Rule 130.
indubitable certainty of the existence of any sensible
There are four sources of evidence that may be presented in
court:
1. Real or Object Evidence- the presentation of a physical
object in court
2. Testimonial Evidence- testimony of persons whether
oral or written
3. Circumstantial evidence- by inference from other facts
which are known
4. Documentary evidence- offer of documents
RULE 130 SECTION 1 OBJECT EVIDENCE
Section 1. Objects as evidence are addressed to the senses of
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it
may be exhibited to or examined or viewed by the court.
What is object evidence?
Evidence furnished by the thing the things themselves, on view
or inspection
Is what which is directly to the senses of the court, as by actual
sight, hearing, taste, smell, or touch
In contrast with other sources of evidence:
It is not a description of them by the mouth of a witness
It does not refer to a perception of the witness and a
recollection of that perception
Not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness
What is the rationale behind the admissibility of Real/ Object
Evidence?
It allows the court, instead of relying on the recollection
of the witness, to have its own firsthand perception of
the evidence
to a rational man of perfect organization, the best and the
highest proof of which any fact is susceptible is the evidence of
his senses.
o This is the ultimate test of truth, and is, therefore, the
first principle in the philosophy of evidence
o The evidence from ones own senses furnishes the
strongest probability and indeed the only perfect and
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
fact
Some examples:
1. exhibition of the person to show his missing limbs, scars,
wounds, skin color
2. the weapon used in attacking the victim
3. in infringement cases of musical compositions, the music may
be listened to by the court
Probative Value of Object Evidence
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of
truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence
such that when physical evidence contradicts the testimonial
evidence, the physical evidence should prevail
but failure to present will not necessarily weaken the evidence
presented
Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence
1. the evidence must be relevant and not excluded by the rules or
the law
2. the evidence must be authenticated
3. the authentication must be made by a competent witness
4. the object must be formally offered in evidence.
Authentication
Threshold question: is it the actual object that it is claimed to
be? Is it the real thing?
It must be shown that it is the very thing that is either the
subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove
an issue in the case
Authentication by a competent witness
To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should
identify the object to be the actual thing involved in the
litigation.
The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as
the very thing involved in the litigation.
o He must have actual and personal knowledge of the
thing he is presenting
the following may be Real Evidence:
1. Articles or persons which may be exhibited inside or
outside the courtroom
2. Inspection of objects or places
1
 3. Experiment
1. People vs. Manalo 219 S 656
Facts:
1. the Accused Manalo was charged with two counts of murder of
the victims Bonilla and Diomampo. Both informations stated
that Manalo shot both victims using a an unlicensed pistolized
Colt Caliber .45, with Serial No. 362134.
2. During the trial, the court gave credence to the testimony of
the witness Carlos Lacbay. He stated that, and as the court has
summarized:
a. one night of November 1981, Lacbay visited the victims
to pick up some camote and wine. After their
conversation, the victims decided to accompany
Lacbay home and each rode their respective tricycles.
b. When they arrived to the place of delivery of the
camotes, appellant Manalo approached the victims and
Lacbay and invited them to his home for drinks.
c. After Diomampo and Bonilla entered the house of
appellant and were about to reach the interior portion
thereof, appellant, who was then at the doorway
followed behind by Lacbay, suddenly and without any
warning shot Diomampo once on the head and then
Bonilla also once on the temple at a distance of about
three (3) meters from behind, with a .45 caliber pistol
with a magazine. Diomampo and Bonilla fell down to
the floor dead. Thereafter, appellant again fired one
more [shot] at Diomampo. Lacbay who was standing a
meter behind appellant, was so shocked that he was
unable to move.
3. Decision of the Trial Court; guilty: the trial court found the
accused Manalo guilty of 2 counts of Murder beyond reasonable
doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by accused praying for the reversal
of the finding of guilt of Manalo. He assigns as error, among all
others, the absence of physical evidence showing that he
himself fired a gun using the paraffin test.
Issue: Should the appellant be acquitted by reason of the failure to
present physical evidence that he indeed fired the gun that killed the
two victims?
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
Ruling: No.
The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would
not prove his innocence. In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin
test and the same yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely
concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a
gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands
are washed before the test.
The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be
no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was
fired from a .45 Caliber pistol
2. People vs. Malimit 264 S 167
Facts:
1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide of the victim Malaki.
2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two
witnesses Batin the home cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a
neighbor that:
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to
his store, Batid proceeded to the said store to ask if he
was to prepare supper. Much to his surprise, he saw the
appellant Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo,
while his boss was bathing in his own blood on the
floor.
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters
away from the store, also saw appellant Jose Malimit
rushing out through the front door of Malaki's store with
a bloodstained bolo. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit
3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit
with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and
was sentenced with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all
others to support his prayer for acquittal, he argues that the
admission as evidence of the victims wallet with its contents,
and a bunch of keys violates his right against self-
incrimination.
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to
the admission of object evidence?
2
Ruling: No.
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental
law finds no application in this case. It is simply a prohibition against
legal process to extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will,
admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but
an object evidence. Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in
his treatise on evidence, thus, said:
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only
for his [physical control of his] own vocal utterances, but
also for his physical control in whatever form exercise,
then, it would be possible for a guilty person to shut
himself up in his house, with all the tools and indicia of his
crime, and defy the authority of the law to employ in
evidence anything that might be obtained by forcibly
overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender
of the evidential articles a clear reduction ad absurdum.
In other words, it is not merely compulsion that is the
kernel of the privilege, . . . but testimonial compulsion
Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the
admissibility of evidence as violations of Miranda rights will only have
the effect of making the extrajudicial confession or admissions during
custodial investigation inadmissible.
Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his
rights, these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of
Malaki's wallet, identification card, residence certificate and keys for
the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the
wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet
taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card,
residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on the other
hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence
are inadmissible, the same will not detract from appellant's culpability
considering the existence of other evidence and circumstances
establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime
charged.
3. People vs. Jumamoy 221 S 333
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
Facts:
1. Jumamoy was charged with Murder and Qualified Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.
2. It as established during trial that:
a. One evening of April 1987, victim Miel with his brother
and some other companions went to the disco of St.
Paul Academy in the Cultural Center if Inabanga Bohol.
b. While the friends were conversing with each other, all
of a sudden, the appellant Jumamoy appeared in front
obliquely to the right of the victim and fired three
successive shots at the latter who slumped and fell to
the ground.
3. The trial court rendered a decision finding guilt on both
charges.
4. Hence, the present action by the appellant Jumamoy arguing
among all others that he should be acquitted because the
prosecution failed to present and introduce as evidence the
firearm which was allegedly used in killing the victim.
Issue: Should the appellant Jumamy be acquitted on the failure of the
prosecution to present the firearm used?
Ruling: No.
1. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires the
prosecution to do so; there is also no law which prescribes that
a ballistics examination be conducted to determine the source
and trajectory of the bullets.
2. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution
establishes by proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was
committed and that the accused is the author thereof.
3. The production of the weapon used in the commission of the
crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such
a burden for the weapon may not have been recovered at all
from the assailant.
4. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many
criminals would go scotfree and much injustice would be
caused to the victims of crimes, their families and society.
5. In the instant case, it was established with moral certainty
that the accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim
Rolando Miel with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon
the latter multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death.
Such proof was all that was needed for the conviction of the
accused.
3

