Rule 130. 1.

exhibition of the person to show his missing limbs, scars, wounds, skin
color
 There are four sources of evidence that may be presented in court: 2. the weapon used in attacking the victim
1. Real or Object Evidence- the presentation of a physical object 3. in infringement cases of musical compositions, the music may be
in court listened to by the court
2. Testimonial Evidence- testimony of persons whether oral or
written
3. Circumstantial evidence- by inference from other facts which Probative Value of Object Evidence
are known  Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it
4. Documentary evidence- offer of documents ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence such that when
physical evidence contradicts the testimonial evidence, the physical
evidence should prevail
RULE 130 SECTION 1 – OBJECT EVIDENCE  but failure to present will not necessarily weaken the evidence
presented
Section 1. Objects as evidence are addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to or Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence
examined or viewed by the court. 1. the evidence must be relevant and not excluded by the rules or the law
2. the evidence must be authenticated
What is object evidence? 3. the authentication must be made by a competent witness
 Evidence furnished by the thing the things themselves, on view or 4. the object must be formally offered in evidence.
inspection
 Is what which is directly to the senses of the court, as by actual sight, Authentication
hearing, taste, smell, or touch  Threshold question: is it the actual object that it is claimed to be? Is it
the real thing?
In contrast with other sources of evidence:  It must be shown that it is the very thing that is either the subject
 It is not a description of them by the mouth of a witness matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the
 It does not refer to a perception of the witness and a recollection of that case
perception
 Not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness Authentication by a competent witness
 To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should identify
What is the rationale behind the admissibility of Real/ Object Evidence? the object to be the actual thing involved in the litigation.
 It allows the court, instead of relying on the recollection of the  The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the very
witness, to have its own firsthand perception of the evidence thing involved in the litigation.
 to a rational man of perfect organization, the best and the highest proof o He must have actual and personal knowledge of the thing he is
of which any fact is susceptible is the evidence of his senses. presenting
o This is the ultimate test of truth, and is, therefore, the first
principle in the philosophy of evidence the following may be Real Evidence:
o The evidence from one’s own senses furnishes the strongest 1. Articles or persons which may be exhibited inside or outside the
probability and indeed the only perfect and indubitable courtroom
certainty of the existence of any sensible fact 2. Inspection of objects or places
Some examples: 3. Experiment

