BEST EVIDENCE CASES
CASE FACTS
Arceo vs Pacifico Arceo obtained a loan from Josefino
People Cenizal. He then issued a check in favor of Cenizal,
in which he promised verbally seven times that he
would replace it with cash.
After not replacing the check, he encashed the
check but was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Cenizal went to Arceo's house to inform him of the
dishonor but he was not around anymore so he
went to Arceo's lawyer and gave him a letter giving
him three days to pay the check. When Arceo
failed, Cenizal charged him in violation of BP 22.
The lower court found him guilty.
Petitioner claims that the trial and appellate courts
erred in convicting him despite the failure of the
prosecution to present the dishonored check during
the trial. He also contends that he should not be
held liable for the dishonor of the check because it
was presented beyond the 90-day period provided
under the law. Petitioner further questions his
conviction since the notice requirement was not
complied with and he was given only three days to
pay, not five banking days as required by law.
Finally, petitioner asserts that he had already paid
his obligation to Cenizal.
Ebreo vs Felipe Ebreo died intestate leaving behind as heirs
Ebreo his five children. He left to his children an untitled
parcel of land situated in Barangay Sampaga,
Batangas City. Pursuant to the subdivision made by
their father Felipe, the land was divided into six
RULING
Applicability of the
Best Evidence Rule
Petitioners insistence on the presentation of the check in
evidence as a condition sine qua non for conviction under BP
22 is wrong. Petitioner anchors his argument on Rule 130,
Section 3, of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the best
evidence rule. However, the rule applies only where the
content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where
the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the
circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence
rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
The gravamen of the offense is the act of drawing and issuing
a worthless check. Hence, the subject of the inquiry is the
fact of issuance or execution of the check, not its
content.
Here, the due execution and existence of the check
were sufficiently established. Cenizal testified that he
presented the originals of the check, the return slip and other
pertinent documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City when he executed his complaint-affidavit during
the preliminary investigation. The City Prosecutor found a
prima facie case against petitioner for violation of BP 22 and
filed the corresponding information based on the documents.
Although the check and the return slip were among the
documents lost by Cenizal in a fire that occurred near his
residence on September 16, 1992, he was nevertheless able
to adequately establish the due execution, existence and loss
of the check and the return slip in an affidavit of loss as well as
in his testimony during the trial of the case.
The fact that tax declarations for Lot 9046-F were issued in the
name of defendant Antonio Ebreo and that he paid taxes for
the land provides no evidentiary value that he was the owner
thereof. Tax declarations are not sufficient evidence to prove
possession in the concept of owners. Considering that the
BEST EVIDENCE CASES

lots. annotation of the disputed Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is

The five heirs executed and signed a document
where they extrajudicially partitioned the property
except for one portion. They agreed that said
portion shall remain under the co-ownership of all
the heirs.
not sufficient proof of the transfer of property and inasmuch as
the subject of inquiry is the Deed of Sale, it was incumbent
on the petitioners to adduce in evidence the original or
a copy of the deed. In the absence of the said
document, the exhortations of petitioners regarding
the existence of said deed of sale must fail

However, plaintiffs were surprised to discover that

such portion of the land was declared for taxation
purposes in the name of defendant Antonio Ebreo.
Based on the plaintiffs' recitals, they alleged that
they never sold, ceded, conveyed or transferred
their rights, share and co-ownership over Lot 9046-
F.

Answering the complaint, the defendants

countered that after the execution of the document
of partition, Lot 9046-F was sold by the heirs to
Santiago Puyo. By virtue of this sale, the
corresponding Real Property Tax Declaration was
transferred in the name of Santiago Puyo as owner.
However, the deed of sale evidencing this
transaction was never presented

SSS vs Aguas Pablo Aguas, a member and pensioner of the SSS
died.
Pablos surviving spouse, Rosanna H. Aguas, filed a
claim with the SSS for death benefits on indicating
in her claim that Pablo was survived by his minor
child, Jeylnn. Her claim for monthly pension was
settled.
SSS received a sworn from Leticia Aguas-
Macapinlac, Pablos sister, contesting Rosannas
claim for death benefits. She alleged that Rosanna
abandoned the family abode approximately more
than 6 years before, and lived with another man on
whom she has been dependent for support. She
Only Jeylnn has sufficiently established her right to a monthly
pension.
Jeylnns claim is justified by the photocopy of her birth
certificate showing the signature of Pablo as her father
authenticating that Jeylnn was born on October 29, 1991.
Records show that Rosanna and Pablo were married on
December 4, 1977 which continued, as far as the records are
concerned, until the death of Pablo on December 8, 1996.
Based on the records, Jeylnn was born during the marriage of
Rosanna and Pablo. Since Jeylnn was conceived or born during
the marriage of the parents, she is considered legitimate.
BEST EVIDENCE CASES

