 9. 1 . and (b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the information was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. that requirement is met by an electronic data message or electronic document if: (a) the integrity of the information from the time when it was first generated in its final form. SECTION 10. storage and display. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures.(b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document was generated or communicated.In any proceedings involving an electronic signature. that the information is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. including any relevant agreement. (c) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound.Until the Supreme Court by appropriate rules shall have so 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. (3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1): (a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and unaltered.(1) Where the law requires information to be presented or retained in its original form. in the light of all the circumstances. . .

device. or that the appropriate methodology or security procedures.provided. the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic data message or electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal proceeding (a) By evidence that at all material times the information and communication system or other similar device was operating in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic data message and/or electronic document. answers back or acknowledgment procedures. (b) The electronic data message and electronic document shall be authenticated by proof that an appropriate security procedure. when applicable. shall be authenticated by demonstrating. as follows: (a) The electronic signature shall be authenticated by proof that a letter. identifying words or numbers. electronic documents. substantiating and validating a claimed identity of a user. number or other symbol in electronic form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically associated with an electronic data message. or detecting error or alteration in the communication. character. including the use of electronic notarization systems as necessary and advisable. or similar security devices. electronic data messages and electronic signatures. service providers and other duly recognized or appointed certification authorities. electronic document. (b) By showing that the electronic data message and/or electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the party using it. when applicable was adopted and employed for the purpose of verifying the originator of an electronic data message and/or electronic document. content or storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from a specific point. which. using algorithm or codes. 1 . encryptions. and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system. were employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person. or another entity in an information or communication system. or (c) By showing that the electronic data message and/or electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.43 - . In the absence of evidence to the contrary. The person seeking to introduce an electronic data message and electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic data message and electronic document is what the person claims it to be. as well as the certificate of authentication on printed or hard copies of the electronic document or electronic data messages by electronic notaries. The Supreme Court may adopt such other authentication procedures. with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. among other ways.

iii. rule or regulation to the contrary (a) The requirement in any provision of law that certain documents be retained in their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an electronic data message or electronic document which – i. SECTION 12. . SECTION 13. sent or received. Cross-Examination. as well as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received. Proof By Affidavit. (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met. or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated. nothing in the application of the rules on evidence shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in evidence a.The matters referred to in Section 12. Is retained in the format in which it was generated.44 - . and complying with the requirements under Sections 6 or 7 hereof shall be the best evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein. ii. on admissibility and Section 9.person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using the record. On the ground that it is not in the standard written form and electronic data message or electronic document meeting. and other relevant factors shall be given due regard. . stored or communicated. Retention of Electronic Data Message and Electronic Document.(1) A deponent of an affidavit referred to in Section 14 that has been introduced in evidence may be cross-examined as of right by a party to the proceedings who is adverse in interest to the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. sent or received. . In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic document. Enables the identification of its originator and addressee. (b) The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the services of a third party. may be presumed to have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent’s knowledge subject to the rights of parties in interest as defined in the following section. . 1 . on the presumption of integrity. Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference. SECTION 14.In any legal proceedings. provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (i). SECTION 15. the reliability of the manner in which it was generated. On the sole ground that it is in electronic form.Notwithstanding any provision of law. the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified. Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Electronic Data Message and Electronic Documents. or b.

or for legitimate purposes. RULE 2 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION SECTION 1. project. paragraph 4. . graphics. symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. (f) “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (“REE”).party who has introduced the affidavit or has caused the affidavit to be introduced. by electronic. record. and a public key for verifying the digital signature. voice. electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse. or by other means with the same function. sub-paragraph c. profession. the following terms are defined. (b) “Business records” include records of any business. can receive. 1 .45 - . data. figures. (c) “Certificate” means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair. (2) Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to in Section 11.For purposes of these Rules. 1. text. RULE 4. association. transmit. occupation. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. process. as follows: (a) “Asymmetric or public cryptosystem” means a system capable of generating a secure key pair. RULE 3. consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature. correlate. which. institution. RULE 2. SEC. retrieve and/or produce information. analyze. (e) “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine: (i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key. video. whether or not conducted for profit. (d) “Computer” refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus. store. Definition of Terms. and (ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made. and calling of every kind.

