Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
D. Relevant issue/s
1. WON the non-presentation of the original pieces of the marked money is fatal to the
cause of the prosecution — NO
2. WON the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder is an indispensable evidence to
prove receipt of the marked money
E. Ruling of the SC
1. The BER applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of the
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to WON such document was actually executed,
exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the BER does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
In this case, the marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose
of establishing its existence and not its contents. Therefore, other substitute evidence,
like a xerox copy thereof, is admissible without the need of accounting for the original.
2. There is no rule requiring that the police officers must apply fluorescent powder to
the buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense. Also, the courts did not
give weight on the laboratory report as it is merely corroborative evidence which is not
material enough to alter the judgment in either way. The CA instead stressed on the
straightforward, candid and categorical testimony of France, corroborated by PO2 Ilao,
as to how petitioner took the money of France in exchange for the latter's driver's
license.
However, even if the contents of the document are the subject of the inquiry, the xerox
copy thereof is now considered as an original. The xerox falls under the definition of a
duplicate which is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original.
Under the proposed amendments, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the
original, as a general rule.
Also, WON under the existing Rules of under the proposed amendments, the same Rule
applies that laboratory reports of forensic chemists fall as entries in official records
because it was made by a public officer in the performance of his duty. As such, there is
no need to present the forensic chemist in court as the laboratory report is prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.