EVIDENCE

PEOPLE v. TANDOY
C.R. No. 80505, 4 December 1990, 192 SCRA 28


Facts: Accused was convicted of a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He appealed to Supreme Court,
contending that the trial court erred, in violation of the Best Evidence Rule, in admitting a xerox copy of the bill
allegedly used as buy-bust money.
Issue: Whether the xerox copy of the marked bill is admissible in evidence.
Ruling: The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry.
Where the issue is only: as to whether or not such document was actually expected, or exists, or in the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible. Since the photocopy of the marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for
the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other bstitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy, is
therefore admissible without accounting for the original.
Closely related to the best evidence rule is the rule that ca document or writing which is merely" collateral" to the issue
involved in the case on trial need not be produced. This is the collateral facts rule. Thus, where the purpose of
presenting a document is not to prove its contents, but merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible, the
testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original of the document need not be
presented. In this case, the contents of the document .are not sought to be proven, but are simply incidental to the fact
being testified to. Thus, the best evidence rule cannot apply. 53

Air France vs. Rafael Carracoso
18 SCRA 155
Civil Law Torts and Damages Negligence Malfeasance Quasi-Delict
Remedial Law Evidence Hearsay Rule Res Gestae Startling Event

In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route to Rome from Manila.
Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by
the plane manager of Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right than him.
Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his
seat and was transferred to the planes tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France for damages for the
embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified, among others, that he when he was forced to
take the tourist class, he went to the planes pantry where he was approached by a plane purser who told him that he
noted in the planes journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded damages in favor
of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance of a first class ticket to
Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was
not the true intent between the parties.
Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the note made by the purser because
the said note was never presented in court.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was not presented in court is admissible
in evidence.

HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa aquiliana.

Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a contract to furnish
Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was breached when Air France failed to furnish first
class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances employee compelled
Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already, seated and to take a seat in the tourist
class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first class ticket to a
passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim is simply incredible.

Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso, there is
also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for transportation. They have a right
to be treated by the carriers employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be
protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that
any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
against the carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos
action is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France a case of quasi-
delict. Damages are proper.

HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. The subject of inquiry is not the
entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule.
Such testimony is admissible.

Besides, when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser happened, the impact
of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down.
Statements then, in this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser regarding
his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness
has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.