symbols or other modes of written expression. (h) “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information. (n) “Private Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating. receiving. recorded. readable by sight or other means. the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with electronic data message”. described or however represented. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output. and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. transmitted. For purposes of these Rules. (k) “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations. which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. data. stored processed. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. streaming audio. sent. (m) “Key Pair” in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates. storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic document. (o) “Public Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature. an electronic signature includes digital signatures. figures. optical or similar means. signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. received or stored by electronic. characteristics and/or sound in electronic form.(g) “Electronic data message” refers to information generated. text messages. (i) “Electronic key” refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.46 - . (l) “Information and Communication System” refers to a system for generating. RULE 3 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 . which is received. sending. streaming video. retrieved or produced electronically. For purposes of these Rules. chatroom sessions. (j) “Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark.

SEC. record. or from the same matrix. – Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing. – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means. Carrascoso 18 SCRA 155 (1966) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. document. Admissibility. Original of an electronic document. memorandum or any other form of writing. 2. SEC. Privileged communication. shown to reflect the data accurately. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing. CASES: Air France vs.47 - . copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: (a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. instrument. or (b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original. 2. such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. or by other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original. such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. – The confidential character of a privileged communications is not solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. SEC.ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. RULE 4 BEST EVIDENCE RULE SECTION 1. or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. 1 . or by chemical reproduction. Copies as equivalent of the originals.

bought a first class ticket to go to Rome.” The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous. After a brief commotion wherein Carrascoso said he would leave his seat on over his “dead body. and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. From Manila to Bangkok. organized a Corp. for the manufacture of parts & accessories for airplanes & paid into its treasury $500 to cover the authorized capital stock. 224 shares went to June Ballabu and the remaining shares to David Johnson & Robert Pine. It would have been an easy matter for petitioner to have contradicted Carrascoso’s testimony. If it were true that no entry was made the deposition of the purser could have cleared up the matter. Defendant charges that such testimony by Carrascoso is incompetent for being hearsay. had a better right to the seat. It is not within the Best Evidence Rule as the entry was made outside the Philippines by the employee of Air France. Testimony on the entry does not come within the Best Evidence rule. an officer of the US army. one piece of evidence that was admitted was the alleged entry by the purser employed by the defendant and testified to by the plaintiff. when the dialogue happened. the Manager aleeged. ISSUE: Whether or not the entry in the notebook is incompetent as evidence? RULING: Yes. Besides. in this environment. read “First class passengers was forced to go to tourist class against his will and that the captain refused to intervene”.” he gave it up. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon Meyers vs. who. During the trial. The excitement had not as yet died down. It is admissible. It had orders worth $20. the impact of the startiling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. Statements then. the Manager of the defendant airline forced the plaintiff to vacate his seat in order to make room for a “white man”. are ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF THE RES GESTAE.Carrascoso.000 from the Signal Corps of the 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. 1 . while the CA affirmed the decision but reduced the award further. The alleged notebook entry. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. called the Aviation Electric Corp. For they grow out of “the nervous excitement and mental and physical condition of the declarant. It is claimed by Air France that such piece of evidence comes within the proscription of the Best Evidence rule they are claiming such entry could not have been proven by mere testimony but by presenting the notebook itself. The subject of inquiry is not the entry but the ouster incident. It forms part of the res gestae. from a reading of the transcript above mentioned.48 - . The CFI decided in favor of Carrascoso . United States 171 F.2d 800 (1948) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: Meyers. plaintiff traveled in first class but on their stop-over in Bangkok.