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 1


1. People vs. Manalo – 219 S 656
Facts:
1. the Accused Manalo was charged with two counts of murder of the
victims Bonilla and Diomampo. Both informations stated that Manalo
shot both victims using a an unlicensed pistolized Colt Caliber .45, with
Serial No. 362134.
2. During the trial, the court gave credence to the testimony of the
witness Carlos Lacbay. He stated that, and as the court has
summarized:
a. one night of November 1981, Lacbay visited the victims to pick
up some camote and wine. After their conversation, the victims
decided to accompany Lacbay home and each rode their
respective tricycles.
b. When they arrived to the place of delivery of the camotes,
appellant Manalo approached the victims and Lacbay and
invited them to his home for drinks.
c. After Diomampo and Bonilla entered the house of appellant
and were about to reach the interior portion thereof, appellant,
who was then at the doorway followed behind by Lacbay,
suddenly and without any warning shot Diomampo once on the
head and then Bonilla also once on the temple at a distance of
about three (3) meters from behind, with a .45 caliber pistol
with a magazine. Diomampo and Bonilla fell down to the floor
dead. Thereafter, appellant again fired one more [shot] at
Diomampo. Lacbay who was standing a meter behind
appellant, was so shocked that he was unable to move.
3. Decision of the Trial Court; guilty: the trial court found the accused
Manalo guilty of 2 counts of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by accused praying for the reversal of the
finding of guilt of Manalo. He assigns as error, among all others, the
absence of physical evidence showing that he himself fired a gun using
the paraffin test.
Issue: Should the appellant be acquitted by reason of the failure to present
physical evidence that he indeed fired the gun that killed the two victims?
Ruling: No.
The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would not prove
his innocence. In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a
gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of
nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test.
The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin
traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45
Caliber pistol
2. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167
Facts:
1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki.
2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses
Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that:
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his
store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to
prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the appellant
Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, while his boss was
bathing in his own blood on the floor.
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away
from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out
through the front door of Malaki's store with a bloodstained
bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit
3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to
support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as
evidence of the victim’s wallet with its contents, and a bunch of keys
violates his right against self- incrimination.
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the
admission of object evidence?
Ruling: No.
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds
no application in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to
extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It
does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is
2
not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the
question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said:
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his
[physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his
physical control in whatever form exercise, then, it would be
possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house, with all
the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the authority of the law
to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained by forcibly
overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the
evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other
words, it is not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the
privilege, . . . but testimonial compulsion
Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility of
evidence as violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of making the
extrajudicial confession or admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible.
Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights,
these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet,
identification card, residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing
other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the
fact that it was the very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery.
The identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on
the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are
inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the
existence of other evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's identity
and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
3. People vs. Jumamoy – 221 S 333
Facts:
1. Jumamoy was charged with Murder and Qualified Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition.
2. It as established during trial that:
a. One evening of April 1987, victim Miel with his brother and
some other companions went to the disco of St. Paul Academy
in the Cultural Center if Inabanga Bohol.
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
b. While the friends were conversing with each other, all of a
sudden, the appellant Jumamoy appeared in front obliquely to
the right of the victim and fired three successive shots at the
latter who slumped and fell to the ground.
3. The trial court rendered a decision finding guilt on both charges.
4. Hence, the present action by the appellant Jumamoy arguing among all
others that he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to
present and introduce as evidence the firearm which was allegedly used
in killing the victim.
Issue: Should the appellant Jumamy be acquitted on the failure of the
prosecution to present the firearm used?
Ruling: No.
1. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do
so; there is also no law which prescribes that a ballistics examination be
conducted to determine the source and trajectory of the bullets.
2. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by
proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that
the accused is the author thereof.
3. The production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is
not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden for the
weapon may not have been recovered at all from the assailant.
4. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals
would go scotfree and much injustice would be caused to the victims of
crimes, their families and society.
5. In the instant case, it was established with moral certainty that the
accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel with an
unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot
wounds which caused his death. Such proof was all that was needed for
the conviction of the accused.
4. People vs. Flores – 328 S 461
Facts:
1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of Murder of
Antonio Garcia using a handgun
2. it was established during the trial that:
a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday and
having a drinking spree with his invited guests. They were all
at the backyard of the house of Garcia.
3
 b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified him as
the assailant when, according to her testimony, she saw Flores
stading at arms length away from her and 3 arms length away
from his father holding and pointing a gun towards him.
c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his gun.
d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused by a
bullet fired from a handgun believed to be a .38 caliber. The
bullet hit first the left arm of Antonio Garcia towards the left
side of his stomach and landed on his left lung. A deformed
slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by 2 centimeters was extracted
from his left leg.
3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio Garcia.
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores contending
among all others, that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the
slugs were never presented in evidence as well as he tested negative
during the paraffin test.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant?
Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the paraffin test;
that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime
and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is of no moment.
It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively
show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was
committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person discharged a firearm
with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter. Since accused-
appellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 days after the shooting, it is likely
that he has already washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of
nitrates in his hand.
It has also been held that the nonpresentation by the prosecution of the gun
used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to the case
when there is positive identification of the assailant, as in the instant case.
RULE 130 SECTION 3 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
Take note of the pre-trial provision:
“No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in
support of a party’s evidence in- chief other than those that had been earlier
identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial except if allowed by the court for
good cause shown.”
 Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents presented and
offered as rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or
any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)
What is a documentary evidence?
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like
objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression and offered as proof of their contents.
 RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic documents
and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent to
a written paper-based document under existing laws.
Purpose
 Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of inquiry
 It must be offered as the proof of their contents .
 If it is offered for some other purpose the writings or materials would
not be deemed as documentary evidence but merely an object evidence.
 Note however that the private document may be offered and admitted
in evidence both as documentary evidence and as object evidence
depending on the purpose for which it is offered.
o When the purpose of the document is offered to show its
existence, condition other than as proof of its contents, it is
object evidence.
 Why is it important to differentiate and distinguish one from the other?
rules are different. Best evidence rule, hearsay rule, and parol evidence
rule does not apply in object evidence
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence:
1. the document must be relevant
2. the evidence must be authenticated
4
 3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness
4. the document must be formally offered in evidence
5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of court
or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol evidence rule)
BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
(c) 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; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer
or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the 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, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded
as originals.
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the
entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
Also called the original document rule or the primary evidence rule
 The rule means that no evidence which is merely substitutionary in its
nature shall be received so long as original evidence can be had.
 The only rule which requires the production of the original writing.
 The rule does not pertain to the weight or probative value of the
document but merely requires that the original document is what should
be presented
What is the rationale behind the best evidence rule?
 There is a need to present to the court the actual and exact words of
the writing so as prevent fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of
the writing
 To prevent erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing
When does the Best Evidence Rule apply?
 The law only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of
the document
 The subject of the inquiry must be the contents and not the truth of the
documents itself
 The best evidence does not apply to external or collateral facts
about the document
o When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some
external fact about the document such as existence, execution,
or delivery without reference to its terms, the best evidence
rule cannot be invoked.
What is the effect of the best evidence rule?
 It prevents the party from proving the contents of the writing by oral
testimony or by using a copy thereof if the original itself is available.
What are the documents that are considered as original?
Generally, it refers to the original as the first one written from which mere copies
are made, transcribed or imitated.
However, subsequent documents may also regarded as originals:
5

