Information obtained on a view is independent evidence –To be taken into consideration by the curt in determining the issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not reviewable –When it appears that the condition of the premises or property has changed since the time of occurrence in issue and before the demand for a view, or that the facts involved are such that they can be accurately described to the court by oral testimony, or by the use of maps or diagrams with proper explanations, or view would be unreasonable expensive or cause unreasonable delay, or serve no useful purpose, unless here appears a clear abuse of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter expressed or described upon it by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard to the message which it contains, it is treated as real evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by written instruments, or derived from the conventional symbols, such as letters, by which
ideas are represented on material substances;
documents; documents produced for the inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE- subject to the same basic rules on relevancy, materiality, exclusionary rules and court discretion as determined by the issues in the particular case. Identity and authenticity of the document must be reasonably established as a pre-requisite to its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence 3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written document in an unofficial language unless translated in English and Filipino
2. Best Evidence Rule
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE- particular means of proof which is indicated by the nature of the fact under investigation as the most natural and satisfactory that affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question and on its face indicates that no better evidence remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the production of the best evidence: prevention of fraud, because if the best evidence is not presented then the presumption of suppression of evidence will be present.
Best evidence rule applies only when the purpose of the proof is to establish the terms of writing, therefore NOT applicable to external or collateral facts about the document such as its existence, execution or delivery.
People v. Tandoy (1990)
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry.
It does not apply when the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or in the circumstances relevant to its execution. An objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced is
essential to bring the best evidence rule into application. Where secondary evidence has been admitted, the rule of evidence might have been successfully invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry;
(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 as originals; and
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
Note:
> Original may depend on the substantive law applicable
> Original may depend on the act of the parties
>where there may be duplicate original, either is an original ad may be used without accounting for another
>Whenever a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence
> Whenever a document is executed in counterpart, each part executed by one or more of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties who executed it
People vsSto. Tomas 138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox copy of the marriage certificate, since the admission would violate the best evidence rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it is essential that:
the original writing or if it is a private document, be first duly identified, and a sufficient and a sufficient foundation be laid, so as to entitle the writing to be admitted in evidence, and it must be available to the opposite party for cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases – In criminal cases, where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the document but also as to whether such document actually existed, the original itself must be presented.
US vs Gregorio 17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of the falsified documents, prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged. In the absence of the original document, it Is improper to conclude, with only copy of the said original in view, that there has been a falsification of the document which was neither found nor exhibited, because in such a case, even the existence ofsuch document may be doubted.
Non-production of the original document unless justified in Section 3, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence.
Amended Documents- where a duplicate or copy is amended or altered by the party or parties, it becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more identical contents each one of the parts is primary evidence and the other need not be proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
h) Carbon copy- admissible as duplicate original when executed at the same time or about the same time. Imperfect carbon copies, although made at the same time as the original but if there is something else to be done for it to be binding or there is incomplete signature, it’s not the best evidence.
i) Reproduction from the same matrix i.e.
mimeograph, hectograph- admissible as duplicate original when produced from the same matrix as original
j) Blueprints and vellum tracings- have been held to be originals rather than copies
k) Telegraph and cable
messages-if the issue is the contents of the telegram
• as received by the addressee- then the original dispatch is the copy of the message sent to the addressee;
• as sent by the sender- the original is the message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission,
• both telegrams as sent and received are originals
l) Letter press copies- merely secondary evidence as its prone to improper reproduction and are not produced simultaneously as the original
m) Thermofax- merely secondary evidence as it lacks satisfactory reproduction as some portions are not clearly printed n) Photographs and Xerox-merely
secondary evidence since they are reproduced at a latter time but if authenticated photostatic copy of income tax returns, public and business records are allowed as evidence
People vsMangulabnan 52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-mortem report of the injuries received by the deceased. This was admitted over the objection of the accused, who contend that a mere carbon copy is inadmissible.
The court ruled that the fact the post-mortem report is a mere carbon copy is also of no moment for it has been signed by the physician who executed the same and his signature was identified b him at the witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs Reyes August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for libel against Guevarra. The informations alleged that the defendant, with malicious intent, published on page 9 of the weekly paper IngMagumasid. The defendant demurred on the ground of duplicity of informations, he having published only one libelous article in the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of the IngMagumasid containing the libelous article with the innuendo. Counsel for the defendant objected to this evidence, which objection was sustained. Petitioner contends that the exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel, the subject matter of the information, and should therefore be admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the production of the best evidence, is applicable to the present case. And certainly the copies of the weekly where the libelous article was published, and its translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent for publication, the best evidence is the manuscript.
But is if issue is on what was actually published, then the best evidence is the copy of the news paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required to admit Exhibits A, B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk (1856)
A copy of the standard tariff rate posted at the railway depots, the court held them to be the best evidence in an action over a railway freight charge as each of the printed copies as original and the whole of the natre of duplicates, so that the proof of anyone would be competent evidence of the contents of the whole; there being necessary in the whole nature of the process of printing strong presumptive evidence that the impression from the same types must be similar.
Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document, the original document must be produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be admitted
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 against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
3. 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
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office CompaniaMaritimavsAllied Free Workers Union 77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, CompaniaMaritima (CM) and Allied Free Workers Union (AFWU) entered into a written contract whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring work in Iligan, effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the Company would revoke the contract before the expiration of the agreed term, if the Union failed to render proper service. After a month, the contract was verbally renewed. In 1954, the Union sent a letter to CM requesting to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit, to load and unload he cargo of its vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the request. The Union subsequently filed in CIR a
petition for certification election. Despite the certification case, CM sent notice to the Union for termination of their contract and entered into a new contract with another stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination of the contract was due to Union worker’s inefficiency and that the Company suffered financial losses due to such service. To ascertain its annual losses, CM’s manager hired auditors. CM relied only upon such auditors’ report and presented in court only a summary of damages. The sales invoices were not produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence of the records of the alleged losses of the Company is excused because of the rule exempting voluminous records from being produced in court.
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses would have been the sales invoices instead of the Manager’ oral testimony. The rule that 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 in only the general result of the whole, the original writings need not be produce, CANNOT BE APPLIED because the voluminous character f the records was NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records of accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination.
When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are regarded as originals. For as long as they are made within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A much longer but reasonable delay and when entries appear to have been made while the memory as to the transaction as clear or the source of such knowledge was unimpaired, still makes it admissible.
However, a book of account containing only a single entry or charge of money lent, which show no mutual recourse of dealing between the parties, is not admissible.
2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE SECTION 5, RULE 130
Sec. 5 . When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.
1. Source.—This provision is a reproduction of Section 4, Rule 130 the Rules of Court with the following differences:
Section 4 Section 5 Title of
the section
“secondary evidence when original is lost or destroyed”
“when original document is unavailable”
Change s
“and loss or destruction, or unavailability”;
“may be
proved”;
“recollection”
deleted
Added: “or existence
and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove” and the words
“document”;
“the offeror”;
“testimony”;
“in the order stated”
2. Secondary evidence explained.
Definition:
a. That which shows that better, or primary evidence exists as to the proof of the fact in question.
b. It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable.
c. Performs the same function as that of primary evidence but is LESS RELIABLE and WORTHY OF BELIEF Ex. A warrant itself is better evidence of what it contains than a copy of it
A check is better evidence of what it contains than the stub
On why secondary evidence is admitted:
It is admitted upon the theory that the original cannot be produced by the party by whom the evidence is offered within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
*This is applicable in both civil and criminal cases.
Rationale for requiring production of original, two-fold:
1. Copies and oral testimony are more prone to inaccuracy and subject to fraud.
2. The appearance of the document may furnish information as to its authenticity.
3. Requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence:
a. Execution and existence of the original b. Loss and destruction of the original or its
non-production in court
c. Unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the offeror
4. Proof of due execution and existence of original
Meaning of execution:
The accomplishment of a thing, the completion of an actor instrument, the fulfilment of an undertaking
• Even though the production of an original may be excused because of loss or destruction, it is still necessary to authenticate the absent document.
• Before proof of contents can be admitted, the court should be satisfied of the existence and due execution of the original in the same manner as if the original were produced.
• Before a party can be permitted to introduce secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument, satisfactory proof must be made of he former existence of the instrument, and this necessarily involves proof of its proper execution or genuineness.
5. Due execution of lost ancient documents need not be established.
Lost document is more than 30 years old-secondary evidence of their contents is admissible without proof of their execution 6. Proof of lost or destruction of original.
Destruction Loss The thing no longer exists
Signifies merely that it cannot be discovered
But the two come together for consideration in this rule.
Test for the sufficiency of proof of loss:
Includes practically not only the cases of loss in the narrower sense but also the cases in which destruction is more or less explicitly put forward as the reason for non-production.
Destruction of the instrument may be proved by:
1. Any person knowing the loss
2. Anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document or papers of similar characters are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document was lost was, and has been unable to find it
3. Who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost
*A REASONABLE PROBABILITY of its loss is sufficient, and this may be shown by a BONAFIDE and DILIGENT SEARCH, fruitlessly made, for it in places where it is likely to be found.
7. Proof of execution, loss or destruction of the original writing recorded in a public registry
Before the record or a certified copy of the recital made in a public registry of the contents of the document, it is indispensable to establish the following:
1. The document/deed really existed
2. It was duly executed 3. It was lost
8. Proof of loss dispensed with by admission
1. Where both parties admit that an instrument has been lost, this is sufficient to warrant the reception of secondary evidence.
2. The contents of an instrument may be proved against a party by his admissions in writing, without accounting for non-production of the original document.
9. Proof of non-production in court
1. It is sufficient to show that it is deposited in a place from which it cannot be removed for the purpose of being produced in court;
2. Or that it is not in the possession or under the control of the party seeking to show the facts;
3. He is unable to produce it within a reasonable time after the exercise of reasonable diligence.
*When the original of the document e.g.
receipt, cannot be produced in court, the Photostat copy thereof is admissible as evidence.
10. Absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror
1. Secondary evidence is inadmissible when the party offering it had himself destroyed the original, with the object of preventing its production in court, for in
1. Secondary evidence is inadmissible when the party offering it had himself destroyed the original, with the object of preventing its production in court, for in