though counsel testified early in protracted trial and transcript was introduced near its close. By: Raymond Joseph Ibon People vs. Meyers was charged and convicted of the charge of subordination for perjury by the trial court. A Cadillac automobile was purchased for the corp. 1242 (1959) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. was equally competent and admissible whether given before or after the transcript was received in evidence. Meyers testified (and so did Lamarre) that: 1. Statements alleged to perjuries may be proved by any person who heard them. The transcript was evidence of what he had said but it was not the only admissible evidence concerning it. by the reporter who recorded them in shorthand.US Army. corruption. The best evidence rule applies only when contents of a writing are to be proved which does not obtain in the case at bar.49 - . 1 . and it was not unfair or prejudicial to permit transcript of testimony given before the subcommittee to be introduced after chief counsel had testified. In prosecution for perjured testimony given before the Senate committee. not what the transcript contained. since both methods of proving the perjury were permissible. This is based on the theory that the transcript itself was the best evidence of Lamarre’s testimony before the Senate and there was no need for Roger’s testimony. there was reduced demand and led to the dissolution of the corp. there was no attempt to prove the contents of a writing. & for its use 3. On appeal. fraud. Tan 105 Phil. Here. Meyers was not financially interested/connected with Aviation Electric Corp. he alleges that the trial court took on a bizarre procedure when it accepted the testimony of William Rogers who examined his codefendant Lamarre in the Senate investigation and also allowed the introduction of a stenographic note transcript of Lamarre’s testimony on the same hearing. chief counsel to the committee. At the end of the war. Lamarre was made Secretary-treasurer and the 224 shares were transferred to him & he later became President. as well as.000. the sum of $10. the testimony by chief counsel of the senatorial committee as to what witnesses had sworn to was not barred under the best evidence rule. The issue was what Lamarre had said. 2. The testimony of Rogers. ISSUE: Whether or not the best evidence rule is applicable RULING: No. The US Senate created an investigating committee to look into instances of waste. excessive profits during the war. and prosecution could present its proof in any order it chose. paid by means of Aviation checks for furnishing Meyer’s apartment was a “gift from Lamarre” Based on this testimony.

an artist and designer of science fiction creatures and machines brought copyright infringement action against the producers and creators of the movie “The Empire 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others. The prosecution presented to a witness a booklet of receipts containing blue invoices of the Metro Drug Corporation. the trial court judge interrupted and said that the triplicates are not admissible unless it is first proven that the originals were lost and cannot be produced. It was alleged that they have made it appear that certain relief supplies were purchased by Gonzales for distribution to calamity victims in such quantities and at such prices and from such business establishments or persons as are made to appear in the said public documents. and according to said witness the original invoices were sent to the Manila office of the company. the prosecution again went back to the identification of the triplicate invoice. a commentator on the Rules of Court. While the witness was testifying. when in truth and in fact. RULING: The Court said that the admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been a settled question. no such distributions of such relief and supplies as valued and supposedly purchased by said Pacita Gonzales in the public and official documents had ever been made. At this point. By: Elon Cris C.2d 1504 (1986) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: Lee Seiler. The booklet contained the triplicate copies. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet. Lucas Film. It quoted with approval the opinion of Moran. the judge told the prosecutor that the originals must be produced. so that the duplicates and the triplicates were filled out by the use of the carbons. so that the triplicate copies remained in the booklet. produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath. The witness testified that the original practice of keeping the original white copies no longer prevails as the originals are given to the customers. Ltd. Another witness was presented by the prosecution to testify. Culangen Seiler vs. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 1 .Pacita Gonzales and others were charged with the crime of falsification of public documents in their capacities as public officials and employees. the duplicates to the customers.50 - . 797 F. The witness further testified that in preparing receipts. two carbons were used between the three sheets. After the cross-examination of this last witness. such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed the impression. ISSUE: Whether or not triplicates formed by the use of carbon papers are admissible in evidence without accounting first for the loss of the originals. including the signature of the party to be charged thereby.