4. People vs. Flores 328 S 461
Facts:
1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of
Murder of Antonio Garcia using a handgun
2. it was established during the trial that:
a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday
and having a drinking spree with his invited guests.
They were all at the backyard of the house of Garcia.
b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified
him as the assailant when, according to her testimony,
she saw Flores stading at arms length away from her
and 3 arms length away from his father holding and
pointing a gun towards him.
c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his
gun.
d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused
by a bullet fired from a handgun believed to be a .38
caliber. The bullet hit first the left arm of Antonio Garcia
towards the left side of his stomach and landed on his
left lung. A deformed slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by
2 centimeters was extracted from his left leg.
3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio
Garcia.
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores
contending among all others, that the gun supposedly used to
kill the victim and the slugs were never presented in evidence
as well as he tested negative during the paraffin test.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant?
Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the
paraffin test; that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the
commission of the crime and the slug recovered from the body of the
victim is of no moment.
It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not
conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time
the crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a
person discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed
his hands thereafter. Since accusedappellant submitted himself for
paraffin test 3 days after the shooting, it is likely that he has already
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of nitrates in his
hand.
It has also been held that the nonpresentation by the prosecution of
the gun used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not
fatal to the case when there is positive identification of the assailant, as
in the instant case.
RULE 130 SECTION 3 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Take note of the pre-trial provision:
No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the
trial in support of a partys evidence in- chief other than those that had
been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial except if
allowed by the court for good cause shown.
Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents
presented and offered as rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence.
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consist of
writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. (n)
What is a documentary evidence?
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other
material like objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers,
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as
proof of their contents.
RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic
documents and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall
function equivalent to a written paper-based document under
existing laws.
Purpose
4
 Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of
inquiry
It must be offered as the proof of their contents .
If it is offered for some other purpose the writings or materials
would not be deemed as documentary evidence but merely an
object evidence.
Note however that the private document may be offered and
admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence and as
object evidence depending on the purpose for which it is
offered.
o When the purpose of the document is offered to show
its existence, condition other than as proof of its
contents, it is object evidence.
Why is it important to differentiate and distinguish one from the
other? rules are different. Best evidence rule, hearsay rule, and
parol evidence rule does not apply in object evidence
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary
evidence:
1. the document must be relevant
2. the evidence must be authenticated
3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness
4. the document must be formally offered in evidence
5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules
of court or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol
evidence rule)
BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions.
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office. (2a)
Section 4. Original of document.
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which
are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies
are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,
one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
Also called the original document rule or the primary evidence
rule
The rule means that no evidence which is merely
substitutionary in its nature shall be received so long as original
evidence can be had.
The only rule which requires the production of the original
writing.
The rule does not pertain to the weight or probative value of
the document but merely requires that the original document is
what should be presented
What is the rationale behind the best evidence rule?
There is a need to present to the court the actual and exact
words of the writing so as prevent fraud or mistake in the proof
of the contents of the writing
To prevent erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing
5