(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded
as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the
entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
Hence, the following are considered as originals:
o when a document is executed in several duplicate originals
o writings with identical contents by mass production (e.g.,
newspapers)
o copies through carbon sheets
o documents executed in duplicate or multiplicate form
o printout of an electronic document
not originals:
o photocopies of a form
o facsimile
o certified true copies of public documents
How should the best evidence rule be applied?
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a document, and the
contents thereof are the subjects of the inquiry, then the best evidence must be
applied.
 The rule requires that the original document must be presented and not
merely a copy thereof.
 Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as the
latter is available.
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be
presented in court, the party must:
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the
original of the document and
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the Rules of
Court
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present the
original of the document for the court to allow presentation of
substitutes or secondary evidence?
1. when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror
2. when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice
3. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
ehich 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 (e.g., the best evidence of elections results are the ballots
themselves, however, checking each and every ballots would be
impractical. Hence, the returns may be used instead)
4. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office
other reasons:
 the document is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
 when the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and
monuments such as tombstones
2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of
its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated.
Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss,
destruction, or unavailability of the original
1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the original
document
2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by his bad
faith
6
after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents may now be
proven by secondary evidence.
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly
followed:
1. copy of the original
2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document
3. testimony of witnesses.
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or
control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse
party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
 Mere fact that the document is in the custody or under the control of
the adverse party will not ipso facto authorize the presentation of
secondary evidence. The following must be shown:
(1) That the original exists
(2) That the said document is under the custody or control of the
adverse party
(3) That the proponent/ offeror of the secondary evidence have
the adverse party notice to produce the original document
i. May be done through a motion to produce the
document
ii. Subpoena duces tecum
(4) The adverse party failed or refused to produce the original
document despite the reasonable notice
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public
record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued
by the public officer in custody thereof.
Why? There are instances when the original of a document is a public record or is
recorded in a public place. Public records are generally not to be removed from
the placed where they are recorded.
 Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is sufficient as
secondary evidence
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals consisting of
numerous accounts
(1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
(2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
(3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of
the whole
Hence, in this case, the court may allow a witness to offer a summary
of a number of documents. Note however that the voluminous records
must be made available to the adverse party for verification and tested
for cross examination.
Example: accountant may present a written summary of some sales
invoices
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party
who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged
to offer it as evidence.
1. Borje vs. Sandiganbayan – 125 S 763
JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
Q — What evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and you were
no longer
performing your duties as technician?
A — It is only verbal. (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)
Facts:
1. Borje was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Document
before the RTC. during the trial of the case, it was established by the
testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution that:
a. The accused, being the Provincial Plant industry Officer of the
Bureau of Plant Industry in San Fernando La Union, falsified
the Timebook, Payroll, and the Daily Time Record of his office
for the periods January to March of 1977 and made it appear
that the complainaint Ducusin worked for such period of time.
b. Ducusin alleged that the accused made it appear that he has
claimed his wages for such period, contrary to the fact that by
7
 January until April of 1977, he was detailed in another position
by a only a verbal order. Hence, he could not have signed the
Daily Time Record and accept the incentives and wages
therein.
2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as
charged.
3. The Sandiganbayan upheld the decision of the lower court in finding
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by the accused Borje arguing that:
a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime
charged because of its failure to present the original copies of
the alleged falsified documents.
b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely affixed
his signature as part of the Standard Operating Procedure of
the office payroll. He contended that there was no actual order
known by him that Ducusin was already detailed in another
position to the effect that it would be established that Ducusin
was no longer entitled to incentives and payroll
Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to convict the
accused Appellant Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: No.
1st Issue: It was not established that the complainant had in fact been ordered
to be detailed in another position so as to render him without right to receive the
incentives and be included in the payroll.
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual official
procedure, a written special order issued by a government office is cancelled,
amended or modified only by another written special order, not only for purposes
of record on file but also to prevent conflict and confusion in government
operations. Moreover, under the best evidence rule, Section 2, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, the supposed verbal order cannot prevail over the written Special
Order No. 172 stated above.
2nd Issue:
In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the
judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
simulated, counterfeited or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the
evidence produced at the trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was
actually committed; in the absence of the original document, it is improper to
conclude, with only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a
falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in
such a case, even the existence of such original document may be doubted.
2. Widows and Orphans Association (Widora), Inc. vs. CA and
Ortigas and Company– 212 S 360
Facts:
1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of title of a
parcel of land alleging that they have acquired the subject parcel of land
from the heirs of the registered owner, Mariano San Pedro as seen in
the Titulo Propriedad Numero 4136 or OCT no. 351. They prayed that
the parcel of land be registered in Widora’s name.
2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss alleging that
land being applied for registration by Widora have already been
registered under the TCT 77652and TCT 77653 by the Decree 1425.
Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide on such.
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to establish
the contents of Decree 1425 which purportedly
included his lands in OCT 351: plan submitted by
respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351.