The target area was a store along the said street. He contended that he created and published his Garthian Striders in 1976 and 1977 and that George Lucas copied these. Seiler appealed.Strikes Back. and the like.” The Court said that to recognize Seiler’s works as writings does not run counter to the rule’s preoccupation with the centrality of the written word in the world of written legal relations. mechanical or electronic recording. the court found that Seiler lost or destroyed the originals in bad faith and consequently no secondary evidence. or their equivalent.00 bills marked ANU 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.00 and two P5. typewriting. or numbers. Seiler’s works are “writings” that affect legal relations. Tandoy 192 SCRA 98 (1990) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: On May 27.” According to the Court. Culangen People vs. such as the post-Empire Strikes Back reconstructions. He stood alone near the store waiting for any pusher to approach. The court granted summary judgment to Lucas after the evidentiary hearing. or other forms of data compilation. A creative literary work and a photograph whose contents are sought to be proved are both covered by the best evidence rule. printing.” Seiler claimed that creatures known as Imperial Walkers infringed his copyright on his own creatures called Garthian Striders. Soon. set down by handwriting. By: Elon Cris C. their copyright ability attests to that. gusto mo bang umiskor?” Singayan answered yes. 1986. magnetic impulse. photographing. Comparing Seiler’s drawings with Lucas’ drawings is no different in principle than evaluating a contract and the intent behind it. words or numbers” but of “their equivalent. reconstructions.51 - . It held that Seiler’s drawings were “writings” within the meaning of Rule 1001 (1) which defined writings and records as “letters. It would be inconsistent to apply the rule to artwork which is literary or photographic but not to artwork of other forms. and detective Singayan was to pose as the buyer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district judge. Photostatting. Applying the best evidence rule. He proposed to exhibit his Striders in a blown-up comparison to Lucas’ Walkers at opening statement. Because Seiler possessed no originals of any work he contended was copied. Barangay Singkamas. he sought to introduce secondary evidence in the form of copies. ISSUE: Whether or not Seiler’s drawings constituted “writings” for purposes of the best evidence rule. The exchange was made then and there—two rolls of marijuana for one P10. Makati. words. three men approached him. 1 . The district judge held an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of the reconstructions of the Striders. Seiler’s drawings consist not of “letters.. RULING: Yes. detectives of the Makati Police conducted a buy-bust operation at Solchuaga St. One of them was Mario Tandoy who said: “Pare. was admissible.

against Eustaquio Balistoy for the payment of a sum of money. 1908. They appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not the Xerox copy of the marked P10. RULING: No. In his appeal. as creditor. Bernardo Gregorio requested the deputy sheriff to exclude the said realty from the attachment. The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the original.92 with interest thereon. like a Xerox copy thereof. Tandoy appealed.52 - . Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed. An information was filed against Tandoy.00 bill is excludible under the best evidence rule.00 bill. On the 18th of the same month. or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution. The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy. The RTC of Makati found him guilty of violating RA 6425. Only a copy thereof was produced in court. the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. 522 (1910) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: In a case filed by Pedro Salazar. The marked money and eight foils of marijuana were found on Tandoy’s body. prior to the filing of the complaint.S. Culangen U. two rural properties of the debtor were attached. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the Solicitor General’s Comment which refuted the contention of Tandoy. alleging that he was the owner of one of the properties levied upon for the reason that he had acquired it by purchase from the debtor Balistoy in 1905. The date for the sale and adjudication of the attached properties to the highest bidder was set on May 27. the original document setting forth the memorandum was not presented. vs. or exists. judgment was rendered wherein the debtor was sentenced to pay to the plaintiff P275. falsification charges were brought against Gregorio and Balistoy. other substitutionary evidence. Gregorio 17 Phil.(meaning Anti-Narcotics Unit). The trial court found the defendants guilty. For the execution of the judgment. 1 . Bernardo presented to the sheriff a document at the end of which appears a memorandum which states that Eustaquio Balistoy bought the land referred to in the said document from Luis Balistoy and sold it to Bernardo Gregorio. Tandoy invoked the best evidence rule and questioned the admission by the trial court of the Xerox copy only of the marked P10. By: Elon Cris C. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The complaint for falsification alleged that the defendants simulated a conveyance of one of the attached properties in favor of Gregorio. However. Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents. Subsequently.