When does the Best Evidence Rule apply?
The law only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document
The subject of the inquiry must be the contents and not the
truth of the documents itself
The best evidence does not apply to external or
collateral facts about the document
o When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns
some external fact about the document such as
existence, execution, or delivery without reference to
its terms, the best evidence rule cannot be invoked.
What is the effect of the best evidence rule?
It prevents the party from proving the contents of the writing
by oral testimony or by using a copy thereof if the original itself
is available.
What are the documents that are considered as original?
Generally, it refers to the original as the first one written from which
mere copies are made, transcribed or imitated.
However, subsequent documents may also regarded as originals:
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies
are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,
one being copied from another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
Hence, the following are considered as originals:
o when a document is executed in several duplicate
originals
o writings with identical contents by mass production
(e.g., newspapers)
o copies through carbon sheets
o documents executed in duplicate or multiplicate form
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
o printout of an electronic document
not originals:
o photocopies of a form
o facsimile
o certified true copies of public documents
How should the best evidence rule be applied?
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a
document, and the contents thereof are the subjects of the inquiry,
then the best evidence must be applied.
The rule requires that the original document must be presented
and not merely a copy thereof.
Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as
the latter is available.
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be
presented in court, the party must:
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to
present the original of the document and
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the
Rules of Court
What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present
the original of the document for the court to allow presentation
of substitutes or secondary evidence?
1. when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror
2. when the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice
3. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents ehich cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole (e.g., the best evidence of
elections results are the ballots themselves, however, checking
each and every ballots would be impractical. Hence, the returns
may be used instead)
4. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office
other reasons:
the document is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
6
 when the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects
and monuments such as tombstones
2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, 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.
Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of
loss, destruction, or unavailability of the original
1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the
original document
2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by
his bad faith
after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents
may now be proven by secondary evidence.
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly
followed:
1. copy of the original
2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
document
3. testimony of witnesses.
Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's
custody or control. If the document is in the custody or under the
control of adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it.
If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails
to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in
the case of its loss.
Mere fact that the document is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party will not ipso facto authorize the
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
presentation of secondary evidence. The following must be
shown:
(1) That the original exists
(2) That the said document is under the custody or control
of the adverse party
(3) That the proponent/ offeror of the secondary evidence
have the adverse party notice to produce the original
document
i. May be done through a motion to produce the
document
ii. Subpoena duces tecum
(4) The adverse party failed or refused to produce the
original document despite the reasonable notice
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a
public record. When the original of document is in the custody of
public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody
thereof.
Why? There are instances when the original of a document is a public
record or is recorded in a public place. Public records are generally not
to be removed from the placed where they are recorded.
Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is
sufficient as secondary evidence
Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals
consisting of numerous accounts
(1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
(2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
(3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole
Hence, in this case, the court may allow a witness to offer a
summary of a number of documents. Note however that the
voluminous records must be made available to the adverse
party for verification and tested for cross examination.
Example: accountant may present a written summary of some
sales invoices
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
7

