G.R. Nos. 146710-15.

April 3, 2001

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, Petitioner, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON
GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION,
INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,
Respondents.

---

G.R. No. 146738. April 3, 2001

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Respondent

Facts:

This case is a resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed Joseph Estrada as the Supreme Court
ruled that Estrada has resigned as the President of the Philippines.

In the decision dated March 2, 2001 which was penned by Justice Puno, the issue on whether or not
petitioner Estrada resigned as President, the Supreme Court in deciding the case, has recognized the
Angara Diary in its conclusion. The Angara Diary revealed the sequence of events prior to the former
President’s resignation. The diary has showed the Court the true intention of the former President. It
was confirmed by his departure from Malacañang and his press release. The press release contained his
final statement, he acknowledged the oathtaking of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President and he
emphasized that he was leaving the position for the restoration of peace and order. He also expressed
his gratitude to the people for giving him an opportunity to serve them.

However, he contended to the Court that he did not resign but only took a temporary leave referring to
the letter sent to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House which stated that as he was unable
to exercise the powers and duties of his office, by operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice
President shall serve as the Acting President. The Court, however, did not give weight to the letter as it
was not discussed by the defense, raised in any stage and was not even mentioned during the oral
arguments.

In sum, the Court held that the resignation of petitioner cannot be doubted.

In his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner contended, among others, that the Angara Diary is
inadmissible for being violative of the rules on evidence.

Issue: Whether or not the Angara Diary is inadmissible as evidence.

Held: No.

The petitioner contends, among others, that the admission of Angara Diary is violative of the best
evidence rule.

The Supreme Court admitted that the newspaper reproduction of the Angara Diary is not the best
evidence. It is a secondary evidence. In its March 2 Decision, the Court used this secondary evidence
without proof of the unavailability of the original or the duplicate original of the diary.

Best Evidence Rule is provided for in Sections 2-4 of Rule 130.

Section 2 of Rule 130 defines documentary evidence which includes documents consisting of writings, or
any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents.

Section 3 of the same rule provides for the exception to the rule that the original document must be
produced when the subject of inquiry is the content of the document. These are:

a. When the document has been lost, 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.

Section 4 states that:

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, 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.

However, the Court, in using the newspaper instead of the original copy of the Angara Diary, did not
violate the best evidence rule.

Wigmore states that “production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial courts discretion,
whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document
and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.” A copy may be used
unconditionally, if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it.

Francisco states that there must be an objection by the party against whom the secondary evidence is
sought to be introduced. Best evidence rule may be invoked when there is a timely and proper objection
to the secondary evidence. The objection should be made in proper season that is, whenever it appears
that there is a better evidence than that which is offered and before the secondary evidence has been
admitted. Secondary evidence of the content of a writing will be received in evidence if no objection is
made to its reception.