because. and its translation into Spanish. and should be admitted. ISSUE: Whether or not the copies of the weekly are admissible. The fiscal filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the lower court to admit the copies of the weekly as evidence for the prosecution. even the existence of such original may be doubted. or falsified. it is improper to conclude. pursuant to the evidence produced at trial.53 - . Respondents maintained that since the libelous article was not quoted in the information. RULING: Yes. The Court reversed the lower court. The petitioner fiscal contended that the exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel. By: Elon Cris C. said evidence cannot be admitted without amending the information. the original document alleged to have been falsified must be produced RULING: Yes. In a criminal case for the falsification of a document. The fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution copies of the Ing Magumasid containing the libelous articles with the innuendo. Defendant Guevarra’s counsel objected to this evidence. the rule of procedure which requires the production of the best evidence is applicable to the present case. with malicious intent. that there has been a falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited. The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander. in the absence of the original document. integrity. in order that they may find. with only a copy of the said original in view. counterfeited. of which a translation into Spanish was included therein. Defendants were acquitted. published on page 9 of the weekly paper Ing Magumasid. which objection was sustained by the trial court. The informations alleged that Guevarra. This being so.ISSUE: Whether or not in a criminal case for the falsification of a document. whether or not the crime of falsification was actually committed. Reyes 55 Phil 905 (1931) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: The fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for libel against Andres Guevarra. another article in the vernacular published in the same weekly. in such a case. and reputation of Clemente Dayrit and of Mariano Nepomuceno. a squib in verse. it is indispensable that the judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated. Culangen Fiscal of Pampanga vs. the subject matter of the information. The copies of the weekly where the libelous 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. intended to impeach the honesty. 1 .

Defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and upheld the sale. De Corpus. Witnesses cannot be expected 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The defendants appealed claiming that the sale never took place since the document of sale could not be produced and the plaintiff has failed to establish the contents of the deed of sale as required by Rule 130. 8262 (1963) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: Defendant Tiburcia Brabangco is the owner of a certain parcel of land. The newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it. Sec. The plaintiff declared that the original deed of sale signed by defendant Tiburcia was lost during the war. 1 . As to the second issue. Plaintiffs Corpus allege that their predecessor in interest was and is in possession of said lands up to his death until Defendants with the aid and protection of policemen entered the premises and got bamboos and corn. Plaintiffs. At the same time. By: Elon Cris C. or who read it. that the witness should be able to testify with verbal accuracy to its contents. the surviving widow and children of the deceased German Corpus alleges that the land was sold by defendant Tiburcia Brabangco to their father German Corpus for and in consideration of P450 of which P300 was paid right upon the execution of the Deed of sale in due form witnessed by Pablo Albeza and Bonifacio Villareal (now deceased) and acknowledged be defendant Brabangco before notary Public Jose Tirador (also deceased). The record of the present case will bear that its existence was convincingly proven not only by the testimony of Heraclea Vda. ISSUES (1) Whether or not the Plaintiffs have sufficiently proven the existence. it is not necessary. Culangen Vda. the surviving widow. allege that a sale never took place. Brabangco 59 O.54 - . and its translation. on the other hand. constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. After proper proof of the due execution & delivery of the instrument & its loss or destruction. due execution and subsequent loss of the Deed of sale. oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document. 3. and by the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence. Plaintiffs filed a case against the defendants. With reference to the deed of sale from which the plaintiffs’ case draw its cause of action was said to be lost during the war. in order to admit evidence of the contents of a lost instrument. de Corpus vs.article was published.G. Defendants’ answer avers “that they simply accommodated and allowed the Plaintiffs Corpus to build their evacuation cottage when Japanese forces occupied the Philippines. but also by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Albeza. (2) Whether or not the plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to prove the contents of the loss deed of sale? RULING: Yes. it is sufficient if they are able to state it in substance.