further averred that Pablo had no legal children
with Rosanna.
A doctor testified that Pablo Aguas was infertile
When Rosanna filed a petition with the Social
Security Commission, Janet H. Aguas also claiming
to be a child of the deceased, joined Rosanna and
Jeylnn as claimants. As proof, the petition included
a photocopy of Jeylnn and Janets certificates of
live birth. SSS denied their claims but decided to
conduct hearings. During the hearings, the SSC
found sufficient proof that Rosanna contracted
marriage with Romeo dela Pena while still being
married to Pablo; that Rosanna had a child with
Romeo dela Pena while still married to Pablo (as
evidenced by the baptismal certificate presented
to the court for Jenelyn H. dela Pena showing that
the showing that she was the child of Rosanna
Hernandez and Romeo dela Pena)
The presumption that Jeylnn is a legitimate child is buttressed
by her birth certificate bearing Pablos signature, which was
verified from his specimen signature on file with petitioner. A
birth certificate signed by the father is a competent evidence
of paternity.
The Court finds that, among respondents, only Jeylnn is
entitled to the SSS death benefits accruing from the death of
Pablo, as it was established that she is his legitimate child. On
the other hand, the records show that Janet was merely
"adopted" by the spouses, but there are no legal papers to
prove it; hence, she cannot qualify as a primary beneficiary.
Finally, while Rosanna was the legitimate wife of Pablo, she is
likewise not qualified as a primary beneficiary since she failed
to present any proof to show that at the time of his death, she
was still dependent on him for support even if they were
already living separately.

The SSC ruled that because of her adultery,

Rosanna was no longer entitled to support from
Pablo. As for Jeylnn, the SCC ruled that Jeylnn was
not Pablos legitimate child, even if her birth
certificate was signed by Pablo. The SSC deduced
from the records that Jeylnn and Jenelyn was one
and the same person. Janet on the other hand was
only adopted by Pablo and Rosanna but with no
legal papers.

CA reversed the ruling based on the birth

certificates of Janet and Jeylnn showing that they
were children of the deceased.
Villarta vs CA The accused-appellant was a warehouseman-
cashier in the National Rice and Corn Corporation
(NARIC).The property and money accountability of
the accused was audited by NARIC Auditor. That at
the time of the audit, the accused was found short
of cash, cavans and kilos of rice and palay. The
A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at
the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original
and maybe introduced in evidence without accounting for the
non- production of the original. 14 But, an unsigned and
uncertified document purporting to be a carbon copy is not
competent evidence. It is because there is no public officer
BEST EVIDENCE CASES

auditor demanded of the accused to produce the
shortage but the latter failed to do so.
A criminal case for malversation was filed against
the accused
Petitioner cites several errors allegedly committed
by the Court of Appeals in affirming his conviction,
which may be summarized as follows:
1. insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt,
2. unwarranted repudiation and gross
misappreciation of documentary evidence duly
admitted, without objection by the prosecution,
3. finding that the lower court did not commit a
reversible error in denying petitioner's motion for
new trial. 3
Upon submission of the respective briefs of the
parties, the Court resolved to consider the case
submitted for decision, without petitioner's reply
brief.
acknowledging the accuracy of the copy.
The charge order submitted is at best secondary evidence and
is not admissible, unless it is made manifest that the primary
evidence is unavailable, as where it is shown that it has been
lost or destroyed, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court or is in
the hands of the opposite party who, on due notice, fails to
produce it.
Petitioner-movant here had access to a certified or a true copy
of the charge order, as it was allegedly presented as an exhibit
during the reinvestigation of the case before the office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija and there marked as "exhibit 4,
reinvestigation," and submitted to that office on 5 February
1962 17 yet, the accused did not request for a copy and
exhibit the same before the trial court. The non-production by
the accused of the original document, unless justified under
the exceptions iN Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence"
adverse to him (the accused).

The only question to be resolved is whether or not

the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed
reversible error in their appreciation of the
evidence leading to the conviction of the accused.

