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

 yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a
1. People vs. Manalo – 219 S 656 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.
Facts:
1. the Accused Manalo was charged with two counts of murder of the The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin
victims Bonilla and Diomampo. Both informations stated that Manalo traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45
shot both victims using a an unlicensed pistolized Colt Caliber .45, with Caliber pistol
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 2. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167
summarized:
a. one night of November 1981, Lacbay visited the victims to pick Facts:
up some camote and wine. After their conversation, the victims 1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of
decided to accompany Lacbay home and each rode their robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki.
respective tricycles. 2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses
b. When they arrived to the place of delivery of the camotes, Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that:
appellant Manalo approached the victims and Lacbay and a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his
invited them to his home for drinks. store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to
c. After Diomampo and Bonilla entered the house of appellant prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the appellant
and were about to reach the interior portion thereof, appellant, Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, while his boss was
who was then at the doorway followed behind by Lacbay, bathing in his own blood on the floor.
suddenly and without any warning shot Diomampo once on the b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away
head and then Bonilla also once on the temple at a distance of from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out
about three (3) meters from behind, with a .45 caliber pistol through the front door of Malaki's store with a bloodstained
with a magazine. Diomampo and Bonilla fell down to the floor bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit
dead. Thereafter, appellant again fired one more [shot] at 3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the
Diomampo. Lacbay who was standing a meter behind special complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced
appellant, was so shocked that he was unable to move. with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
3. Decision of the Trial Court; guilty: the trial court found the accused 4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to
Manalo guilty of 2 counts of Murder beyond reasonable doubt. support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as
4. Hence, the present action by accused praying for the reversal of the evidence of the victim’s wallet with its contents, and a bunch of keys
finding of guilt of Manalo. He assigns as error, among all others, the violates his right against self- incrimination.
absence of physical evidence showing that he himself fired a gun using
the paraffin test. Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the
admission of object evidence?
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.

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
The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would not prove extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It
his innocence. In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is

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

not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the b. While the friends were conversing with each other, all of a
question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said: sudden, the appellant Jumamoy appeared in front obliquely to
the right of the victim and fired three successive shots at the
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his latter who slumped and fell to the ground.
[physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his 3. The trial court rendered a decision finding guilt on both charges.
physical control in whatever form exercise, then, it would be 4. Hence, the present action by the appellant Jumamoy arguing among all
possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house, with all others that he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to
the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy the authority of the law present and introduce as evidence the firearm which was allegedly used
to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained by forcibly in killing the victim.
overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the
evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other Issue: Should the appellant Jumamy be acquitted on the failure of the
words, it is not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the prosecution to present the firearm used?
privilege, . . . but testimonial compulsion
Ruling: No.
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 1. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do
extrajudicial confession or admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible. so; there is also no law which prescribes that a ballistics examination be
conducted to determine the source and trajectory of the bullets.
Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights, 2. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by
these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet, proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that
identification card, residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing the accused is the author thereof.
other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the 3. The production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is
fact that it was the very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery. not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden for the
The identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on weapon may not have been recovered at all from the assailant.
the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki. 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
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are crimes, their families and society.
inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the 5. In the instant case, it was established with moral certainty that the
existence of other evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's identity accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel with an
and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged. 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.
3. People vs. Jumamoy – 221 S 333
4. People vs. Flores – 328 S 461
Facts:
1. Jumamoy was charged with Murder and Qualified Illegal Possession of Facts:
Firearm and Ammunition. 1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of Murder of
2. It as established during trial that: Antonio Garcia using a handgun
a. One evening of April 1987, victim Miel with his brother and 2. it was established during the trial that:
some other companions went to the disco of St. Paul Academy a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday and
in the Cultural Center if Inabanga Bohol. having a drinking spree with his invited guests. They were all
at the backyard of the house of Garcia.

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 3

 b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified him as
the assailant when, according to her testimony, she saw Flores Take note of the pre-trial provision:
stading at arms length away from her and 3 arms length away “No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in
from his father holding and pointing a gun towards him. support of a party’s evidence in- chief other than those that had been earlier
c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his gun. identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial except if allowed by the court for
d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused by a good cause shown.”
bullet fired from a handgun believed to be a .38 caliber. The  Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents presented and
bullet hit first the left arm of Antonio Garcia towards the left offered as rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence.
side of his stomach and landed on his left lung. A deformed
slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by 2 centimeters was extracted B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
from his left leg.
3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio Garcia. Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores contending any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
among all others, that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)
slugs were never presented in evidence as well as he tested negative
during the paraffin test. What is a documentary evidence?
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like
Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant? 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
Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the paraffin test; and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent to
that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime a written paper-based document under existing laws.
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 Purpose
show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was  Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of inquiry
committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person discharged a firearm  It must be offered as the proof of their contents .
with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter. Since accused-  If it is offered for some other purpose the writings or materials would
appellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 days after the shooting, it is likely not be deemed as documentary evidence but merely an object evidence.
that he has already washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of  Note however that the private document may be offered and admitted
nitrates in his hand. 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
It has also been held that the nonpresentation by the prosecution of the gun existence, condition other than as proof of its contents, it is
used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to the case object evidence.
when there is positive identification of the assailant, as in the instant case.  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
RULE 130 SECTION 3 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE 2. the evidence must be authenticated
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 4
 3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
4. the document must be formally offered in evidence being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the
5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of court entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol evidence rule)
Also called the original document rule or the primary evidence rule
 The rule means that no evidence which is merely substitutionary in its
BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008 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
1. Best Evidence Rule

