Q: Dominique was accused of committing a
A private document may be offered and
violation of the Human Security Act. Dominique
was asked to testify and to, among other things,
identify his above-said affidavit of confession. As
he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense
counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit
is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection be
sustained? Explain. (2010 Bar)
A: No, the objection may not be sustained on the
ground stated, because the affiant was only to
identify the affidavit which is not yet being offered
in evidence. The doctrine of the fruit of the
poisonous tree can only be invoked by Domingo
as his defense in the crime of violation of Human
Security Act filed against him but not by the
accused in a torture case filed by him. In the
instant case, the presentation of the affidavit
cannot be objected to by the defense counsel on
the ground that it is a fruit of the poisonous tree
because the same is used in Domingo’s favour
Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Q:
At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a
photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the
“buy-bust” operation. Ace objects to the
introduction of the photocopy on the ground that
the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction
of secondary evidence in lieu of the original. a. Is
the photocopy real (object) evidence or
documentary evidence?
A: The photocopy of the marked bills is real
(object) evidence not documentary evidence,
because the marked bills are real evidence b. Is
the photocopy admissible in evidence? (1994
Bar) A: Yes, the photocopy is admissible in
evidence, because the best evidence rule does
not apply to object or real evidence(People v.
Tandoy, G.R. No. 0505, December 4, 1990).
Q: May a private document be offered, and
admitted in evidence both as documentary
evidence and as object evidence? Explain (2005
Bar)
A:Yes.
admitted in evidence both as documentary
evidence and as object evidence. A document
can also be considered as an object for purposes
of the case. Objects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule
130)
Documentary evidence consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written
expressions, offered as proof of their contents
(Sec. 2, Rule 130). A tombstone may be offered
in evidence to prove what is written on it and if the
same tombstone is found on a tomb, then it is
object evidence. It can be considered as both
documentary and object evidence (See: Gupit,
Jr., 1989).
Best Evidence Rule
Q: If the photocopies of official receipts and
photocopies of affidavits were attached to the
position paper submitted by plaintiff in an action
for unlawful detainer filed with Municipal Trial
Court on which basis the court rendered
judgment in favor of plaintiff? Explain. (2000 Bar)
A: The claim of defendant is valid, because
although summary procedure requires merely the
submission of position papers, the evidence
submitted with the position paper must be
admissible in evidence (Sec. 9, Revised Rule of
Summary Procedure). Photocopies of official
receipts and affidavits are not admissible without
proof of loss of the original (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
. Q: When A loaned a sum of money to B, A typed
a single copy of the promissory note, which they
both signed. A made two photo (xeroxed) copies
of the promissory note, giving one copy to B and
retaining the other copy. A entrusted the
typewritten copy to his counsel for safekeeping.
The copy with A’s counsel was destroyed when
the law office was burned. a. In an action to
collect on the promissory note, which is deemed
to be the “original” copy for the purpose of the
“Best Evidence Rule”?
A: The copy that was signed and lost is the only
“original” copy for purposes of the Best Evidence
Rule (Sec. 4 [b], Rule 130).
b. Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties
be considered “duplicate original copies?”
A: NO, They are not duplicate original copies
because there are photocopies which were not
signed (Mahilum v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
17970, June 30, 1966). They constitute
secondary evidence (Sec. 5, Rule 130)
c. As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan
given to A and B? (1997 Bar) A: The loan given
by A to B may be proved by secondary evidence
through the xeroxed copies of the promissory
note. The rules provide that when the original
document is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offerer, 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 (Sec.
5, Rule 130).
Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya
Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the
admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated
marked genuine peso bills. Should the trial judge
sustain the objection of the defense counsel?
Briefly explain your answer. (2017 Bar) A: No, the
trial judge should not sustain the objection that
invokes the best evidence rule. The Supreme
Court has held that the best evidence rule applies
only to documentary evidence, not to object or
testimonial evidence. Here the marked money is
object not documentary evidence since it is being
offered to prove not its contents but its existence
and use in the buy-bust operation.
Q: State the rule on the admissibility of an
electronic evidence. (2003 Bar) A: Whenever a
rule of evidence refers to the term writing,
document, record, instrument, memorandum or
any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as
defined in the Rules (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules on
Electronic Evidence).
An electronic document is admissible in evidence
if it complies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws
and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by
thee Rules (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Id.). The authenticity
of any private electronic document must be
proved by evidence that it had been digitally
signed and other appropriate security measures
have been applied (Sec. 2, Rule 5, Id.).
Xxx
Pedro presented a copy of such the note which
was executed at the same time as the original and
with identical contents.
a. Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be
allowed to testify as to the true agreement or
contents of the promissory note? Why?
A: Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his
complaint that the promissory note does not
express the true intent and agreement of the
parties. This is an exception to the parol evidence
rule (Sec. 9[b] Rule 130). b. Over the objection of
Lucio, can Pedro present a copy of promissory
note and have it admitted as valid evidence in his
favor? Why? (2001 Bar)
A: Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a
duplicate original and with identical contents
(Sec. 4[b] Rule 130). Moreover, the failure of
Lucio to produce the original of the note is
excusable because he was not given reasonable
notice, as requirement under the Rules before
secondary evidence may be presented (Sec. 6
Rule 130).
Authentication and proof of documents
Q: X states on direct examination that he once
knew the facts being asked but he cannot recall
them now. When handed a written record of the
facts he testifies that the facts are correctly
stated, but that he has never seen the writing
before. Is the writing admissible as past
recollection recorded? Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: No, because for the written record to be
admissible as past recollection recorded, it must
have been written or recorded by X or under his
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when
the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that
the same was correctly written or recorded (Sec.
16, Rule 132). But in this case, X has never seen
the writing before.