In the petitioner's motion for new trial before the

trial court, he sought to present, as additional
evidence, the testimonies of Messrs. Pedro
Esquivel and Pedro Perez, to rebut the claim of
Missing 6,000 empty sacks. 4 The trial court, on
this matter, stated:

The statement of Pedro Esquivel submitted to this

BEST EVIDENCE CASES

court is not signed; consequently, the same could

not be considered by it, because upon the face of
the instrument, the due execution thereof has not
been established. More than this, the two affidavits
could not be relied upon by this court for the same
are hearsay. Unless and until the two supposed
affiants of said instruments are presented in this
court, their testimony as to the contents of their
sworn statements are inadmissible in evidence.
The accused having failed to present the said two
persons, although they were available, the court
could not entertain said affidavits.
Trans Pacific Petitioner applied for and was granted several ISSUE: WON the appellate court is correct on holding that
vs CA financial accommodations by respondent those promissory notes which are copies executed at the same
Associated Bank. The loans were evidenced and time with the alleged original are not considered original
secured by four (4) promissory notes, a real estate documents
mortgage covering three parcels of land and a
chattel mortgage over petitioner's stock and
inventories. No, the appellate court is not correct. The above
pronouncement of respondent court is manifestly groundless.
Unable to settle its obligation in full, petitioner It is undisputed that the documents presented were duplicate
requested for, and was granted by respondent originals and are therefore admissible as evidence. A duplicate
bank, a restructuring of the remaining copy of the original may be admitted in evidence when the
indebtedness, as all the previous payments made original is in the possession of the party against whom the
were applied to penalties and interests. To secure evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
the re-structured loan, three new promissory notes reasonable notice (Sec. 2[b], Rule 130), as in the case of
were executed. The mortgaged parcels of land respondent bank.
were substituted by another mortgage covering
two other parcels of land and a chattel mortgage Where several originals are made out of a private document,
on petitioner's stock inventory. The released the intendment of the law would thus be to refer to the
parcels of land were then sold. According to delivery only of the original original rather than to the original
petitioner, were turned over to the bank and duplicate of which thedebtor would normally retain a copy.
applied to Trans-Pacific's restructured loan. Hence, the appellate court isnt correct.
Subsequently, respondent bank returned the
duplicate original copies of the three promissory
notes to Trans-Pacific with the word "PAID"
stamped thereon. Despite the return of the notes,
or on December 12, 1985, Associated Bank
BEST EVIDENCE CASES

demanded from Trans-Pacific payment of the

amount of P492,100.00representing accrued
interest on PN No. TL-9077-82. According to the
bank, the promissory notes were erroneously
released.

Respondent court disagreed and held, among

others, that the documents found in possession of
Trans-Pacific are mere duplicates and cannot be
the basis of petitioner's claim that its obligation
has been fully paid. Accordingly, since the
promissory notes submitted by petitioner were
duplicates and not the originals, the delivery
thereof by respondent bank to the petitioner does
not merit the application of Article 1271 (1st par.)of
the Civil Code
Ramos vs CA
People vs Mario Tandoy was accused feloniously sold eight (8) Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by
Tandoy pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops, two (2) the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing
pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops and crushed its existence and not its contents, other substitutionary
dried marijuana flowering tops, which are prohibited evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore
drug, for and in consideration of P20.00. admissible without the need of accounting for the
original.
The accused-appellant raises the following assignment
of errors in this appeal: Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust
money" was not indispensable to the conviction of the
The Court a quo erred in admitting in evidence against accused-appellant because
the accused Exh. "E-2-A" which is merely a xerox copy the sale of the marijuana had been adequately proved by the
of the P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money. testimony of the police officers.

The evidence of the prosecution may be summarized
as follows:
One of them was the accused-appellant, who said
without preamble: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?"
Singayan said yes. The exchange was made then and
there two rolls/pieces of marijuana for one P10.00
and two P5.00 bills marked ANU (meaning Anti-
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.
We are convinced from the evidence on record that the
prosecution has overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused-appellant with proof beyond
BEST EVIDENCE CASES

Narcotics Unit). reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy.
The accused-appellant invokes the best evidence rule
and questions the admission by the trial court of the
xerox copy only of the marked P10.00 bill.
He must therefore suffer the penalty prescribed by law for
those who would visit the scourge of drug addiction upon our
people.

The Solicitor General, in his Comment, correctly

refuted that contention thus:

a.This assigned error centers on the trial court's

admission of the P10.00 bill marked money which,
according to the appellant, is excluded under the best
evidence rule for being a mere xerox copy.
b.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
Fiscal vs A case for libel was filed against Andres Guevarra
Reyes alleging that with malicious intent published on a
weekly paper a squib in verse, of which a translation
into Spanish was included therein, intended to
impeach the honesty, integrity and reputation of
Clemente Dayrit and Mariano Nepomuceno.
The prosecution presented evidence the copies of the
weekly paper containing the libellous article.
The petitioner contends that the exhibits in question
are the best evidence of the libel, the subject matter
of the information, and should therefore be admitted;
while the respondents maintain that, inasmuch as the
libelous articles were not quoted in the information,
The first question raised here is whether an information
charging a libel published in an unofficial language, without
including a copy of the libelous article, but only a translation
into Spanish, is valid or not.
"The general rule is that the complaint or information for libel
must set out the particular defamatory words as published,
and a statement of their substance and effect is usually
considered insufficient." But this general rule does not exclude
certain exceptions, such as, cases where the libel is published
in a non-official language. "When the defamation has been
published in a foreign tongue, it is proper, and in general,
necessary, to set out the communication as it was originally
made, with an exact translation into English; and if from the
translation no cause of action appears, it is immaterial that
BEST EVIDENCE CASES
said evidence cannot be admitted without amending
the information. The prosecution asked for an
amendment to the information, but the court denied
the petition on the ground that it would impair the
rights of the defendant, holding that the omission of
the libelous article in the original was fatal to the
prosecution.
Heirs of A case for unlawful detainer was filed alleging that
Lourdes Saez Marcos Saez was lawful and actual possessor of the
Sabapan et al land in issue and he died leaving his heirs.
vs Cormoposa Fransisco Cormoposo who had just terminated from his
job was allowed to occupy the said lot without any
rental out of pity and for humanitarian consideration.
Francisco Comorposa left for Hawaii, U.S.A. He was
succeeded in his possession by the respondents who
the foreign words were actionable. In some jurisdictions,
however, under the influence of the liberality of laws on
practice, it is held unnecessary to set out the communication
in the foreign language in which it is alleged to have been
published, so long as the foreign publication is alleged, with an
English translation attached."
If the libelous article had been published in one of our official
languages, English or Spanish, it would have been necessary
to follow the general rule; but since the article in question was
published in the Pampango dialect, it is sufficient to insert a
Spanish translation in the information. The justice of this
exception to the general rule becomes more evident if we
consider a libelous article published, for instance, in Moro or
Chinese, who use characters different from our own.
The second question refers to the admissibility of the
aforesaid exhibits. The general rules regarding the
admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or
slander.
This being so, the rule of procedure which requires the
production of the best evidence, is applicable to the present
case. And certainly the copies of the weekly where the libelous
article was published, and its translation, constitute the best
evidence of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best
evidence of an article published in it.
The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its
probative value. Just because a piece of evidence is admitted
does not ipso facto mean that it conclusively proves the fact in
dispute.
Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err
in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling giving weight to
the CENR Officer's Certification, which only bears the facsimile
of the alleged signature of a certain Jose F. Tagorda and,
[worse], it is a new matter raised for the first time on appeal?
BEST EVIDENCE CASES
likewise did not pay any rental and are occupying the
premises through petitioners' tolerance.
A formal demand was made upon the respondents to
vacate the premises but the latter refused to vacate
the same and claimed that they [were] the legitimate
claimants and the actual and lawful possessor[s] of the
premises.
Respondents, in their Answer, denied the material
allegations of the [C]omplaint and alleged that they
entered and occupied the premises in their own right
as true, valid and lawful claimants, possessors and
owners of the said lot way back in 1960 and up to the
present time; that they have acquired just and valid
ownership and possession of the premises by ordinary
or extraordinary prescription, and that the Regional
Director of the DENR, Region XI has already upheld
their possession over the land in question when it
ruled that they [were] the rightful claimants and
possessors and [were], therefore, entitled to the
issuance of a title.
Hernaez vs
McGrath
Mahilum vs CA
People vs Cruz This is a case of paricide and Frustrated murder.
In Garvida, the Court held:
A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the
transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic matter
by scanning an original copy, one elemental area at a time,
and representing the shade or tone of each area by a
specified amount of electric current.
Pleadings filed via fax machines are not considered originals
and are at best exact copies. As such, they are not admissible
in evidence, as there is no way of determining whether they
are genuine or authentic.
The Certification, on the other hand, is being contested for
bearing a facsimile of the signature of CENR Officer Jose F.
Tagorda. The facsimile referred to is not the same as that
which is alluded to in Garvida. The one mentioned here refers
to a facsimile signature, which is defined as a signature
produced by mechanical means but recognized as valid in
banking, financial, and business transactions.
Petitioners' claim that the Certification was raised for the first
time on appeal is incorrect. As early as the pretrial conference
at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), the CENR Certification had
