The recent case of People of the Philippines vs Ybo Lastimosa[1] discussed the historical development of the best evidence rule, to wit:
The earliest iteration of the Best Evidence Rule is found in Chapter X, Section 284 of Act No. 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure (1901). Section 284 provides as follows:
Section 284. Original writing must ordinarily be produced. — There can be no evidence of the contents of a writing, other than the writing itself, except in the following cases:
- When the original has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of the loss or destruction must first be made; 2. When the original is in possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and who fails to produce it after reasonable notice; 3. When the original is a record or other document in the custody of a public officer; 4. When the original has been recorded and a certified copy of the record is made evidence by the Code or other statute; 5. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents, which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.
The next iteration of the rule is found in Rule 130, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1964 Rules of Court. It was also this iteration that first referred to this rule as the Best Evidence Rule.
Thereafter, in a Resolution dated March 14, 1989, the Court issued Bar Matter No. 411, which contained the Revised Rules on Evidence. Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 thereof provides for the Best Evidence Rule:
- 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. (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. (Emphasis supplied)
This wording of the Best Evidence Rule was reproduced and adopted in Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
With this historical backdrop, jurisprudence is replete with this rule, barring the acceptance into evidence of a mere photocopy of a document, unless one of the exceptions to the general rule applies. 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 Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule.[2]
However, on October 8, 2019, the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence was approved and took effect on May 1, 2020. Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence states:
- Original Document Rule Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original is 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, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures; (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; (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
Section 4. Original of document. — (a) 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.”
(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.
The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence modified the title of the Best Evidence Rule to the Original Document Rule. Further, scrutiny of the structure of the current Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 reveals that no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself. By express provision, a duplicate, which is defined in Rule 130, Section 3(b), is admissible to the same extent as an original unless any of the two exceptions are present. It is notable that the definition of a duplicate does not exclude those reproduced from a paper-based original. Accordingly, 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.[3]
[1] G.R. No. 265758
[2] Idem
[3] Idem