1. Borje vs. Sandiganbayan 125 S 763
JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
Q What evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and
you were no longer
performing your duties as technician?
A It is only verbal. (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)
Facts:
1. Borje was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public
Document before the RTC. during the trial of the case, it was
established by the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution that:
a. The accused, being the Provincial Plant industry Officer
of the Bureau of Plant Industry in San Fernando La
Union, falsified the Timebook, Payroll, and the Daily
Time Record of his office for the periods January to
March of 1977 and made it appear that the
complainaint Ducusin worked for such period of time.
b. Ducusin alleged that the accused made it appear that
he has claimed his wages for such period, contrary to
the fact that by January until April of 1977, he was
detailed in another position by a only a verbal order.
Hence, he could not have signed the Daily Time Record
and accept the incentives and wages therein.
2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty
as charged.
3. The Sandiganbayan upheld the decision of the lower court in
finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by the accused Borje arguing that:
a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the
crime charged because of its failure to present the
original copies of the alleged falsified documents.
b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely
affixed his signature as part of the Standard Operating
Procedure of the office payroll. He contended that there
was no actual order known by him that Ducusin was
already detailed in another position to the effect that it
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
would be established that Ducusin was no longer
entitled to incentives and payroll
Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to
convict the accused Appellant Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: No.
1st Issue: It was not established that the complainant had in fact been
ordered to be detailed in another position so as to render him without
right to receive the incentives and be included in the payroll.
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual official
procedure, a written special order issued by a government office is
cancelled, amended or modified only by another written special order,
not only for purposes of record on file but also to prevent conflict and
confusion in government operations. Moreover, under the best
evidence rule, Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the supposed
verbal order cannot prevail over the written Special Order No. 172
stated above.
2nd Issue:
In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable
that the judges and the courts have before them the document alleged
to have been simulated, counterfeited or falsified, in order that they
may find, pursuant to the evidence produced at the trial, whether or
not the crime of falsification was actually committed; in the absence of
the original document, it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of
the said original in view, that there has been a falsification of a
document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a
case, even the existence of such original document may be doubted.
2. Widows and Orphans Association (Widora), Inc. vs. CA
and Ortigas and Company 212 S 360
Facts:
1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of
title of a parcel of land alleging that they have acquired the
subject parcel of land from the heirs of the registered owner,
Mariano San Pedro as seen in the Titulo Propriedad Numero
8
 4136 or OCT no. 351. They prayed that the parcel of land be
registered in Widoras name.
2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss
alleging that land being applied for registration by Widora have
already been registered under the TCT 77652and TCT 77653 by
the Decree 1425. Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction to
decide on such.
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to
establish the contents of Decree 1425 which
purportedly included his lands in OCT 351: plan
submitted by respondent Ortigas, testimony of its
surveyor and OCT 351. The decree itself was not
submitted as evidence.
3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of
the petitioner Ortigas holding that the TCTs registered in the
name of Ortigas were not derivatives of the subject property
and are in fact derivatives of other parcels of land.
4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before
the CA to annul the decision of the RTC.
a. The CA ruled that the TCTs of Ortigas were derivative of
ICT No. 351 which covers the same parcel of land of
Widora. It ruled that OCT 351 is allegedly a copy of
Decree 1425, the mere fact that the original copy of
Decree 1425, or a certified copy thereof, can no longer
be produced, does not mean that the Decree covering
the lots subject of this case was not issued.
b. That although the TCTs of Ortigas did not reflect that it
was derived from OCT 351, the facts remains that the
parcel of land covering OCT 351 includes the 2 parcels
of land of Ortigas. Hence, there was a mistake in the
recording of the TCTs of Ortigas which stated that it was
not derived from OCT 351 but of other OCTs.
5. the petitioner elevated the case with the Supreme Court. the
Supreme court initially held that :
a. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan submitted by
respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT
351) adduced by private respondent to prove the
contents of Decree 1425 and admitted by respondent
court is merely secondary and should not have been
admitted in the first place.
Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ortigas
questioning the ruling of the Supreme Court holding the OCTs and the
survey of the engineer as inadmissible.
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
Issue: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?
Ruling. Yes.
After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable
rules of evidence, the Court considers that the word "secondary
evidence" was inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351 offered by Ortigas
was a certified true copy of the original thereof found in the
Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. 18 The admissibility
of such a copy in court proceedings is an exception to the ordinary rule
on secondary evidence; 19 such admissibility is in fact mandated by
Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). 20 Under the
Land Registration Act which was in force at the time OCT No. 351 was