already been marked as evidence for respondents as stated in
the Pre-trial Order.22 The Certification was not formally
offered, however, because respondents had not been able to
file their position paper.
Neither the rules of procedure23 nor jurisprudence24 would
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been formally
offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is applicable
only to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by the rule on
summary procedure -- cases in which no full-blown trial is
held.
The appellant first contends that, assuming that he was
BEST EVIDENCE CASES
Remegio Cruz was married to Natividad Concepcion
and had a daughter. They lived in the house of the
parents of his wife. However, they got separated
because he used to beat her wife. Upon reconciliation,
they lived again together.
Remegio brought his sick wife and daughter to his
parents home. As he went to fetch the physician and
returned back with the doctor, he found that his wife
and child had already left. He followed his wife and
daughter to his wifes parents home. He tried to
convince her to live with him in Manila.
One night, Remegio and Natividad were left alone in
the ground floor while others were asleep and were
working late. Her sisters were awakened by the sound
of banging where they saw Natividad and Remegio in
the kitchen and the latter was holding a bolo. Remegio
started hacking the Natividad. The sisters called their
uncle for help however the sister was hacked by a bolo
and lost consciousness.
The uncle was awakened and the latter also swung the
bolo at him but was able to wrest away the bolo.
People vs Tan A crime of falsification of public documents were filed
against the respondents by having made it appear that
certain relief supplies and/or merchandise were
purchased by Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales for distribution
to calamity indigents or sufferers are made to appear
mentally fit at the time, of the killing, he should not have been
convicted of the crime of parricide because his marriage to
Natividad was not provided in accordance with the best
evidence rule. The best proof is of course the marriage
certificate. In the case at bar, however, the oral evidence
presented to prove the fact of marriage was not objected.
The appellant first contends that, assuming that he was
mentally fit at the time, of the killing, he should not have
been convicted of the crime of parricide because his
marriage to Natividad was not provided in accordance
with the best evidence rule. The best proof is of course the
marriage certificate. In the case at bar, however, the oral
evidence presented to prove the fact of marriage was not
objected.
A failure to object will render admissible a relevant evidence
otherwise incompetent. The Court cannot on its own motion
disregard evidence. . . . courts will not disregard evidence not
objected to, only because it should have been excluded had it
been objected to. Evidence introduced without objection
becomes property of the case. And all parties are amenable to
any favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the
evidence." FOOTNOTE No. 3
The second error assigned by the appellant and directed
against the finding of treachery in the crime committed
against Anita Concepcion, is without foundation. There is clear
proof that appellant's assault was sudden and unexpected,
thus insuring the execution of the crime without danger to
him. The evidence shows that, when Anita saw the appellant
hack her sister, she ran out of the house and cried for help
while the appellant chased her and, upon overtaking her,
struck her on the head.
It is alleged that the invoice sought to be introduced, which
were produced by the use of carbon sheets, and which thereby
produced a facsimile of the originals, including the figures and
the signatures on the originals, are regarded as duplicate
originals and may introduced as such, even without
BEST EVIDENCE CASES
in the said public documents, when in fact and in truth
no such distributions of such relief and supplies as
valued and supposedly purchased by said Pacita
Madrigal Gonzales in the public and official documents
had ever been made.
The prosecution presented to a witness a booklet of
receipts containing invoices which contained triplicate
copies where according to the witness, the original
invoices were sent to Manila office of the company, the
duplicates to the customers, so that the triplicate
copies remained in the booklet. Witness further
explained that in preparing receipts for sales, two
carbons were used between the three sheets, the
original, the duplicate and triplicate so that the
duplicates and the triplicates were filed out by the use
of the carbons in the course of the preparation and
signing of the originals.
Judge Tan, the presiding judge interrupted the
proceeding holding that the triplicates are not
admissible unless it is first proven that the originals
were lost and cannot be produced.
Another witness, accountant of the Metro Drug
Corporation in Manila, was also called by the
prosecution to testify. He declared that sales in the
provinces were reported to the Manila office of the
Metro Drug Corporation, and that the originals of the
sales invoices are transmitted to the main office in
support of cash journal sheets, but that the original
practice of keeping the original white copies no longer
prevails as the originals are given to the customers,
while only the duplicate or pink copies are submitted
to the central office in Manila.
accounting for the non-production of the originals.
The decision of the question is far from difficult. The
admissibly of duplicates or triplicates has long been a settled
question and we need not elaborate on the reasons for the
rule. This matter has received consideration from the foremost
commentator on the Rules of Court thus:
"When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more
sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon
the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be
charged thereby, produces 2facsimile upon the sheets
beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same
stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed
impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the nonproduction of
the others."
We find that the ruling of the court below to the effect that the
triplicates formed by the used of carbon papers are not
admissible in evidence, without accounting first for the loss of
the originals is incorrect and must be reversed. The court
below is hereby ordered to proceed in the trial of the case in
accordance with this ruling.