a. Original Documents

When copies or duplicates of a document shall be regarded as original:

• It is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents; or
• It is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original

Such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original. (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 2)

Note: Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: (REE, Rule 4, Sec. 2)

• A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
• In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.

NOTE: This is essentially the same as Rule 130, Sec. 4 under the Original Document Rule

Meaning of the rule

The original document rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document. The rule requires that the original of the writing must be produced. It is also known as the “original document rule” or the “primary evidence” rule. (National Power Corporation v. Codilla, G.R. No. 170491, 2007)

The original document rule as a rule of exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot be introduced as the original writing itself must be produced in court, subject to exceptions.

Note: The rule now also applies if the contents of a writing, reading, photograph or other record is the subject of inquiry.

Purpose: The prevention of fraud, because it is easy for a person to fabricate the alleged contents of a document. Also, the rule ensures accuracy. A person, even if acting in good faith, may most likely not be able to recall all the details of a document, especially a lengthy one.

The original document rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of the writing are the subject of the judicial inquiry.

If the subject of the inquiry is not the contents of a document, then the Original Document Rule does not apply.

For example, accused is charged with perjury for lying under oath in a Senate hearing. The prosecution need not present the transcript of the testimony given at the hearing. The prosecution can present a witness who heard what Accused testified to in the Senate because, here, the subject of the inquiry is not the contents of the transcript but whether accused uttered a falsehood while under oath at the hearing. In this instance, while the transcript is the “better” or “best” evidence in the sense that it is presumably more reliable, the testimony of the witness who heard the utterance of the Accused at the Senate is nonetheless admissible even without accounting for the loss of the transcript. The original document rule applies only when the contents of the documents are the subject of inquiry. Since in this case the prosecution presented the marked money solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence like a Xerox copy is admissible without the need of accounting for the original. (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, 1990)

Only a photocopy of the Employee Clearance was presented in evidence. The Court held that the photocopy is admissible as evidence since an exception to the original document rule is when the document sought to be presented is in the possession of the person against whom it is to be offered and such party fails to present it even after reasonable notice. (Pacasum v. People, G.R. No. 180314, 2009)

The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander. When such libel or slander was committed through a published article, copies of such article constitute the best evidence. (Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-35366, 1931)

The original document rule may not be used to prohibit a litigant from proving the existence of a disputed deed of sale through secondary evidence. The Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the existence, execution, or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. (Heirs of Margarita Prodon v. Heirs of Maximo Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, 2013)

The Republic seeks exception to the application of the original document rule by arguing that said documents were presented to prove their existence and execution, and not their contents. The Court is hard-pressed to give credence to such argument in the light of the purposes for which these excluded documents were sought to be admitted, i.e., to show that Rodolfo M. Cuenca secured loans from government financial institutions without sufficient collateral; to show that Rodolfo M. Cuenca obtained favorable rescue arrangement at the behest of Ferdinand E. Marcos; to show that the sequestered properties are part of the ill-gotten wealth; to show that respondents are dummies of Ferdinand E. Marcos; and to show the complicity between respondents in amassing ill-gotten wealth. Clearly, no amount of legal hermeneutics could betray that what should be proven are the contents, and not the mere existence, of the documents themselves. (Republic v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393, 2018)

When not applicable

General Rule: The original document must be produced.

Exceptions:

• When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
• 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, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
• 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
• When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
• When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue (Rule 130, Sec. 3)

Application of Rule 130, Sec. 3

One of the exceptions to this rule is provided in the Rule 130, Sec. 3 (e), which provides that documents other than the original may be admissible “when the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue”. Hence, the Court held that the Best Evidence Rule does not apply to proof of facts collateral to the issues or when a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent fact.

In this case, the issue was not the content of the documents. Rather, the documents were to prove that falsification was a necessary means and an essential part of the criminal scheme in committing estafa. Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not commit reversible error in giving due course to the prosecution's exhibits. (Conchita Dela Cruz v. People GR No. 236807, Jan. 12, 2021)

Meaning of original document and duplicate

Original of a document— an “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it

Original of a photograph— includes the negative or any print therefrom

Original of data stored in a computer or similar device— any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately

Duplicate— is a counterpart produced by:

• the same impression as the original, or
• from the same matrix, or
• by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or
• by mechanical or electronic re-recording or
• by chemical reproduction, or
• by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless:

• A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or
• In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original (Rule 130, Sec. 4)

NOTE:

A carbon copy of a letter is a duplicate original and admissible. Photographic copies of writings or photocopies are not duplicate originals as they are produced at a later time. Such are considered secondary evidence.

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the nonproduction of the others. (People v. Tan, G.R. No. L-14257, 1959)

There can be no proof of "substantial similarity" and thus of copyright infringement unless Seiler's works are juxtaposed with Lucas' and their contents compared. Since the contents are material and must be proved, Seiler must either produce the original or show that it is unavailable through no fault of his own.

The original document rule was applied in a copyright infringement case, where plaintiff possessed no originals of any work he contended was copied; accordingly, before subsequent reconstructions were admissible, plaintiff had to establish that the originals were lost or destroyed through no fault of his own. Thus, copyrighted drawings offered as evidence are considered as documentary evidence and when subject of inquiry is the content of the creation the original must be presented. (Seiler v. Lucas Film, Ltd., 797 F.2d 1504, 1986)

The evidence offered by NAPOCOR were photocopies. The Court held that the photocopies were not equivalent to the original documents based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The information contained in the photocopies submitted by NAPOCOR will reveal that not all of the contents therein, such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly signed the documents, may be recorded or produced electronically. (National Power Corporation v. Codilla, G.R. No. 170491, 2007)

The Court held that the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are not electronic evidence. Thus, it is consequential that the same may not be considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law. (MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, 2007)

Considering that the annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch as the subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent on the petitioners to adduce in evidence the original. In the absence of the said document, the exhortations of petitioners regarding the existence of said deed of sale must fail. (Ebreo v. Ebreo, G.R. No. 160065, 2006)

In criminal proceedings for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the judges and courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in the cause, whether or not the crime of falsification was committed, and also, at the same time, to enable them to determine the degree of each of defendant’s liability in the falsification under prosecution. Through the lack of the original document containing the memorandum alleged to be false, it is improper to hold, with only a copy of the said original in view, that the crime prosecuted was committed; and although, judging from the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in the two consolidated causes, there is reason to entertain much doubt as to the defendant’s innocence, yet, withal, this case does not furnish decisive and conclusive proof of their respective guilt as co-principals of the crime charged. (U.S. v. Gregorio, G.R. No. L-5791, 1910)

The best evidence of the cost of the said equipment disputed in the case would have been the sales invoices instead of the oral testimony of Teves. He did not produce the sales invoices.

Even if the presentation of the records themselves as exhibits should have been dispensed with, yet the complainant to show good faith and fair dealing, could have brought the records in court (manifests, bills of lading, receipts for freights, if any, etc.) and enabled the court and the union’s counsel and its expert accountant to verify the accuracy of Jayme’s summaries. (Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers, G.R. No. L-289999, 1977)

However, based on People v. Pruna, the Court established the guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance:

• The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party,
• In absence of such, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records.
• In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. (People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011)

When Original Document is Unavailable

• Proof of the execution or existence of the original;
• Proof of cause of its unavailability without bad faith on the offeror’s part (Rule 130, Sec. 5)

Rule on Testimony Regarding Original Document

The fact that a writing is really a true copy of the original may be shown by the testimony of a person who has had the opportunity to compare the copy with the original and found it to be correct.