In a case[1] decided by the Supreme Court on February 03, 2025, it was clarified that the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC) modified the title of the Best Evidence Rule to the Original Document Rule. It further explains that, under the new rule, a duplicate of any original, whether an electronic data message, electronic document, or paper-based document, is admissible to the same extent as the original.
Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides for the Best Evidence Rule: B. Documentary Evidence; 1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
Section 4. Original of document. — (a) The original of a 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.
The Best Evidence Rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the 1997 Rules of Court. As such, jurisprudence is replete with cases barring the acceptance into evidence of a mere photocopy of a document, unless one of the exceptions to the general rule applies.
Then, the Rules on Electronic Evidence came into play after it took effect on August 1, 2001. The Rules on Electronic Evidence included provisions concerning the Best Evidence Rule insofar as electronic documents are concerned. The relevant provisions are as follows: RULE 4 Best Evidence Rule
Section 1. Original of an Electronic Document. — An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately. Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. — When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: (a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
As can be gleaned from the tenor of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, it allowed counterparts “produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original” to be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Thereafter, in the MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, the High Court emphasized that Rule 4, Section 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, considering a copy or duplicate of a document as the equivalent of the original, applies only to electronic data messages and electronic documents, not to paper-based documents. However, with advent of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence such distinction no longer applies.
Rule 130, Sections 4 (b) and (c) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence categorically state:
Section 4. Original of document. — (b) 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 other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
(c) 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.
Clearly, the duplicate of any original, whether an electronic data message, electronic document, or paper-based document, is admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) under the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.[2]
[1] G.R. No. 265758, February 03, 2025
[2] Idem