e. Competent Evidence of Identity

Competent Evidence of Identity

Concept

Competent evidence of identity is a means of identifying an individual for notarization. Section 4 of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC identifies three documentary alternatives. Identity verification is not a formality: a notary must be satisfied that the person appearing is the person whose signature is being notarized. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹ (Sanchez v. Inton., A.C. No. 12455, 5 November 2019)²

Governing provisions

Section 4 of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC defines competent evidence of identity and refers to the rules under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC as the 2004 Notarial Rules. Sanchez v. Inton states the notary’s duty to require the signatory’s personal presence and to establish identity through personal knowledge or competent evidence of identity. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹ (Sanchez v. Inton.)²

Requisites / Rules

• One alternative is at least one valid ID issued by an official government agency, bearing the individual’s photograph and signature. The provision’s examples include a passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulation Commission ID, government office ID, Unified Multi-Purpose ID card, and residency ID from a local government unit; the list is not exclusive. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹
• A Philippine Identification card issued under Republic Act No. 11055 is a separate listed alternative. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹
• The Integrated Bar of the Philippines ID, or the single identification card issued pursuant to A.M. No. 23-07-06-SC, is another listed alternative. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹
• The signatory must be personally present before the notary and either personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. The notary must not proceed when this requirement is unmet. (Sanchez v. Inton.)²

Distinctions

Personal knowledge and competent evidence of identity are alternative ways to establish who the appearing signatory is; neither removes the requirement of personal presence. Likewise, an ID addresses identity, while physical presence enables the notary to determine whether the signature was voluntarily affixed. These are separate inquiries, not substitutes for one another. (Sanchez v. Inton.)²

Key doctrines

In Sanchez, the Court treated failure to confirm identity through competent evidence as negligence under the Notarial Rules. It found the notary liable for violating those Rules and imposed suspension from law practice, a prohibition on notarial commissioning, and revocation of any incumbent notarial commission. The case underscores the professional consequences of treating identification as a mere paperwork step. (Sanchez v. Inton.)²

A violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules by a lawyer also constitutes a breach of professional duties and the lawyer’s oath. Administrative disciplinary proceedings remain independent of criminal and civil cases; a finding in one does not determine the others. (Fonacier v. Maunahan., A.C. No. 13557, 4 October 2023)³

Exceptions

The documentary alternatives in Section 4 should not be collapsed into a single government-ID test: the provision separately names the Philippine Identification card and the IBP or specified single identification card. Separately, Sanchez recognizes personal knowledge of the signatory as an alternative to identification through competent evidence, but not as an exception to personal presence. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC)¹ (Sanchez v. Inton.)²

Bar tip

Check two questions in order: Is the signatory personally present? If so, is the signatory personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity? Do not treat presentation of an ID as curing absence from the notarization. (Sanchez v. Inton.)²