1. Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies Inc. v.

CA and Associated Bank

Facts: Trans-Pacific Bank applied for and was granted several financial
accommodations amounting to P1, 300,000.00 by Associated Bank. The loans were
evidenced and secured by four promissory notes and a real estate mortgage
covering three parcels of land. Because it was unable to settle its obligations in full,
Trans-Pacific was granted a restructuring of the remaining debt. To secure this setup new promissory noted were executed. The previously mortgaged land were also
substituted by other parcels of land. According to Trans-Pacific the lands that were
released from the mortgage was then sold and the proceeds were delivered to the
Bank. After that the bank had returned the duplicate original copies of the three
promissory notes to Trans-Pacific with the word PAID stamped thereon. Despite
this the bank issued a demand to Trans-Pacific payment the bank claimed that the
promissory notes were erroneously released.
Issue: Whether or not the Trans-Pacific had fully paid its obligations
Ruling: Trans-Pacific was not able to pay its obligations. Verily the documents that
they presented were mere duplicates and not the original. Accordingly Article 1271
does not apply. The Rules on Evidence provide that as a general rule when the
contents of the document is the one in issue the evidence presented must be the
document itself. However this is not without exceptions a duplicate copy may be
presented. As in this case Rule 130 Section 3 par. B finds application- whenever the
document is in the possession of or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered after reasonable notice has been given to the party.
Furthermore, it must be noted that when the duplicate were being presented there
was no objection raised from the Banks counsel. Thus, granting arguendo that the
said documents were duplicates they were nonetheless admissible because of the
waiver of the other party.

2. Alfonso Vallarate v. CA and PP

Facts: Alfonso Vallarta was appointed as a warehouseman-cashier in the National
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) and he continued in the said position until
December 21, 1956. When the money-property accountability of Vallarte was
audited the it was found out that he was missing an amount of P253.18 in cash,
353 cavans of rice and 50 kilos of rice, 5 cavans and 36 kilos of palay . He was
credited with the 4% shrinkage allowance of 4% of the stock received. He was
charged with malversation under Art. 217 of the RPC. The Trial Court found the
Accused guilty. Vallarte, through counsel filed a Motion for New Trial but this was
denied. He raised the case to the Court of Appeals citing several errors allegedly
committed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the Court erred in appreciating the documentary evidence
adduced to prove the guilt of Vallarate.
Ruling: The Court did not err in appreciating what was presented in the lower court.
Petitioner wishes that he be found not guilty on the basis of the affidavit of two
additional witnesses. However it must be noted that these were not signed.
Affidavits are not considered as best evidence. There use should be regulated by
the hearsay rule. Likewise the uncollected vouchers cannot be given weight. Even if
they are indeed documentary evidence and are admissible because there was no
objection raised on the part of the prosecution it is basic in the rules of evidence
that while a document may be admissible its evidentiary value is up for the court to
decide.
The lower court was therefore correct and the court of appeals was therefore correct
in not appreciating the evidence offered by Flavio Vasquez. As a signed carbon copy
or duplicate or a document executed at the same time or near the same time as the
original is considered as an original document under Rule 130 Section 4 par. B
however it is worth noting that while the document is a carbon copy of the original
there was no authentication therewith. There was also no explanation as to why
public officer who had custody of the same was not presented to authenticate it.

3. PP. V. Mario Tandoy