Identification and authentication
case of an actionable document (Section 8, Rule 8);
● Apply to the process of laying a foundation for the
admission of such nontestimonial evidence as
documents and objects.
● Function: to establish, by way of preliminary
evidence, a connection between the evidence
offered and relevant facts of the case. There must
be an element of personal connection with a
corporal object.
● The process of evidencing the connection is
termed “authentication,” i.e., evidencing the
genuineness of the thing; or otherwise stated,
evidencing that the thing here shown did come
from the very person or place testified to by the
witness. In criminal cases, the thing produced in
court must be traced by testimony from hand to
hand until it appears that it is the very thing which
a witness spoke of seeing or finding or using.
● No rule of evidence prevents the proof of its
execution when the document lacks a signature.
● Authentication of a document is pointless when:
a) the writing is a public document (Section 19, Rule 132)
except when a special rule applies like in the probate of a
will (Sections 5, 6, 11, and 12 of Rule 76);
b) authenticity and due execution of the document has
been explicitly or impliedly admitted 366 by the adverse
party by failure to deny the same under oath, as in the
c) it is not offered as authentic per the first paragraph of
Section 20, Rule 132 of the 2019 Revised Rules on
Evidence;
d) it is simply identified as that which it is claimed to be
under the last paragraph of Section 20, Rule 132;
e) it is an ancient documents under Section 21, Rule 132;
f) immaterial or not an issue before the Court;
g) authentication is eliminated by sheer operation of law;
h) self-authenticated by the contents of the letter wherein
the facts are known only to the writer;
i) authenticated by the adverse party's reply purporting to
be the addressee of a prior letter duly addressed and
mailed.
Rules on authentication of a private document
● Sections 20 to 22, Rule 132 of the 2019 Revised
Rules on Evidence refer to the rules on
authentication of a private document.
"Proof of private document. Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker; or
(c) By other evidence showing its due execution and
authenticity.
Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be."
"When evidence of authenticity of private
document not necessary. Where a private document is
more than thirty years old, is produced from a custody in
which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is
unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be
given."
"How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he or she has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge."
The need for proper foundation of a private
document
● The identity and authenticity of the document must
be reasonably established as a prerequisite to its
admission in evidence.
● The authenticity of a document, for the purpose of
rendering it admissible in evidence, may be shown
by direct or circumstantial evidence. The
sufficiency of the evidence for the foundation of
documentary proof lies in the discretion of the trial
judge.
● Needs to answer the question, "Is this the one?"
before an item is received in evidence. If an item
of evidence is not what it is claimed to be because
of forgery, misidentification, or any other reason,
the item is not connected with the case as its
proponent claims, it is irrelevant.
Due execution and authenticity
● Genuineness and due execution of the instrument
simply means that the instrument is not spurious,
 counterfeit, or of different import on its face from
the one executed.
Proof of the signature
● Proof of the handwriting or signature is established
through evidence from any of these methods:
a) Party or witness: Obviously, the author
himself can prove his or her signature.
Distinction should be made between one
who: 1) an instrumental witness, and 2)
affixes his signature as proof of his consent
to, approval of, and conformity with, the
contents of the deed or document.
b) Eyewitness: A witness who actually saw the
person writing the instrument can testify for
proof of the handwriting in Section 20(a),
Rule 132.
c) Expert or ordinary witness: 1) Section 49.
Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of
a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he shown to posses, may be
received in evidence, or 2) For the
nonexpert opinion, the authenticating
witness is asked whether he or she is
familiar with the handwriting of the author or
signatory and, if so, whether the document
or signature in question is in the
handwriting of that person. An affirmative
response to the latter question provides
sufficient authentication to warrant
admission of the document into evidence.
d) Comparison: Use of the comparison
technique to establish authenticity actually
involves two (2) levels of authentication,
i.e., authentication of the specimen and
authentication of the offered exhibit.
Appropriate specimens may be obtained
from a variety of sources including writings
already in evidence for some other
purpose, documents obtained in the official
case file, business records, or private
writings.
Other evidence of due execution and authenticity
(RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr.)
"For the Court to consider an electronic document
as evidence, it must pass the test of admissibility.
According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, "[a]n 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."
Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays
down the authentication process of electronic documents.
Section 1 of Rule 5 imposes upon the party seeking to
introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding
the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner
provided therein. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the
required proof of authentication:
SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. - Before any
private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
any of the following means:
a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures
or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court
or by law for authentication of electronic documents were
applied to the document; or
c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
to the satisfaction of the judge.
As to method of proof, Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules on Electronic Evidence provides:
SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. - All matters relating to
the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic
document may be established by an affidavit stating facts
of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on
authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show
the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein.
Ancient document
● Xpn to the general rule requiring documents to be
authenticated by the testimony of subscribing
witnesses or otherwise.
● Based on the ground of public expediency or
necessity, rather than on the presumption that the
witnesses are dead.
● As an important qualification of the rule that
ancient documents prove themselves, it is
essential that the proffered instrument be on its
face free from suspicion, come from proper
custody, and be accompanied by some
corroborating evidence.
● If there are erasures or interlineations, or other
facts giving rise to suspicion, the document should
be proved, like other documents, by the
subscribing witnesses, or by proof of their
handwriting. There must be some corroborating
evidence beyond the mere production of the
instrument from the proper custody.
● Before an ancient document can be appreciated
by the Court under Section 21, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, it is required that:
(1) the private document is more than thirty years
old;
(2) is produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine; and
 (3) is unblemished by any alteration or
circumstance of suspicion
Reckoning period of 30 years
● The period is to be reckoned backwards from the
time of offering the deed, not from the time of suit
begun or any earlier period; and, forwards, from
the time of its taking effect in law (as, in a will,
from the death of the testator).
Proper custody
● It is a condition precedent to the admission of
ancient documents, without proof of their
execution, that they must come from proper
custody.
● What is proper custody is a question which may
be determined by all the circumstances of the
case.
● An ancient document, to be admissible under the
present rule, must in appearance be unblemished
by any alterations or unaccompanied by any
circumstances of suspicion.
Proof of signatures by comparison
● According to the rule commonly adhered to by the
courts, it was not permissible to compare the
disputed writing with an admittedly genuine
specimen of the writing of the person who was
alleged to have executed the instrument in
question.