On the following day. refused to pay for the stevedoring services because this was provided for in the contract between the company and the union. Plaintiff Company to bolster its case presented Teves. The union filed an Unfair Labor Practice case. 215. The union agreed that the company would not pay for the loading. it was held sufficient if the witness can recollect and testify to facts showing the presence of essential elements of a contract. the union sent the company a letter requesting that it be recognized as the exclusive bargaining unit. consideration and form in certain instances. on the other hand. renewable upon agreement. The company ignored the demand. Then. The union then filed with the CIR a petition that it be certified as the sole collective bargaining unit. (The company alleges that it was forced to purchase the equipment in order to improve 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The company. 1 . Thereafter. the Trial court awarded actual damages. it did not terminate the contract because its members were in dire need of work. Then. the contract was verbally renewed. Exhibits A to I. The company sued the union. namely. subject matter.appellant Allied Free Workers Union (union) entered into a written contract whereby the union will perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the company’s vessels. pallet boards. shippers and consignees refused to pay the union for the stevedoring services because the bill of lading provided that the unloading of the cargo was at the ship owner’s expense. upon the expiration of the one month period. a legal battle ensued with the trial court in the end ruling in favor of the company.to recite the content word for word. It is enough if intelligent witnesses have read the paper & can state substantially its contents & import with reasonable accuracy. However. Despite of the fact that the set-up was disadvantageous on the Union. which although not adequately compensated. effective for 1 month. the Union members picketed the wharf and prevented the Iligan Stevedoring from performing arrastre and stevedoring work. Gamboa Compania Maritima vs. One of the pieces of evidence he presented was a statement showing the alleged cost of 3 forklifts. unloading and deliveries of cargoes and that these would be paid by the owners and consignees of the cargoes as has been the practice in the port of Iligan. In the case at bar. Also. the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs are more than enough to satisfy the statutory requirements as to execution and subsequent loss of the deed of sale as well as to its contents. was preferable to having no work at all. This became the root of all the problems between the two parties. Thus. Allied Free Workers Union 77 SCRA 24 (1977) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: Plaintiff-appellee Compania Maritima (company) and the Defendant. By: Abigail Joy D. the company entered into a new stevedoring contract with Iligan Stevedoring. The company could terminate the contract if the union failed to render proper service. the company’s manager who testified in its favor. 000 and other damages on the basis of the auditor’s reports. Thus. wire rope slings and tarpaulins in the sum of P27. consent. amounting to P450. The company then terminated the contract.55 - .

His testimony is basically that the Company due to the act of Union members. SC said that the best evidence on the cost of the equipment would have been the sales invoice instead of his mere oral testimony of. instead it was Jayme who testified on behalf of Magante. and attorneys fees on the ground that the Auditors report on which they were based were hearsay? RULING: The company argues that the accountant’s (auditor’s) reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that “when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. the original writings need not be produced. What applies is the general rule “that an audit made by or the testimony of a private auditor is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records. Jayme was not competent to take his place since the statement was prepared by Magante and not by Jayme. The same is true with regard to Jayme’s estimates as recoverable damages. in order for said rule to be applied. Gamboa Villa Rey Transit vs. The pertinent records of the company should have been produced in Court.the arrastre & stevedoring services. By: Abigail Joy D. The company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court As to the statement presented by Teves. the company suffered losses as shown in the books of the as to unrealized freight and passenger revenue. That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records on which the accountant’s reports were based was not duly established. Moreover. books of accounts. the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on crossexamination.) He claims that the damages to the company by reason of depreciation of the said equipment amounted to P38. the company’s chief clerk in Iligan City in his statement. reports or the like. he should have produced the sales invoice. 385 or more than the cost thereof. the documents and records on which the statement was based should have been presented as evidence or at least brought to the Court for examination. 1 . More appropriate still. moral damages. Magante did not testify on his statement.56 - . Ferrer 25 SCRA 845 (1968) Best Evidence Rule 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. The Company also claims damages on lost cargoes and freight as set forth by Salvador Magante. Also. ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding to the plaintiff company actual damages. Lower court’s award of damages is reversed and set aside. As to Magante’s report. Also presented was Accountant Demetrio Jayme who was a personal friend of Teves and company’s branch manager in Ozamis.