issued, the original thereof found in the Registration Book of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal was an official transcript of Decree No. 1425,
with respect to the land covered by such decree situated in the
Province of Rizal. 21
Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree
No. 1425 upon which the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are
based. We believe further that the Court of Appeals was justified in
relying upon the plotting prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and his
testimony explaining the significance thereof, notwithstanding the
secondary nature of that plotting and testimony. For, as will be seen
shortly, authenticity and correctness of this survey plans and of
Engineer Angeles's explanation thereof had already been judicially
sustained in previously decided cases.
3. People vs. Tandoy 192 S 28
Facts:
1. Tandoy was charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. The information stated that the Tandoy sold
pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops which is a prohibited
drug for, and in consideration of P20.00
a. It was established during the trial that the accused was
accosted through a buy- bust operation by the Makati
Police.
b. During the trial, the marked money was not presented
in court but merely the photocopy of the same.
2. The trial court rendered a decision convicting Tandoy guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
9
 3. Hence, the present action by Tandoy arguing among all others
that it was an error for the trial court to admit the photocopy of
the marked money as such is contrary to the best evidence
rule.
Issue: Was the court wrong to admit as evidence the photocopy of the
marked money used in the buy bust operation?
Ruling: No. the best evidence rule does not apply when the evidence is
offered as an object evidence.
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an
ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Court which excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except
in the five (5) instances mentioned therein.
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 executed, 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 aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution
solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents,
other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore
admissible without the need of accounting for the original.
Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was
not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant
because the sale of the marijuana had been adequately proved by the
testimony of the police officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold
by the accused-appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure
to produce the marked money itself would not constitute a fatal
omission.
4. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and
Construction Corp. 301 S 537
1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the
petitioner Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged
checks drawn against Triumphs account in the petitioner Bank.
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks
which were drawn against the account of the accused
II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016
were all forged per findings of the PC Crime
Laboratories. That the signatures of its authorized
signatories were all forged.
b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged
were not submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies
of the checks were presented as evidence.
2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no
preponderance of evidence to support the complaint of the
petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to show
that the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did
not even present in court the originals of the checks. Neither
did it bother to explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could be
presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
3. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial
court and ordered the petitioner to reimburse the
private respondent. It held that it was not necessary for the
respondent to prove that the checks were forged because of
the admissions made by the petitioner Bank and the
unrebutted testimony of the expert witness.
4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing
that:
that the best evidence of the forgery were the original
checks bearing the alleged forged signatures of private
respondents officers. In spite of the timely objection
made by the petitioner, the private respondent
introduced in evidence mere photocopies of the
questioned checks. The failure to produce the originals
of the checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as there
would be no evidentiary basis for the court to declare
that the instruments were forgeries.
Issue: was the respondent able to establish the forgery on the checks?
Controlling issue: was is necessary for the respondent to present as
evidence the original checks?
Ruling: The respondent was not able to establish the forgery because it
did not present the original checks subject to the alleged forgery
contrary to the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court.
First, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court was not complied with by
private respondent. The Section explicitly provides that when the
subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
10
admissible other than the original document itself. This is what is
known as the best evidence rule. This is however, subject to the
exceptions stated in the same rule when secondary evidence may be
presented instead:

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss
of time, and the fact sought to be established from them is only
the general result of the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office.

In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks

had to be produced, since it was never shown that any of these
exceptions was present. What the private respondent offered
were mere photocopies of the checks in question marked as
Exhibits A, B, and C. It never explained the reason why it could
not produce the originals of the checks.

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016 11

RULE 130 SECTION 9 PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
3. Parol Evidence Rule
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or 1. Inciong, Jr. vs. CA 257 S 578
add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his 2. National Irrigation Administration vs. Gamit 215 S 436
pleading: 3. Gurango vs. IAC 215 S 332
4. CKH Industrial and Development Corp. vs. CA 272 S 333
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;

II- Araneta- Evidence- Atty. CustodioTerm 2 AY 2015-2016 12