● At present, it is now generally recognized that a
comparison of writings is a rational method of
investigation and that similarities and differences
disclosed are probative.
● The practice of comparing writings is largely
regulated bu statute; comparison being permitted
between the disputed writing and any other writing
which is admitted or proved to be genuine.
● Familiarity of a record custodian with a signature is
enough foundation for comparison with the subject
handwriting and expert on the matter was not
indispensable.
● Sec. 22, Rule 132 provides:
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. -
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he or she has seen the person write, or
has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which
the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Public and private documents as evidence
 ● Additional guidelines for a public document and a
private document
● Sections 23 to 33 of Rule 132 provides:
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. - Documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of
the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date
of the latter.
Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or
her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign
country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or
considered a public document under such treaty or
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19
hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form
prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to
reciprocity granted to public documents originating from
the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is
not a contracting party to a treaty or convention referred
to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be
made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his or her office.
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its
equivalent may be presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
document involved. The certificate shall not be required
when a treaty or convention between a foreign country
and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or
has exempted the document itself from this formality.
Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. -
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for
the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a
court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. - Any public
record, an official copy of which is admissible in
evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it
is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection
of the record is essential to the just determination of a
pending case.
Section 27. Public record of a private document. - An
authorized public record of a private document may be
proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. - A written statement
signed by an officer having the custody of an official
record or by his or her deputy that, after diligent search,
no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
the records of his or her office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence
that the records of his or her office contain no such
record or entry.
Section 29. How judicial record impeached. - Any judicial
record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings.
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. - Every
instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved.
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. - The
party producing a document as genuine which has been
altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He or she may show that
the alteration was made by another, without his or her
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties
affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocently
made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning
or language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do that,
the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
Section 32. Seal. - There shall be no difference between
sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned.
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial
language. - Documents written in an unofficial language
shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied
with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid
interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are
directed to have such translation prepared before trial.
● The amendments distinguish between public
documents that emanate from countries that are
 signatories or parties to treaties or conventions to
which the Philippines is a party and countries that
are not signatories or parties to such treaties or
conventions
● In Section 23, Rule 132, documents consisting of
entries in public records if made by a public officer
in the performance of a duty are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated is similar to the
provision in Sec. 46, Rule 130.
➔ Section 46. Entries in official records. -
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his or her duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in
the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.
Proof of public documents
● Public documents under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132
may be proved by:
a) The original copy
b) Official publication thereof
c) Copy attested by an officer having legal
custody of the record or his or her deputy,
with a certificate that such officer has
custody, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines.
*If a certified true copy is used, there must
be a certification or attestation of the true copy under
Sec. 24 and 25 of Rule 132, apart from the requisite
documentary stamp tax, unless exempted therefrom.
● Inability to stamp the taxable document will not
render the document invalid. But, it could preclude
registration, admissibility, inclusion of the jurat or
acknowledgment from the notary public and will
lead to the imposition of surcharge and interest.
● Presentation of duplicate or carbon copies of a
document may carry the presumption that the
documentary stamp tax was affixed on the
original.
● The Apostille Convention provides the following:
Article 3
The only formality that may be required in order to certify
the authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the
person signing the document has acted and, where
appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which it
bears, is the addition of the certificate described in Article
4, issued by the competent authority of the State from
which the document emanates. However, the formality
mentioned in the preceding paragraph cannot be
required when either the laws, regulations, or practice in
force in the State where the document is produced or an
agreement between two or more Contracting States have
abolished or simplified it, or exempt the document itself ● We do not take judicial notice of foreign laws, they
from legalisation. must be alleged and proven.
● To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must
present a copy thereof and comply with Sec. 24
and 25 of Rule 132.
Article 4
● Oral testimony from expert witnesses can also
The certificate referred to in the first paragraph of Article prove an unwritten foreign law.
3 shall be placed on the document itself or on an ➔ Written law - Sec. 24 provides manner of
"allonge"; it shall be in the form of the model annexed to proving written law.
the present Convention. It may, however, be drawn up in ➔ Unwritten law - oral testimony of expert
the official language of the authority which issues it. The witnesses is admissible, as are printed and
standard terms appearing therein may be in a second published books of reports of decisions of
language also. The title "Apostille (Convention de La the courts of the country concerned if
Haye du 5 octobre 1961)" shall be in the French proved to be commonly admitted in such
language. courts.

Article 5 ● In Sec. 24 and 25 of Rule 132

A domestic record must be evidenced by:

The certificate shall be issued at the request of the
person who has signed the document or of any bearer. a) An official publication or
When properly filled in, it will certify the authenticity of the b) A copy thereof
signature, the capacity in which the person signing the c) Attested by the officer having the custody of
document has acted and, where appropriate, the identity the record or his deputy
of the seal or stamp which the document bears. The d) With a certificate that such officer has the
signature, seal and stamp on the certificate are exempt custody.
from all certification.
A foreign record is evidenced by:
Foreign law
a) An official publication or
b) A copy thereof
c) Attested by the officer having the legal custody of
the record or his deputy
d) Accompanied b a certificate by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consular or consular agent or foreign service
officer, and with the seal of his office.