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the What is the rationale behind the best evidence rule?
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible  There is a need to present to the court the actual and exact words of
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: the writing so as prevent fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of
the writing
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced  To prevent erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
When does the Best Evidence Rule apply?
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party  The law only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it the document
after reasonable notice;  The subject of the inquiry must be the contents and not the truth of the
documents itself
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other  The best evidence does not apply to external or collateral facts
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of about the document
time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general o When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some
result of the whole; and external fact about the document such as existence, execution,
or delivery without reference to its terms, the best evidence
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer rule cannot be invoked.
or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
What is the effect of the best evidence rule?
Section 4. Original of document. —  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.
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry.
What are the documents that are considered as original?
(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 Generally, it refers to the original as the first one written from which mere copies
as originals. are made, transcribed or imitated.

However, subsequent documents may also regarded as originals:

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 5
 What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present the
original of the document for the court to allow presentation of
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the substitutes or secondary evidence?
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded
as originals. 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
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the after reasonable notice
entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. 3. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
ehich cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the
Hence, the following are considered as originals: fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
o when a document is executed in several duplicate originals whole (e.g., the best evidence of elections results are the ballots
o writings with identical contents by mass production (e.g., themselves, however, checking each and every ballots would be
newspapers) impractical. Hence, the returns may be used instead)
o copies through carbon sheets 4. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
o documents executed in duplicate or multiplicate form is recorded in a public office
o printout of an electronic document other reasons:
 the document is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
not originals:
 when the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and
o photocopies of a form
monuments such as tombstones
o facsimile
o certified true copies of public documents

2. Secondary Evidence

How should the best evidence rule be applied?

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a document, and the document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
contents thereof are the subjects of the inquiry, then the best evidence must be offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
applied. without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of
 The rule requires that the original document must be presented and not its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
merely a copy thereof. order stated.
 Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as the
latter is available. Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss,
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be destruction, or unavailability of the original
presented in court, the party must:
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the 1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the original
original of the document and document
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the Rules of 2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
Court 3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by his bad
faith

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 6

after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents may now be
proven by secondary evidence. Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals consisting of
numerous accounts
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly (1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
followed: (2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
1. copy of the original (3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of
2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document the whole
3. testimony of witnesses. 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
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or for cross examination.
control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse Example: accountant may present a written summary of some sales
party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and invoices
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party
 Mere fact that the document is in the custody or under the control of who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged
the adverse party will not ipso facto authorize the presentation of to offer it as evidence.
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 1. Borje vs. Sandiganbayan – 125 S 763
adverse party
(3) That the proponent/ offeror of the secondary evidence have
the adverse party notice to produce the original document JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
i. May be done through a motion to produce the Q — What evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and you were
document no longer
ii. Subpoena duces tecum performing your duties as technician?
(4) The adverse party failed or refused to produce the original
document despite the reasonable notice A — It is only verbal. (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)