Said requisites have been complied with. The requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse party are: a. Thus. The CFI declared these sales as null and void. destroyed or cannot be produced in court.) reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original. Therefore. he admitted their previous existence in the files of VRTI and had even seen some of them. he said that the originals were missing and that VRTI was no longer in possession of the same.FACTS: Jose Villarama was an operator of a bus company (Villa Rey Transit) pursuant to CPCs granted him by the PSC. c. contending that no evidentiary value whatsoever should be given to them since “they were merely photostatic copies of the originals.) satisfactory proof of its existence. he sold 2 CPCs to Pangasinan Transpo. on being notified to produce it.mingled his personal funds and transactions with those made in the name of the Corporation are very illuminating evidence. this appeal.) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. 3 months later. The Corporation. The evidence presented by Pantanco to prove its contention is Photostatic copies of ledger entries and vouchers. The party calling for such evidence may introduce a copy thereof as in the case of loss because among the exceptions to the best evidence rule is “when the original has been lost. Fernando’s judgment creditor. d. In 1959. b. 6 to 19 and 22) showing that Villarama had co-mingled his personal funds and transactions with those made in the name of VRTI are admissible in evidence? RULING: Yes.) opponent’s possession of the original.57 - . Villa Rey Transit Inc. As to the 3rd. (Pantranco) with the condition that Villarama shall not. for 10 years. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. apply for any TPU service competing with buyer.” 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. Exhibits 6 to 19 and Exhibit 22 which are photostatic copies of the ledger entries and vouchers showing that Villarama had co. the non competition clause embodied in the deed of sale entered into by Jose Villarama is also binding to the Corporation. VRTI filed a complaint for annulment of the sheriff’s sale of the CPCs in favor of Ferrer and its subsequent sale to Pantranco. it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of the adversary. then bought 5 CPCs from Valentin Fernando. ISSUE: Whether or not photostatic copies of ledger entries and vouchers (Exh. Jose Villarama has assailed the admissibility of these exhibits. The Sheriff levied 2 out of the 5 CPCs pursuant to a writ of execution in favor of Eusebio Ferrer. Secondary evidence is admissible where he denied having it in his possession. It is the contention of Pantranco that Jose Villarama and the Corporation were one and the same. Co. Hence. (VRTI) was formed wherein the wife and relatives of Jose Villarama were the stockholders and the incorporators. Neither is it required that the party entitled to the custody of the instrument. The 2 CPCs were sold at auction with Ferrer as highest bidder. admit having it in his possession. As to the 1st. 1 . However. Ferrer then sold these 2 CPCs to Pantranco . Villarama has practically admitted the 2nd and 4th. the best evidence being the originals themselves”.

Michael and E. of which Michael and Company (MCI) claims to be a successor by reason of an instrument duly executed and deliverd by the former to the latter transferring property. This action is based on a sale with right to repurchase made by Enriquez in favor of E. even in such cases. If it has been lost. ISSUE: Whether or not the TC erred in preventing MCI from proving existence and the delivery of the conveyance transferring to it the land in question? RULING: Trial courts do well in refusing at all times to permit the introduction of incompetent evidence and particularly secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments unless the facts required by the Code of Civil Procedure as the conditions precedent for such evidence are clearly shown to exist. its contents may be proved by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document or by the recollection of a witness. During the trial. Section 321 of the Code provides: “An original writing must be produced and proved. except as otherwise provided in this Act. business and assets of every kind including the land which is the subject of this litigation. the writing itself must be produced unless it has been lost or destroyed in which case. at others the questions put for the purpose of proving those facts were well framed and answers should have been allowed to them. Upon such proof being made. MCI also attempted to prove the fact that the instrument so executed and delivered was lost. 87 (1915) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cebu dismissing the action after trial on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. it must 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol.” As will be seen in this section. vs. The TC also prevented appellant from proving that. Michael & Co. it being his purpose to lay the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence as to its contents.sociedad en comandita.58 - . Gamboa Michael & Co. It is alleged that the period to repurchase had expired thus consolidating ownership in MCI. are admissible. but.The original of the vouchers must be deemed to have been lost as even VRTI admit such loss. Thus. though secondary. proof of the loss must first be made before evidence can be given of its contents.. The TC prevented MCI from proving that fact. By: Abigail Joy D. before its contents may be proved by other evidence. the TC also sustained & objections to the questions and the evidence sought to be adduced was excluded. Enriquez 33 Phil. While the efforts of MCI’s counsel to prove the execution and delivery of the document were at times rather informal and objections to such questions were properly sustained. 1 . MCI sought to prove the execution and delivery of the conveyance transferring to it the land described in the pacto de retro. together with proof of the due execution of the writing. said evidence.

