c. Authentication of Private Writings

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: (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2)

• By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
• 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
• By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the Judge.

Authentic Document

Authentic means that the document should be genuine. It need not be a public document. In proving the contents of the original in some authentic document, it is sufficient if it appears in a private document which is proved to be authentic

When a private writing requires authentication; proof of a private writing

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:

• By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
• By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or
• 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 20).

The manner of authenticating a document, required by Sec. 20 of Rule 132, applies only when a private document is offered as authentic as when it is offered to prove that the document was truly executed by the person purported to have made the same. Otherwise, only identification is necessary (Riano, Evidence, 169, 2016).

Private documents in the custody of PCGG are not public documents. What became public are not the private documents (themselves) but the recording of it in the PCGG. If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188881, 2014)

Additional Modes of Authenticating a Private Writing:

• Doctrine of Self-Authentication

Where the facts in the writing could only have been known by the writer.

• Rule of Authentication by Adverse Party

Where the reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the sending and his receipt of the letter in question, a copy of which the proponent is offering as evidence (Regalado, Remedial Law, 859).

"RECEIPT OF REPLY COMMUNICATION. - With respect to a letter received thus in due course of mail and purporting to come from a person to whom a letter has previously been sent and to be in reply thereto, a presumption of fact is indulged in favor of the genuineness of the signature and the letter is admissible in evidence without further authentication; although, in order to obtain the benefit of this presumption, it must first be proven that a letter was written and mailed, to which the letter offered is an answer. The rule that the genuineness of the signature to a reply letter may be assumed applies to a letter signed in typewriting, or by rubber stamp. The majority of the recent cases also support the rule that where a letter sent in the ordinary course of business is answered by an agent of the individual or corporation addressed, authority of such person is presumed and the reply letter is admissible against the alleged principal without preliminary proof of authority. In a few jurisdictions, however, without expressly repudiating the above rule, the decisions tend to the contrary (Anstine v. McWilliams, 24 Wash. 2d 230, 163 P.2d 816, 1945 citing Jones Commentaries on Evidence (2d ed.) 341, § 201)."

When evidence of authenticity of a private writing is not required

• Ancient Documents
• When the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party under Sec. 8 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
• When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted under Sec. 4 of Rule 129
• When the document is not being offered as authentic as implied from Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which requires authentication only when the document is offered as “authentic” (Riano, p. 193)

Genuineness of handwriting

The handwriting of a person may be proved by:

• Any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because:
• He has seen the person write; or
• He has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged; and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person; or
• By comparison made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the document is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge

There is no inflexible rule as claimed by petitioner under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that gives priority to subscribing witnesses in the order and quality of evidence to prove a handwriting. The rule referred to above merely enumerates the means or methods by which the handwriting of a person may be proved...The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person (Lopez v. CA, L31494, 1978).

The deed of sale (Exhibit 1) is not notarized and is, therefore, a private writing (U.S. v. Orera, G.R. No. 3810, 1907), whose due execution and authenticity must be proved before it can be received in evidence (Bunag v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L39013, 1988).

NOTE: Expert testimony on handwriting is not mandatory (Riano, Evidence, 171, 2016).

Summary of authenticating private documents:

Due execution and authenticity are proved:

• By anyone who saw the document executed or written
• By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
• By a witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because:
• He or she has seen the person write
• 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
• By comparison made either by the witness or the court of writings either:
• 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.
• By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.

NOTE: Expert testimony on handwriting is not mandatory (Riano, Evidence, 171, 2016).

The opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. (Heirs of Peter Donton v. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, 2017)