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 Facts:
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued 1. Borje was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Document
by the public officer in custody thereof. before the RTC. during the trial of the case, it was established by the
testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution that:
Why? There are instances when the original of a document is a public record or is a. The accused, being the Provincial Plant industry Officer of the
recorded in a public place. Public records are generally not to be removed from Bureau of Plant Industry in San Fernando La Union, falsified
the placed where they are recorded. the Timebook, Payroll, and the Daily Time Record of his office
for the periods January to March of 1977 and made it appear
 Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is sufficient as that the complainaint Ducusin worked for such period of time.
secondary evidence b. Ducusin alleged that the accused made it appear that he has
claimed his wages for such period, contrary to the fact that by
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 7
 January until April of 1977, he was detailed in another position simulated, counterfeited or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the
by a only a verbal order. Hence, he could not have signed the evidence produced at the trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was
Daily Time Record and accept the incentives and wages actually committed; in the absence of the original document, it is improper to
therein. 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
2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as such a case, even the existence of such original document may be doubted.
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: 2. Widows and Orphans Association (Widora), Inc. vs. CA and
a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime Ortigas and Company– 212 S 360
charged because of its failure to present the original copies of
the alleged falsified documents. Facts:
b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely affixed 1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of title of a
his signature as part of the Standard Operating Procedure of parcel of land alleging that they have acquired the subject parcel of land
the office payroll. He contended that there was no actual order from the heirs of the registered owner, Mariano San Pedro as seen in
known by him that Ducusin was already detailed in another the Titulo Propriedad Numero 4136 or OCT no. 351. They prayed that
position to the effect that it would be established that Ducusin the parcel of land be registered in Widora’s name.
was no longer entitled to incentives and payroll 2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss alleging that
land being applied for registration by Widora have already been
Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to convict the registered under the TCT 77652and TCT 77653 by the Decree 1425.
accused Appellant Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide on such.
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to establish
Ruling: No. 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.
1st Issue: It was not established that the complainant had in fact been ordered The decree itself was not submitted as evidence.
to be detailed in another position so as to render him without right to receive the 3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of the
incentives and be included in the payroll. petitioner Ortigas holding that the TCTs registered in the name of
Ortigas were not derivatives of the subject property and are in fact
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual official derivatives of other parcels of land.
procedure, a written special order issued by a government office is cancelled, 4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before the CA
amended or modified only by another written special order, not only for purposes to annul the decision of the RTC.
of record on file but also to prevent conflict and confusion in government a. The CA ruled that the TCTs of Ortigas were derivative of ICT
operations. Moreover, under the best evidence rule, Section 2, Rule 130 of the No. 351 which covers the same parcel of land of Widora. It
Rules of Court, the supposed verbal order cannot prevail over the written Special ruled that OCT 351 is allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the
Order No. 172 stated above. mere fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a certified
copy thereof, can no longer be produced, does not mean that
2nd Issue: the Decree covering the lots subject of this case was not
issued.
In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the b. That although the TCTs of Ortigas did not reflect that it was
judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been derived from OCT 351, the facts remains that the parcel of land

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 8

 covering OCT 351 includes the 2 parcels of land of Ortigas.
Hence, there was a mistake in the recording of the TCTs of 3. People vs. Tandoy – 192 S 28
Ortigas which stated that it was not derived from OCT 351 but
of other OCTs. Facts:
1. Tandoy was charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous Drugs
5. the petitioner elevated the case with the Supreme Court. the Supreme Act of 1972. The information stated that the Tandoy sold pieces of dried
court initially held that : marijuana flowering tops which is a prohibited drug for, and in
a. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan submitted by respondent consideration of P20.00
Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351) adduced by a. It was established during the trial that the accused was
private respondent to prove the contents of Decree 1425 and accosted through a buy- bust operation by the Makati Police.
admitted by respondent court is merely secondary and should b. During the trial, the marked money was not presented in court
not have been admitted in the first place. but merely the photocopy of the same.
2. The trial court rendered a decision convicting Tandoy guilty beyond
Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ortigas questioning the reasonable doubt.
ruling of the Supreme Court holding the OCTs and the survey of the engineer as 3. Hence, the present action by Tandoy arguing among all others that it
inadmissible. 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: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?
Issue: Was the court wrong to admit as evidence the photocopy of the marked
Ruling. Yes. money used in the buy bust operation?

After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable rules of Ruling: No. the best evidence rule does not apply when the evidence is offered as
evidence, the Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was an object evidence.
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 Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an ordinary
Rizal. 18 The admissibility of such a copy in court proceedings is an exception to document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court which
the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; 19 such admissibility is in fact excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except in the five (5) instances
mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). 20 Under mentioned therein.
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 The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the
Deeds of Rizal was an official transcript of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document
land covered by such decree situated in the Province of Rizal. 21 was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. 1425 evidence is admissible.
upon which the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based. We believe Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for
further that the Court of Appeals was justified in relying upon the plotting the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and his testimony explaining the substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that plotting and without the need of accounting for the original.
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. 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

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. Custodio—Term 2 AY 2015-2016 9

the marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony of the police Controlling issue: was is necessary for the respondent to present as evidence the
officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had original checks?
been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself
would not constitute a fatal omission. 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.
4. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction
Corp. – 301 S 537
First, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court was not complied with by private
1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner respondent. The Section explicitly provides that when the subject of inquiry is the
Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
against Triumph’s account in the petitioner Bank. document itself. This is what is known as the best evidence rule. This is however,
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which subject to the exceptions stated in the same rule when secondary evidence may
were drawn against the account of the accused were all forged be presented instead:
per findings of the PC Crime Laboratories. That the signatures
of its authorized signatories were all forged. 1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks 2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
were presented as evidence. against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of after reasonable notice;
evidence to support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the 3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
private respondent failed to show that the signatures on the subject which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact
checks were forged. It did not even present in court the originals of the sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could whole; and
be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and 4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
would be adverse to private respondents case if produced. is recorded in a public office.
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 In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks had to be
checks were forged because of the admissions made by the petitioner produced, since it was never shown that any of these exceptions was
Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness. present. What the private respondent offered were mere photocopies
4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing that: of the checks in question marked as Exhibits A, B, and C. It never
that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks explained the reason why it could not produce the originals of the
bearing the alleged forged signatures of private respondents checks.
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 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