or by any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who. or heard it read knowing. an OCT was issued in their name. by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged. By: Abigail Joy D. after its execution and delivery. Gamboa De Vera vs. If it appears . The petitioners also claimed that the respondents had resold the property to Bernabe. and in turn Bernabe sold the same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. or by anyone who has made.59 - . that the document is in fact in existence . and has been unable to find it. where delivery is necessary (2) that it has been lost or destroyed. Such property was mortgaged by petitioners to Bordador. Aguilar 218 SCRA 602 (1983) Best Evidence Rule FACTS: Petitioners (all surnamed De Vera) and respondent Leona (married to Mariano Aguilar) are the children and heirs of the late Marcosa Bernabe. a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or pares of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was. or who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the Court that the document was indeed lost. After proper proof of the due execution and delivery and its loss or destruction. the petitioners wrote to the respondents claiming that as children of Bernabe. who executed it. or it being proved from other sources. Petitioners De Vera filed a suit for reconveyance of the lot. the TC admitted. in the judgment of the court. 1 . or the contents maybe proved by any person to whom the parties to the instrument have confessed or stated the contents thereof. Marcosa Bernabe owned the disputed parcel of land. In ruling for the petitioners de Vera. Then. The execution or delivery of the document maybe established by the person or persons. oral evidence maybe given of its contents by any person who signed the document. When the mortgage had matured. The TC rendered its decision ordering the reconveyance of the lot. Such evidence may also be given by any person who was present when the contents of the document was being talked over between the parties thereto to such an extent as to give him reasonably full information as to its contents. a Xerox copy of an alleged deed of sale executed by respondents in favor of Bernabe. on an attempt to prove the loss . The loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss. The destruction of the instrument may be proved by any person knowing the fact. or by a copy thereof. or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments have previously confessed the execution thereof. over the objection of the respondents Aguilar. the respondents Spouses Aguilar redeemed the property. Three years later.be shown by the party offering secondary evidence (1) that the document was duly executed and delivered. they were co-owners of the property and demanded partition thereof. or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document. that the document so read was the one in question. 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. then the proof of loss or destruction fails and secondary evidence is inadmissible unless section 322 of the Civil code of Procedure should be applicable. saw it and recognized the signatures. or who read it.

the TC merely ruled in the existence and dye execution of the alleged deed of sale. a sufficient examination in the place(s) where papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was. The existence of the alleged deed was proved by the Xerox copy. In establishing the execution of a document. and has been unable to find it. the same may be accomplished by the person(s) who executed it. These petitioners failed to do. or by any person who was present and saw it executed or who. Hence. or by a person to whom the parties had confessed the execution thereof. the proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument. By: Abigail Joy D. this petition for review on certiorari. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence. The CA found that the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale has not been duly proven by petitioners. by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged. The petitioners have sufficiently established the due execution of the alleged deed through the testimony of the notary public. no excuse for non-production of the writing itself can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its parts are unavailable. after its execution saw it and recognized the signatures. so secondary evidence (Xerox copy of deed of sale) is inadmissible. all duplicates must be accounted for before using copies. RULING: Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. The sufficiency of proof for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the TC. in the judgment of the court. The loss or destruction of the deed may be proved by any person who knew the fact of its loss or by anyone who had made.60 - . 1 . contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. Hence. Decision affirmed. loss. In the case at bar. execution. the notary public testified that the alleged deed of sale has about 4 or 5 original copies. the decision was reversed. Gamboa 3C 2003-2004 Evidence Project Vol. all these must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of any one. In the case at bar. For since all the duplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved.On appeal to the CA. However. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence. or who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost.