The Original Document Rule

Refresh of memory:

- If the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, then you should present the original
document itself. For us to understand that, we have to know what the original of the document
is. So, we have in our amended rules, this is not in the old rules and this is one of topics
discussed on the amendments. In Section 4, the definition is different from what is provided
under the old rules.
- Under Section 4, when we say original document, we are referring to the document itself.
Correct? If we stopped on that then we would not have any problems, right? Or it can be any
counterpart, so when we say counterpart we are actually referring to a copy?

Group: Duplicate, yes.

Judge: Although that is not what it meant as counterpart, right Miss Molitas?

Miss Molitas: Yes, ma’am.

Judge: When we say original it can either be the document itself or any counterpart or copy that is
intended to have the same effect, okay, by the person blah blah. So we gave you an example, the
triplicate and duplicate receipts, correct? The pink and yellow. So it’s like we understood that last
time but then we have paragraph b, Section 4. We have a duplicate, so how should we understand
this one? It is placed under Section 4, which says original of document. So, letter b speaks of a
duplicate. Is this also an original of the document?

Cliff: Yes, ma’am.

Judge: Yes? Sure? Ah okay, so under this we gave the example of a photocopy. Correct? It is
produced by the same impression as the original. Until now I don’t understand this, do you
understand this? Ahh Mr. Pudlao understood this because he researched on it.

Okay, the Xerox copy now is considered a duplicate? And a duplicate is considered an original of
the document?

Joey: Yes, yes ma’am.

Judge: So that if before the amendments, if you are going to present the photocopy during the pre-
trial for marking, you would say “ May we pray your honor that this document be provisionally
marked if it is just a photocopy.” Provisionally marked means that it may not be considered although
it is not being offered actually but it may not be considered by the court if you do not present the
original copy. That is the meaning of a provisional marking, right? That is if the document that you
are trying to mark is just a photocopy so that is before the amendments. So now we have the 2019
amendments and you tell me or you just told me that a photocopy is a duplicate which is considered
as an original copy. So now, if you are going to mark a photocopy, you do not say provisionally
marked but you will mark it period. Correct?

Joey: Yes
Judge: Oh, okay. That is how it is pala. But so are we okay on that? On paragraph a, paragraph b
when we look at paragraph c, a duplicate is actually not an original copy, correct? They are different.
Yes?

Group: Yes, Ma’am.

Judge: It is just that they have the same extent of admissibility, correct?

Olive: Yes

Judge: Except when? One? Coday tayo. Section 4.

Joey: When a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original and

Judge: Ah okay, that’s it for now. So, if I will present a photocopy, the general rule is I don’t even
have to present the original copy. Yes? Because it has the same extent of admissibility as the original
copy but if the adverse party would question the authenticity of the original copy then the
photocopy will not have the same degree of admissibility as the original document because you can
only determine or the authenticity of the original document by looking at the original document
itself. Correct? So that we will not admit the photocopy, we will require the presentation of the
original document. Second, you will have to explain this to me because I do not understand this. So,
if I present a photocopy then you may object to its admissibility if it would be unjust or if the
admission of the photocopy would be unjust or inequitable. Oh diba? What does it mean?

Can you give me an example? Unjust and inequitable.

(Great Silence)

Judge: While you are thinking, I will go back to the first example. So if a question is raised as to the
faithfulness of the duplicate copy, the faithful reproduction. Will that affect the admissibility of the
duplicate copy? Like if the adverse party that it seems like that there is a line on the signature as if
there is a suspicion that the signature of one of the parties was cut from another document and was
just superimposed then it was photocopied. So will the duplicated will have lesser admissibility that
than the original?

Joey: Yes, judge.

Judge: What I am questioning is the photocopy itself. Because our exception is if you question the
authenticity of the original. So what you are questioning is the appearance of the photocopy itself.
Will it fall under the exception?

(Silence )

Judge: Okay so let’s assume that we are thinking of two things for the moment.

Mr. Likigan, are you here? (He is not present) Miss Tip-ac (She is not present) Why are they
absent? At this moment you want to know where they are? Do we have an answer? Any of the two
questions?

Olive: The first question, I think ma’am if there is an issue on the authenticity, if there is an
imposition.
Judge: Is that the question you are going to answer?

Olive: Yes po.

Judge: ah okay, what is the answer?

Olive: I think ma’am, none. It is still a duplicate which is considered as original of a document.

Judge: So, it is the general rule that will apply.

Olive: Yes, ma’am.

Judge: It will be admissible to the same extent as the original copy.

Chugs: However, ma’am there will be an exception when the adverse party can challenge the
duplicate document. If they have determined that there may be some not genuine or the
authenticity of such document that is photocopied. For example ma’am, if we are going to present a
photocopied document and such photocopied document seems to be fake like white ink has been
placed then photocopied, changed the names so, I think the adverse party can challenge that offer.

Judge: Common sense, right?

Chugs: Yes, ma’am.

Judge: But look at the rule, what it is said is that if the question is as to the authenticity of the
original document.

Chugs: So that is it po ma’am, as to the authenticity sya.

Judge: Okay, of the original.

Chugs: Well ma’am, the term duplicate we can already consider it as an original. So I think that
maybe

Judge: No, I think we settled that already that an original is different from a duplicate but in terms of
admissibility they are the same. Except when you have those two. So if the question is raised
whether or not the photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original that is not the exception
which is mentioned in the rule because we are not questioning the authenticity of the original.
Correct?

Joey: Yes, we are questioning the duplicate.

Judge: Yes, it is the duplicate that we are questioning so that still the duplicate will enjoy the same
degree of admissibility as the original. Correct?

Group: Yes

Judge: Is that correct? It seems wrong. Or if you are going to question the photocopy, are you, in
effect, questioning the genuiness of the original?

Olive: Yes because same, treated as original is the duplicate.

Judge: Oh? Our example is clear right? Atty. showed a document and then you noticed that there
are lines and maybe the font is different on the particular part of the photocopy that you are
questioning so it seems that there is a suspicion that maybe it was just superimposed then it was
photocopied. You are actually questioning that but you are not questioning the genuiness of the
original or are you?

Chugs: Yes, ma’am because I think we are referring to the contents of the document. So yun

Judge: So?

Chugs: So since if we are challenging the superimposed part so it means that we are also challenging
its contents.

Judge: Ohh okay, so if you are saying that this seems to be not a faithful reproduction of the original
then you are, in effect, questioning the original itself.

Chugs: No, ma’am. I think the duplicate that that was presented.

Judge: Ahh, okay. So we are going around ‘no?

Cliff: Hello ma’am, may I answer. The duplicate can be treated as the original when the contents of
the duplicate that is the same as the photocopy even if there are changes in the photocopy but the
same or identical then it can be the duplicate.

Chugs: Putol putol, isa pa.

Cliff: The duplicate can be treated as the original when if the contents of the duplicate is exactly
identical as the contents of the original even if there is changes or superimposition in the photocopy
but if it is the same as the original then it can be treated as the original.

Judge: Okay, I think what he said is if the content of the original and the duplicate are the same then
they can be treated equally, kasjay? But if they are not the same then not equal. Is that what he
said? Because the problem here is if it is the exception to the rule that would apply then you will not
admit the duplicate but you will require the presentation of the original document, diba? That
would be the effect here. So, if what you are questioning is the manner by which the duplicate was
made diba? You look at letter b, dapat same matrix kung ano man ang ibig sabihin nyan or by means
of photography so if you have an allegation that it was photoshopped or it was altered, then you are
actually questioning the duplicate but not the original diba? But the rule here is very specific that it
is only when question is raised as to the authenticity of the original that is the only time you are
going to present the original itself. So if you are questioning the duplicate, ang question lang naman
sa duplicate – what is your probable question or issue when it comes to a duplicate? That it was
made diba under letter b? Dun sa process? Meaning the original is not the same as the duplicate.
That is what we are saying that is what we are actually trying to say if we will question the duplicate
so that that would also mean that you are also questioning the authenticity of the original? In
relation to the duplicate? Ang hirap paikutin ‘no? Because the rule is very clear, tama?

(silence)

Judge: tama ba? Tama ba ‘yun? Mukhan kayo ang marerecite ng dalawang oras ah. How do we
grade your recitation? Is it based on the correctness of the answer? Partly? But more on the
interaction? Diba? Oh, so let us just have one definite answer on this one so that we can leave, ‘yung
first na exception.

So even if what you are questioning is the duplicate itself it will still fall under the exception?
Tanungin nga natin ang group 3 para hindi sila makatulog o group two you can raise anytime if you
have an answer. Group 3. Pa on po ng camera.

Judge: Ano sa tingin nyo? Ano ang sagot sa pinaguusapan naming kanina?

So what if you are questioning is the duplicate is the general rule applicable or the exception? As
to admissibility.

Group 3: Judge, the general rule.

Judge: The general rule, why?

Group 3: Kasi judge sabi dito the duplicate is admissible as or to the same extent as the original
unless the opposing party will raise the two exceptions which is a genuine question and or the
second is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Judge: Oh? Dapat may conclusion ka ah, so? Or yung explanation mo parang sa exam sana ‘pag 5
points yan ah 2 points. So since what we are questioning is the duplicate and not the authenticity of
the original then you will apply the general rule? That is the duplicate will be admissible to the same
extent as to the original.

Group 3: Yes judge.

Judge: Very easy diba? Oo may legal basis na ‘di ka pa nahirapna nag-isip tama?

Judge: Okay, until you are confronted with that actual situation diba because that can happen in
court. Yes? Okay but in any rate you can always question the admissibility of that photocopy under a
different rule, yes?

Group 3: Yes, judge.

Judge: ah okay so if you will be asked that question in your exams, I hope you will not be asked that
question so you just apply the rule okay? So if you have a duplicate that is being presented and it is
being questioned for not being a duplicate by the definition in that rule then it will have the same
admissibility as the original, yes? But then it should be established that that photocopy is a duplicate
diba? So if you take paragraph c alone then it would seem that you are helpless diba you cannot do
anything if what you are questioning is the authenticity of the duplicate itself. But you have to read
the rule in its entirety dun sa Section 4 you have there the mode by which the duplicate is made. So,
if the duplicate was made in any manner that is not stated in paragraph b then that would actually
be not a duplicate. Correct? So, you don’t even have to apply now paragraph c. Tam aba yung
sinasabi natin?

Group 3: Yes po.

Judge: Ah, okay. So, this only means that if ever you are going to present a duplicate in court you
have to prove how it was made under paragraph b. Yes? Before you apply letter c. Okay, sige na
para may matapos tayo dun sa first na example natin. Now we go to the second exception: when the
presentation of the duplicate or the admission of the duplicate will be unjust or inequitable, imagine
‘no? Can you give me an example? Mag present ka lang ng photocopy unjust na, imagine.

(Silence)

Or anybody kung may naimgaine kayo para ano

(Silence)

Deborah: Ma’am try, for example ma’am ako nangutang ako kay Chugs tapos gumawa ako ng
promissory note tapos abogado ko si Cholo, binigay ko kay Cholo yung original copy nung
promissory note for safekeeping, him being my attorney tapos ma’am sa kasamaang palad nasunog
yung law office ni Cholo. So, yung original and nagiisang document ng promissory note is kasamang
nasunog and the nagfile ngayon si Chugs ng collection of sum of money tas during sa presentation
ng evidence and pinakita lang nila is yung photocopy nun gaming promissory note. I think magiging
unjust or parang papasok dun yung unjust or inequitable na iadmit yung photocopy nay un na pine
present ni Chugs in collection of the sum of money. Kasi parang magiging prejudicial on my part?
Parang ganun ba? I’m not sure ma’am kasi parang yun lang kasi naiisip ko na. Pwede bang in the
absence of kunwari nawala yung original kapag prinest or inallow ng court na iadmit yung evidence
na prinepresent na ‘yun ni chugs is mapreprejudice ako na other party. Tam aba yun ma’am?

Judge: Tama daw ba ‘yun?

Judge: Pano yun nagging unjust Miss Molitas eh alam mo naman na yung original, alam mo naman
na may promissory note talga diba? Nasunog lang yung original copy mo? Bakit naman magiging
unjust yung presentation of the duplicate?

Deborah: eh pano ma’am kung hindi pareho yung kiniclaim na amount? Kunwari dun sa photocopy
ni Chugs e 300k eh sa totoo naman talga na piniirmahan naming nasunog na promissory note eh 1k
lang.

Gorup 3: Yes, judge. Siguro magiging unjust or inequitable kapag yung photocopy meron syang
white ink or superimpose and kunwari kinounter sign nung nag notaryo, I think inequitable or
unjsust to admit a duplicate will come in ma’am.

Judge: Hmm, so now we are answering our first question. Yung sa superimposition diba? Tama?

Group 3: Yes, judge.

Judge: Ahh okay. Oh so, dun sa example pala natin is the duplicate will not be admissible as an
original because of number 2 not number 1, tama?

Group 3: Yes, judge.

Judge: O so nacover pala lahat. Nacover ng rule ng possible na problems. Correct?

Group 3: Yes, judge.

Judge: So, I think I understood already ‘yun. Okay na ba?

(A conversation whether Miss Frances understands Filipino and what Miss Molitas said. Frances said
no.)

Judge: Oh Mr. Pacholo you explain.

Cholo: Okay to summarize the concept of number 2 in the duplicate copy, say for example there is a
document being opposed and it so happened that the document has or there are fonts or there are
contents that was superimposed or simply markings, there it would ( laughter)

Judge: Mr. Jimenez, okay, Miss Frances what did you understand in our discussion?

Frances: Judge I understand that in case of admissibility, a duplicate (inaudible)

Chugs: Ma’am I think yung general rule po yung sinasabi nya.

Judge: What about the exception Miss Frances?

(Inaudible)

Judge: Okay, so we are talking about paragraph c of Section 4 of Rule 130. Under paragraph c, if you
have a duplicate, if you are going to present the duplicate in court, it will be admissible as though it
were an original. Diba that is the general rule so that you don’t have to present the original copy. So,
once it is a duplicate copy as defined under paragraph b then that would be admitted by the court as
though it is an original copy. That is the general rule except when there is a question as to the
authenticity of the original copy so in that case you will have to present the original copy of the
document itself; second is, if it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate copy. And it
was here that we gave that example, we finally solved that question regarding that example about
the photocopy which is not actually a faithful photocopy of the original because there are some
alteration in the photocopy. The example that was given is that if you have a promissory note which
is originally in the amount of 1M and the original copy is burned but then the party presenting the
evidence claims to have a duplicate, so we have a photocopy but if the photocopy is altered so that
the Promissory Note is only for 100K then the presentation or admission of such photocopy would
be unjust to Miss Molitas who lent 1M pesos. Tama?

Cholo: Yes, judge.

Judge: Did you understand that Miss Frances?

Frances: Yes, judge.

Judge: Okay so next time if you do not understand our conversation you raise a hand so that we will
be reminded. Okay, so that is your original document rule. What is the original document rule again?
If the..of the..is the..then, okay, good. And then what is the original copy or what is the original of a
document? So the original of the document is paragraph a. So, here, yung sa counterpart what we
gave as an example is yung mga carbon copies, correct? Or same multiple copies, printed. Like if you
are going to make a contract and you printed 10 copies, sympre original silang lahat diba?

Tama? Okay okay, so we have the definition of the duplicate which is not an original, okay, it is
not original, they are different. But when it comes to admissibility, they are the same. Except when
you have exceptions 1 and 2. What is the exception to the original document rule? Meaning, when
may you present not the original document even if the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document itself. What is the exception?

Deborah: When the original is lost or destroyed.

Judge: Okay. Group 3?

Beverly: We have 3 exceptions judge. First po yung sinabi ni Miss Molitas when the original has been
lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror.

Judge: Is that self-explanatory?

Beverly: I think so.

Judge: Yes? Bad faith on the part of the offeror meaning he is not the reason why the original is lost
or destroyed.

Beverly: yes, judge.

Judge: Okay. It can happen that you intentionally destroy the original copy just so you can present a
secondary evidence. Diba?

So that is the first exception meaning you do not have to present the origina document even if
the subject of the inquiry is the contents of that document diba? If you can prove that the original is
lost or destroyed, that is one, second is if it cannot be produced in court, meaning?

Beverly: when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party..

Judge: Which you can actually compel diba?

Beverly: ah, yes judge.

Judge: Okay. But if you cannot compel its production then you will now be allowed to present
secondary evidence, that’s the first exception. Second exception is? Group 3? Eto ata yung sinabi mo
Miss Cayatoc.

Beverly: Judge, yung first po is if the original has been destroyed and yung second po is when the
original is in the custody or under the control of a party. Yun po yung second judge.

Judge: If you take a look at paragraph a, dalawa ‘yan diba? Tatlo actually kung gusto mo ng 3 points.
When the original is lost or destroyed, what is the difference of lost or destroyed?

Beverly: Loss judge po yung wala na po talaga, literal pero pag destroyed meron pero nadestroy na.

Judge: Mr. Ballatong.

Ballatong: sorry ma’am, napindot lang po.

Judge: ayy excited pa naman ako biglang may nagraise ng hand. Okay so pareho lang yun, isa lang
yun? When the original is lost or destroyed, if it destroyed it is considered lost also? Tama? Hala,
you remember your ObliCon?
 ObliCon. Legally lost? Lagot kayo dyan. When is a thing lost? Ala you forgot your ObliCon. Okay
sige. Kunwari matatandaan natin yan mamaya.

So, the second one under paragraph a is if the original cannot be produced in court. You have
letter b is when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered and later fails blah blah

Okay so, ‘yung under paragraph b, your first remedy is yung for you to ask the production of the
document, you still remember that? Rule 27? Or by virtue of subpoena duces tecum. Yes, if you
cannot do that or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures ‘yun ‘yun.
If you cannot do that then you can be allowed to present secondary evidence. Ano yung difference
sa letter a? If it cannot be produced in court, what is the difference?

If you take a look at the secondary evidence, may codal provisions na ba ang Evidence na
binebenta hard copy? Wala pa?

Answer: Wala pa ata judge.

Judge: May pumupunta pa bas a nyo sa book store?

Miss Gundran: Ma’am meron po ata.

Judge: Kasi yung copy ko printed lang.

Okay if you take a look at Section 7, I think this is what is referred to sa paragraph a. Ano? So if
you cannot bring the entire document or the entire set of documents in court because they are
voluminous meaning several boxes of documents then you can present secondary evidence. ‘Yung
summary lang. Diba? Yun yata yun. Okay kunwari okay. Third exception to the original document
rule hindi rin, eto yun sa letter c diba? Ano ba yan. So letter c would be summary, parang Andaya
nyu parang ngayun nyu lang binbasa yang rules ah. Bakit ganun?

Beverly: Hindi po judge.

Judge: Aaaa okay eh bat kat nag aagree sa sinsabi ko kanina?

Deborah: Ma’am may Nakita ako sa letter b and c kasi sa original rule hindi naman actually nabago
‘yung a, b tsaka c dun sa Section3 ng Rule 130 dun sa old. So may explanation pa rin dito sa libro na
old. Dun kasi sa b ma’am, ang sinasabi doon it’s actually talking abut loss, destruction and
availability doon naman sa c, and dinid discuss nya is numerous account, so basically magkaiba tlaga
sila.

Judge: Okay sige sige

Deborah: Dun kasi sa letter a binanggit natin na

Judge: And kino compare natin is when it cannot be produced in court under paragraph a and
paragraph b, yun.

Deborah: versus?

Judge: Yun na yung versus.

Deborah: Yun sa a ma’am which cannot be produced in court dinefine dito na nag unavailability may
be physical or legal, physical unavailability may refer to encryptions on immovable objects or
monuments or even grave stones. Legal unavailability, on the other hand, may refer to instances
when the document is beyond the territory or coercive jurisdiction of the court. Dun naman sa b,
hawak ng isang party unlike kung ico compare si b and a, si a walang may hawak na party physically
dun naman sa b, it was specified na the document is under the custody of either the adverse or the
other party.

Judge: oooo, okay. So that is the difference. Tama?

Chugs: yes

Judge: Huwag mo nang isingit si c kasi di naman natin sya sinasali sa comparison natin. So, under
letter a, the reason why it cannot be produced in court is not because it is being withheld by the
adverse party, tama?

Deborah: Yes.

Judge: But doon sa letter b, the document cannot be produced because it is under the custody of
the adverse party against whom the evidence is offered that will be presented. So okay, okay na
tayo doon. Ahh okay sige, good. So doon sa letter c, this is self-explanatory tama? Eto na yung
secondary mo section 7, you present a summary. Okay okay. Kunwari okay na. Fourth exception is

Beverly: When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer ma’am or is recorded
in a public office.

Judge: Okay so since you cannot bring out the public record from its repository then you can present
a secondary evidence. Tama?

Deborah: yes

Judge: Actually kung titignan nyu yung exceptions nag mamatch dun sa secondary evidence. Tama?
Oo. Napaghahalata lang na hindi natin binasa ano..

Beverly: Yes po, yung mga iba pong exceptions. Judge, nagdiscuss pa kami kanina.

Judge: Eh bakit di mo sabihin kayo ang nagrerecite ngayun, nagdiscuss pa kayo kanina. Pero
nagdidiscuss talga kayo?

Beverly: yes po, ipapasok po sana kayo sa group po kaso hindi pwedeng mag add.

Judge: Aaa, huwag nyo muna akong isali sa discussion nyo. I was hoping to find my peace of mind
when I was relieved from MTC La Trinidad but I was designated sa MTCC branch 4 so mas
masalimuot ang buhay ngayon. Okay, huwag pa muna. Maganda naman yan at nagdidiscuss pala
kayo. That is my only goal in life, for you to interact and answer the questions by yourselves.

And letter e, this is a new exception added by our amendments. When the original is not closely
related to the controlling issue. Meaning?

Beverly: Meaning that, when we say that it is not closely related to the controlling issue meaning
irrelevant po yung evidence.
Judge: Oooo, so when the original copy is irrelevant then you don’t present the original. Tama?

Beverly: Yes po

Judge: Hmmm, in the first place do you apply the original document rule? In this instance?

Beverly: Bale secondary evidence lang po ang ipre present.

Judge: Ooo okay, can you give me an example? Of an instance when the original is actually
irrelevant.

(Silence)

Beverly: For example judge yung ano po

Judge: Yes, go ahead.

Beverly: Yung disputed parcel of land po, may portion dun po for example or dalawang certificate of
title and yung isa po di naman po sya kasama so no need to offer as evidence kasi irrelevant na po
yun. I think?

Judge: It is considered as an exception to the original document rule. Diba? So in your example you
are talking about two original certificates of title. Since one is not included in the case you don’t
need to present that certificate of title.

Beverly: Yes po judge. Kasi in the very first place di po dapat sya iprenesent and there is lack of
objection. Ay wait lang po.

Judge: Hmmm. You know in evidence when you discuss the rules you should come up with
examples. Yung libro nyu if you look at your books parang ganun yung trend. We have the
discussion, then they present you with cases, then hypothetical or actual so that we can understand.
So yung paragraph e, it is placed as an exception the original document rule so what does this
mean? You may be allowed to present secondary evidence and not the original document itself
diba? Tama ba?

Bev: Yes judge.

Judge: or you need not present the original document. So if the original document is actually
irrelevant to the issue then you need not present the original document. Okay? So your example is…
Do we have other examples? From group 3?

(silence)

Judge: Mr. Dumlao, nagiisip sya eh. Malalim. Baka meron na. O para makapag isip si Mr. Dumlao, pa
on nga nag camera everybody. Tignan nga natin kung sinong andto.

Beverly: Judge wala po kaming mahanap na example kasi bago palang.

Judge: O sige, sino ang may example sa inyo?

Deborah: Ma’am meron yata ako ulit.

Judge: Meron ka yata ulit, a okay. Sige.

Deborah: Dito sa book po kasi ni Espejo ma’am inexample nya yung case ng libel. So for example is
yung subject ng inquiry.

Judge: Englishin mon a.

Deborah: so in my book, an example that was given is a case of libel wherein if the subject of inquiry
is who wrote the article the original would be the story as prepared or typed by the author but the
issue to be established whether the published story is libelous or not, the original is the story which
appeared in print. So meaning even if what you are going to present is the printed copy which is
actually considered as a duplicate it would be okay because the issue to be answered is whether or
not, whether the article published is libelous. Or not? Thank you. 😊

Grabe naman si ma’am, tama po ba? Kasi I think in the example like libel you don’t actually need
to present the actual or the handwritten or typewritten original article as long as you can present a
secondary one which can prove that the contents of that article is actually libelous.

Judge: Because you don’t care about the original.

Deborah: Yes, it does not actually have a bearing at all because the issue or the subject of the
inquiry is actually the contents of the document.

Judge: Although the subject of the inquiry is the content of the document, you don’t have to present
the document, the original document itself.

Deborah: yes

Judge: Yes because what is being looked into is the content of the document.

Deborah: yes ma’am, so I think that is an exception of what you were asking a while ago when the
production of an original document is dispensed with.

Judge: Hmm okay let us have a confirmation from group 3.

Naman, we do not question kapag libro na hindi na natin kinu question diba?

Beverly: We agree with Miss Molitas judge.

Judge: Aaa okay, okay. So the original document rule says that you have to present the original
document if the subject of the inquiry is the content of the document except when the presentation
of the original is? Dun sa letter e? or when the original is not closely related, we use that phrase not
irrelevant pero parehas diba, to the controlling issue. So in her example dun sa case for libel, you are
not interested as to whether or not the person wrote. Ano yung sinabi mo?

Deborah: Who. The subject of the inquiry is who wrote the article.

Judge: So if that is the subject of the inquiry then you have to present the original?

Deborah: document, yes ma’am. I think this is because you really prove whether it is really hir or her
writing or something like that.
Judge: If it is handwritten, okay. But what you are really interested in is just the content of the or
what was actually written meaning the content of the document then it is okay not to present the
original document itself but you can just present a printed copy. Yes?

Deborah: Yes.

Judge: Ooo okay. So, to summarize that one as a general rule, you are going to present or you
should present the original copy if the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. Tama?
But what if you are looking into is the contents of the document then you may not present the
original copy. Correct?

(Silence)

Beverly: Yes po.

Judge: Tama ba yun? Tama? Diba confusing yun? If the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the
document you have to present the original copy except when if you are merely looking into the
contents of the document you may not present the original copy. Tama? Yes? How insane is that?
The exception is actually the general rule? Ano in our example, we just made the general rule the
exception? Tama naman yung analysis natin diba? Oo naman, tama naman. Tama diba? Because if
what I want to prove is just what was written I don’t have to present the original document. I can
present a copy or I can even present the testimony of a person to say that she raid the article and
this is how it was written. So tama yung analysis ko? Neh, siguro sa exams ninyo: Explain if the
subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document you have to present the original copy or the
original document itself except when the inquiry is into the contents of the document, then you may
present secondary evidence. Tama?

Answer: Yes

Judge: Yes? Tama? Tama ba yung analysis ko? Okay sige, siguro tama. Ay hindi da? Bakit hindi tama?
Si Mr. Banasan, sige gisingin natin si Mr. Banasan.

Yun yung bingay ninyong example ‘diba? O, since what you are only interested in is what was
actually written and not who wrote it then you don’t have to present the original publication for
example and when we say secondary evidence. Again we have a problem here because ‘yung
secondary ninyo is a copy kunana enya? You can present yung testimony of witnesses so, yun yun
diba? So if the exception is the general rule. Ahh sige na nga.

Answer: No ma’am

(Intermittent connection)

Guil: Ate Joy, putol putol. Hi ma’am. Kung sa question na parehas ba yung general rule and yung
exception na e. Hindi po sila the same kasi doon sa general rule parang ang prine present mo, ‘yung
original document mismo kasi may relation sya to the issue. Pero yung exception, what you are
presenting is the duplicate document which is not of which the original document is not closely
related to the issue. So hindi sila parehas. Pero hindi ko mahanap ma’am yung example. Pero yung
example ni ate na libelous tama naman.
Judge: Okay, okay na. Okay na ‘yun. Okay. Simple lang naman yan diba, dun sa letter e what is not
relevant is as to whether or not the document to be presented is original. It’s the original state of
the document that is irrelevant to the issue. Yun lang naman yun. Pero gusto ko yun. I will ask that in
your test.

Guilfeliko: No ma’am.

Judge: Ang test nyo ba by group?

Joey: yes judge, by group.

Judge: Sabi nino? I will give you 50% na individual na written exams and 50% na orals by group but
doon sa by group I will be asking a specific member to answer a specific question okay? I think I
already mentioned this ano? So if the group member cannot answer the other group members
cannot chip in so you should help each other. So one chance to answer the question only per
member so we will schedule yung 50% na oral exams. When is your scheduled exam for evidence?

Joey: Tuesday

Judge: Tuesday. October 13. Okay so zoom, 5:30?

Joey: Yes judge

Judge: so zoom, handwritten.

Emmir: Kahit anong paper ma’am?

Judge: Kayo kung pwedeng tissue, notebook naman ah. Kung wala adi kahit anong paper. We will
open a google classroom for the exams because in my RemREv 2 they found it difficult to transmit
pictures sa Canvas so we had to use google classroom so the same with Evidence ‘no? So, pag 50%
that would be ten questions only to be answered in, I will give you 5 minutes per question. So 5 x 10,
one hour diba? One hour lang. Tama?

Guilfeliko: 50 minutes yun ma’am

Judge: 50 minutes yun, may 10 minutes kayong magtransmit. So pagka sulat then you can scan then
you send to google class or upload nyo sa drive then you send me the link whichever is easier. For
those who are using cellphones mas madali daw yun. Okay so that is how we will have our exams on
Tuesday so we start 5:30 o pwedeng one hour lang sino angmay problema sa connectivity para alam
ko kung ano.

Deborah: May question, pano po pag may conflict?

Judge: Aaa ano yung conflict nyu? May conflict pa rin ba?

Deborah: Ma’am may LTD po kasi ako, may LTD ako ng same day. 4:30 to 6:30.

Judge: 4:30 to 6:30? Then you take the exam on 6:30 to 8:30.

Deborah: Sige po.

Judge: So everybody will take the exam on 6:30 to 8:30

Deborah: Hala ma’am ako nalang po mag aadjust.

Guil: Meron din yung iba ma’am, may Spec Pro sila.

Judge: So 6:30 tayu, tama? Then I will invite one to watch your eye movement and your body
movement. Biglang nag off ng camera si Miss Molitas, Bakit kaya ano? Okay okay so tapos na tao
dun.

The original document rule, we already discussed what an original document is, we also
discussed what a duplicate is, and then we discussed the difference between an original and
duplicate and you have the rule on the admissibility of a duplicate. Okay you have the general rule
and the two exceptions. And then we took the exceptions to the original document rule so if we will
apply the exceptions we will be allowed to present secondary evidence. So let us talk about
secondary evidence. Okay Section 5. The requisites before you are allowed to present secondary
evidence in case the exception you are going to apply is if the original document is lost or destroyed
or cannot be produced in court so what must you prove first? Before you will be allowed to present
secondary evidence? Group 3. You try deriving it from the rule itself Section 5.

First, you should prove its execution or existence. Second, you should prove the reason
why it is unavailable. So Ano eto, whether it is lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, you
should prove also that the unavailability is without bad faith on your part. Wala bang feminine or
masculine ang your? So if you are able to prove those then that is the only time that you can present
secondary evidence to prove the contents of your original document. And what are the secondary
evidence or pieces of secondary evidence that you are allowed to present? Tanan! You can present a
copy! O diba parang pang elementary. What copy are we talking about? If you take a look at the
definition of a duplicate, what else is not included in a duplicate? What copy are we talking about
here? Secondary evidence, o pano ba gumagawa ng duplicate? By means of photography including
enlargements and miniatures, mechanical electronic re-recording, chemical reproduction. Ano yung
chemical reproduction? Blueprint ganun? Other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce
the original.

Okay sa Section 5, when we say copy are we referring to a duplicate? Or a copy which is
not a duplicate? Okay habang iniisip nyo yan, that is the first secondary evidence that you can
present if the original document is unavailable which means it is either lost or destroyed or cannot
be produced in court. Okay so you can present a copy or a recital of its contents of some authentic
document, recital of the contents of the original coy in some authentic documents. Recital.

Okay so when you say recital, recital. When the contents of an original document is written on
another authentic document like umm for example you have a deed of sale of a parcel of land so
sometimes the Deed of Sale is submitted to the Registry of Deeds siguro not for purposes of transfer
kasi hindi pa pwedeng itransfer but the deed of sale would copied doon sa title or will be annotated
toon sa title. The contents of that document will be copied. So if you cannot present later on that
original copy of that Deed of Sale you can actually present a copy from the Registry of Deeds it is not
actually a copy of the Deed of Sale itself diba? Because only the contents are copied. So that would
be a secondary evidence. Or third, by the testimony of witnesses but we should follow the order. So
if we cannot present a copy that is the only time you can present a recital of the contents of the
document in some authentic document. Okay? Or if you cannot do that then that is the only time
 you can present the testimony of witnesses. Tama? Tama sabi sa rule. Yes? Okay. So as far as I am
concerned I can understand Section 5 except for that first secondary evidence which is referring to a
copy of the original document. So are we referring to a duplicate? Neh, group 3. Mr. Serrapion bakit
ang tahimik mo ngayon?

Johnny: Wala po judge.

Judge: Are we referring to a duplicate here or? Is there a way of copying a document which is not
mentioned in letter b? Yung mga techy?

Johnny: Pwede siguro ma’am, kunwari doon sa softcopy diba considered sya as original?

Judge: Original palas sya so we should not be talking about secondary evidence.

Johnny: Pag yung secondary copy ma’am it contains the same information the same as the original.

Judge: Duplicate? Or pareho? Sabihin na natin na pareho para di na tayo mahirapan.

Johnny: Yes ma’am

Judge: Ayy mali yata tayo ‘pag ganoon. O group 3? Does the word copy in Section 5 refer to a duplicate?

(Silence)

Shamira: No ma’am.

Judge: No, what then. Ma’am because it states her in Section 4 of Rule 130 by means of photocopy. Pero
yung pagkaintindi ko dito ma’am sa Section 5. Diba ma’am usually yung mga documents kasi gingawa
syang into two copies. Yung original tapos yung certified true copy parang dito sya sa secondary
evidence pero yung sa may duplicate yun yung pinapaphotocopy ganern.

Judge: Anong ganern? Kapag certified tru copy yan adi. You agree? Yung groupmates mo nag agree?
Group 4 that question only. Miss Challoy? Group 4 or Mr. Ballatong. Tama ba yung sinabi ni Miss
Daweg?

Esteban: Yes ma’am?

Judge: Bakit tumaas naman yung yes ma’am mo. Hindi ka sure? According to Miss Daweg, a certified
true copy is a copy as stated in Section 5. So a certified true copy is not a duplicate, you agree?

Esteban: Yes ma’am.

Judge: Hmm how do you make a certified true copy? Mr. Ballatong.

Johnny: A oo nga no

Esteban: Ireprint lang yung original copy tapos tatakan ng certified true copy or photocopy then tatakan
ng certified true copy.

Judge: Eh pag photocopy hindi bay an yung definition natin ng duplicate? Or are we taking out
photocopy from duplicate?
Esteban: Yung distinction po kasi noon ma’am, yung certified true copy may tatak which is certified true
copy while yung photocopy is photocopy lang, walang tatak which is coming from the agency issuing
that certificate.

Judge: Eh di mas admissible sana yung certified true copy diba? Than a mere photocopy? Which was
how it used to be but now dito sa amendment natin yung duplicate dun na nagulo etong ano eh. So you
are telling us that if you cannot present the original document, you should at least present a certified
true copy but dito sa original natin if you cannot present an original document and you have a
photocopy considered as a duplicate, you can go ahead and present the photocopy even if the original is
not there because in so far as admissibility is concerned, the photocopy would have the same
admissibility as the original document so we do not talk about presenting secondary evidence.

Okay, o Group 3 yun ang sagot nyu lahat group 3? Isupport nyo naman yung answer ni Miss
Shamiar awalang iwanan diba?

Chugs: ma’am, di ka naming marinig.

Judge: Kasi wala akong sinabi.

Guilfeliko: Ma’am may question po ako.

Nadisconnect po ata si Mr. Banasan.

Judge: Buti naman (laughter) O Mr. Banasan ano yung question. Okay so yun na yun yung answer nyo
Group 3? So the copy in Section 5 is not a duplicate, it is some other copy. Correct? Is a certified true
copy a duplicate?

O Mr. Banasan what is your question?

Guilfeliko: Diba po kasi ma’am kapag ikakasal ka sa Cathedral for example, diba may record sila sa
Cathedral na ikinasal ka tapos meron ding record sa Civil Registry so parnag yung copy na yun is not
actually a duplicate. It’s a secondary evidence whenever you want to present that for example in cases
of declaration to nullify your marriage. Sabi ng example kay Riano. Ang nangyari kasi ma’am example sa
Civil Registry na irecord na naikasal sila tapos na irecord din sa Parish na ikinasal sila so parang nund
idedeclare na manullify sana yung certificate of marriage nawal sa Civil Registry because of World War II
ganon tapos yung prenesent is yung secondary evidence which is s copy of that primary source. Tama ba
Ma’am? I don’t know. So hindi sya duplicate it’s actually a copy that you are married to someone.

Judge: Okay since obviously you don’t have the experience yet getting married. So this is what happens
when you get married, you will be presented with four copies of certificate of marriage and you are
going to sign all four. So one will stay with the church, pag church wedding, one will be submitted to the
Civil Registrar, the other one sa PSA and the other one will go to you. All copies are original copies. So
yun iyong original at tsaka you do not nullify a certificate of marriage na yung certificate itself ah.
Maganda sana pag ganun, kasi pag ganun punitin mo nalng yung certificate of marriage mo hindi ka na
married diba? You read that again Mr. Banasan how …

Guilfeliko: Mali ma’am, mali yung interpretation.

Judge: Yes. How can we question Riano? My goodness Riano is an authority in Evidence. You read it in a
wrong way, you read it again.
 O simple lang naman yung question ko diba? O don’t tell me you did not ask yourself also that
question. If you read Section 5 diba? We are talking about secondary evidence and we are confronted
with a copy and before that we were talking about an original and a duplicate. Did you not ask yourself?
Ano bang difference ng duplicate at copy? Di ba sila pareho? Did you ask yourself that? Hindi nyo
tinanong ang sarili nyo? O anybody?

Shamira: Ma’am parang ganito ba yung sinasabi ni Mr. Banasan so for example yung documents so
parang yung copy mo tapos merong file copy yung registry or yung local civil registry tapos merong copy
yung church so for example nawal yung original copy mo pwede mong I acquire yung copy nung church
or civil registry for your presentation as secondary evidence? Stated dun sa secondary evidence. Unlike
comparing dun sa duplicate documents talagang with the use of machine or photocopy ganun sya
ma’am na hindi sya original na in issue nung nagiissue nung document. Parang yun yung pagkakaintindi
ko kay Mr. Banasan.

Judge: aha okay, sige. Group 3 ganoon yung pagkakaintindi natin doon? Oo nga naman, because even if
you will be presented four forms, actually yung certificate of marriage you will be asked to sign, yung
signature mo sa isa hindi exactly na pareho sa signature mo sa isa. Heh. So that, alin doon ang original
copy? Mag fa fall yan sa letter a diba? That is still an original. Yung apat original.

So what copy are we talking about sa section 5? Anybody? Kasi naman nagsingit sila ng bago sa
Section 4 hindi man lang iniba yung Section 5 ‘no? kinuestion tuloy natin ang Supreme Court. So what do
you think? What copy are we referring to? Group 4?

Rodney: Ma’am pwede ko po bang ishare yung idea ko?

Judge: Group 4 nga, tamang tama.

Rodney: As to the copy I just compared it to the word duplicate. First a duplicate is produced by the
same impression so basically the law is specific on what is a duplicate so it must be made from the same
impression as the original however in Section 5 it simply states a copy in its general sense meaning it
does not necessarily mean that it is the same impression rather it could be for example the contract is
typewritten and for the party he is just praning, he is paranoid that the typewritten will be lost he copied
the typewritten one, sinulat nya ma’am yung document ng kamay ma’am. Parang he reproduced it by
handwriting, pwede poba yun ma’am? As copy.

Judge: Oh, copied literally

Rodney: yes ma’am, kasi yung typewritten ma’am yung contract tapos yung ginawa nya po ma’am is
handwritten. Will that fall as secondary evidence ma’am? Sa duplicate po kasi naka specify in which if
the contract id typewritten then the duplicate should also be typewritten or when the contract is
engraved then the duplicate should also be engraved. However, in secondary evidence as mentioned in
Section 5, it only mentions the word copy. So meaning it does not necessarily mean that is from the
same impression rather it could be my example ma’am that the person copied it through handwriting.

Parang binase ko nalang po sa Section 5 yung sagot naming ma’am as stated in the case of
Shangrila Hotel and Resort vs. BF Corporation, sabi dun eh is that it refers to evidence other than the
original instrument or document itself and sabi nga po natin kanina na duplicate is also the counterpart
or is the counterpart of that original document, so basically yung example ko na handwritten is the best
example of the word copy.

Judge: Yung nagpapaalam ng Spec Com pwede na.

Emmir: Thank you ma’am, nag secial class kami ma’am.

Judge: So Mr. Gonzales gave us one example of making a copy which does no fall under paragraph b of
Section4. Literally copy. Ahh okay copy. Let us think about that one. So group 3 that will be the last
question for you to answer on Friday. We will write it here and group 4 we will finish Documentary
Evidence so that kahit hanggang dito lang Midterms nyo. Konti lang ba coverage ng midterms pag
ganun?

Beverly: Madami na po yun judge.

Judge: Oo kasi sa physical na classroom ang midterms ko lang eh hanggang documentary din. Okay so
we will meet Friday, Group 3, you will answer that then we proceed to group 4 ‘no? Tama na. May
binabasa pa si Binasan? Okay na? Basahin mong Mabuti yung Riano tas explain mo yes? Because what is
your Riano? The Thick one or the thin one? Ooo the blue one, bakit wala akong ganun.

Guilfeliko: Ma’am kay Jessa po kasi to hiniram ko lang.

Judge: Ay huwag mo nang pakita sakin kapag xerox, may naxexerox pa ba nagyon?

Joey: yes ma’am

Judge: OO okay okay. Next Friday na ngarud you enjoy your dinner.