Photo from Unsplash | engin akyurt
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
A “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 equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. (Section 4, par. b and c, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence)
A photocopy refers to a copy of usually printed material made with a process in which an image is formed by the action of light usually on an electrically charged surface. (“Photocopy”, Merriam Webster Dictionary, accessed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photocopy#word-history)
Under A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC or the Revised Rules on Evidence (2019 Amendments to the 1989 Rules on Evidence), documentary evidence refers to documents considered as evidence which consist of recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents. (Section 2, Rule 130, RRE)
The Original Document Rule
Prior to the amendment, the rule is that the original of the document is the best evidence of its contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence. The Revised Rules on Evidence changed the nomenclature of the Best Evidence Rule to “Original Document Rule”. A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC explained:
The erstwhile “Best Evidence Rule” is known as the “Original Document Rule” in order to avoid confusion, since the rule only applies to documents. Documentary evidence now includes recordings, photographs, words, sounds, numbers, or their equivalent.
What is an Original?
The law says:
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. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original”. (Section 4, par. a, Rules 130, Revised Rules on Evidence)
What is a Duplicate?
The law says:
A “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 equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. (Section 4, par. b, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence)
Based on the above definition of an original of a document, a photocopy of a document may now be admissible as evidence as a duplicate. Thus, photocopies are no longer considered as secondary evidence.
To be clear, a photocopy of a document is a duplicate of the original produced by photography which is an accurate reproduction of the original. In this light, a duplicate is admissible, just as an original of a document is.
Section 4 (c) of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that a duplicate is admissible as the original. The law says:
“A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.”
Related Article/s:
Strength of Certificate of Title
Proving Claims in Land Ownership Disputes
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.