The decree itself was not submitted as evidence.
3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of the
petitioner Ortigas holding that the TCTs registered in the name of
Ortigas were not derivatives of the subject property and are in fact
derivatives of other parcels of land.
4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before the CA
to annul the decision of the RTC.
a. The CA ruled that the TCTs of Ortigas were derivative of ICT
No. 351 which covers the same parcel of land of Widora. It
ruled that OCT 351 is allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the
mere fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a certified
copy thereof, can no longer be produced, does not mean that
the Decree covering the lots subject of this case was not
issued.
b. That although the TCTs of Ortigas did not reflect that it was
derived from OCT 351, the facts remains that the parcel of land
8
 covering OCT 351 includes the 2 parcels of land of Ortigas.
Hence, there was a mistake in the recording of the TCTs of
Ortigas which stated that it was not derived from OCT 351 but
of other OCTs.
5. the petitioner elevated the case with the Supreme Court. the Supreme
court initially held that :
a. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan submitted by respondent
Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351) adduced by
private respondent to prove the contents of Decree 1425 and
admitted by respondent court is merely secondary and should
not have been admitted in the first place.
Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ortigas questioning the
ruling of the Supreme Court holding the OCTs and the survey of the engineer as
inadmissible.
Issue: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?
Ruling. Yes.
After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable rules of
evidence, the Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was
inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351 offered by Ortigas was a certified true copy
of the original thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of
Rizal. 18 The admissibility of such a copy in court proceedings is an exception to
the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; 19 such admissibility is in fact
mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). 20 Under
the Land Registration Act which was in force at the time OCT No. 351 was
issued, the original thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register of
Deeds of Rizal was an official transcript of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the
land covered by such decree situated in the Province of Rizal. 21
Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. 1425
upon which the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based. We believe
further that the Court of Appeals was justified in relying upon the plotting
prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and his testimony explaining the
significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that plotting and
testimony. For, as will be seen shortly, authenticity and correctness of this survey
plans and of Engineer Angeles's explanation thereof had already been judicially
sustained in previously decided cases.
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
3. People vs. Tandoy – 192 S 28
Facts:
1. Tandoy was charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972. The information stated that the Tandoy sold pieces of dried
marijuana flowering tops which is a prohibited drug for, and in
consideration of P20.00
a. It was established during the trial that the accused was
accosted through a buy- bust operation by the Makati Police.
b. During the trial, the marked money was not presented in court
but merely the photocopy of the same.
2. The trial court rendered a decision convicting Tandoy guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
3. Hence, the present action by Tandoy arguing among all others that it
was an error for the trial court to admit the photocopy of the marked
money as such is contrary to the best evidence rule.
Issue: Was the court wrong to admit as evidence the photocopy of the marked
money used in the buy bust operation?
Ruling: No. the best evidence rule does not apply when the evidence is offered as
an object evidence.
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an ordinary
document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court which
excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except in the five (5) instances
mentioned therein.
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the
subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document
was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible.
Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for
the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.
Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not
indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of
9
the marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony of the police
officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had
been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself
would not constitute a fatal omission.
4. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction
Corp. – 301 S 537
1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner
Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn
against Triumph’s account in the petitioner Bank.
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which
were drawn against the account of the accused were all forged
per findings of the PC Crime Laboratories. That the signatures
of its authorized signatories were all forged.
b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not
submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks
were presented as evidence.
2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of
evidence to support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the
private respondent failed to show that the signatures on the subject
checks were forged. It did not even present in court the originals of the
checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could
be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
3. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and
ordered the petitioner to reimburse the private respondent. It
held that it was not necessary for the respondent to prove that the
checks were forged because of the admissions made by the petitioner
Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness.
4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing that:
that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks
bearing the alleged forged signatures of private respondents
officers. In spite of the timely objection made by the petitioner,
the private respondent introduced in evidence mere
photocopies of the questioned checks. The failure to produce
the originals of the checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as
there would be no evidentiary basis for the court to declare
that the instruments were forgeries.
Issue: was the respondent able to establish the forgery on the checks?
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016
Controlling issue: was is necessary for the respondent to present as evidence the
original checks?
Ruling: The respondent was not able to establish the forgery because it did not
present the original checks subject to the alleged forgery contrary to the best
evidence rule of the Rules of Court.
First, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court was not complied with by private
respondent. The Section explicitly provides that when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself. This is what is known as the best evidence rule. This is however,
subject to the exceptions stated in the same rule when secondary evidence may
be presented instead:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
3. 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; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office.
In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks had to be
produced, since it was never shown that any of these exceptions was
present. What the private respondent offered were mere photocopies
of the checks in question marked as Exhibits A, B, and C. It never
explained the reason why it could not produce the originals of the
checks.
10
RULE 130 SECTION 9 – PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

3. Parol Evidence Rule

Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of

an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the

terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

1. Inciong, Jr. vs. CA – 257 S 578

2. National Irrigation Administration vs. Gamit – 215 S 436
3. Gurango vs. IAC – 215 S 332
4. CKH Industrial and Development Corp. vs. CA – 272 S 333

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 11