Electronic Signature

How to offer:

An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed

is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written
document. (Rule 6, Sec. 1 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

Under The pre-trial guidelines, both parties should obtain, gather, collate, and list all
their respective pieces of evidence whether testimonial, documentary, or object even prior
to the preliminary conference before the clerk of court or at the latest before the scheduled
pre-trial conference. Otherwise, pieces of evidence not identified or marked during the pre-
trial proceedings are deemed waived and rendered inutile. The parties should strictly adhere
to the principle of laying ones cards on the table. In the light of these issuances and in order
to obviate interminable delay in case processing, the parties and lawyers should closely
conform to the requirement that the offer of evidence must be done orally on the day
scheduled for the presentation of the last witness.(Heirs of Pasag vs. Sps. Lorenzo. April 27,
2007)

Objections:
- As to authenticity- that an electronic signature has not been authenticated under Rule
6, Sec. 2 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and
Verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the
Electronic signature.
- As to relevance – that the electronic signature is not relevant to the fact at issue.

Electronic Testimony
How offered:
- Not started under the Rules on Electronic Evidence in the Philippines.
- Under the Uniform Rules For The Family Court in the state of New York Section 531-A
Testimony by telephone, audio-visual means or other electronic means:
(a) In any proceeding under this article, the court may permit a party or a witness to
be deposed or to testify by telephone, audio-visual means, or other electronic means
at a designated family court or other location:
 (i) where such party or witness resides in a county other than that of the family
court where the case is pending and that of any contiguous county; provided,
however, that for the purposes of this section, the five counties of New York
city shall be treated as one county;
(ii) where such party or witness is presently incarcerated and will be
incarcerated on the date on which the hearing or deposition is scheduled and
is not expected to be released within a reasonable period of time after the date
on which the hearing is scheduled; or
(iii) where the court determines that it would be an undue hardship for such
party or witness to testify or to be deposed at the family court where the case
is pending.
(b) Any such deposition or testimony taken by telephone, audio-visual means or
other electronic means in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section shall be
recorded and preserved for transcription. Where a party or witness is deposed or
testifies by telephone, audio-visual or other electronic means pursuant to this section,
documentary evidence referred to by a party or witness or the court may be
transmitted by facsimile, telecopier, or other electronic means and may not be
excluded from evidence by reason of an objection based on the means of
transmission. The chief administrator of the courts shall promulgate rules to facilitate
the taking of testimony by telephone, audio-visual means or other electronic means.

In Matter of State of New York v Robert F. 2015 NY Slip Op 04162 Decided on May 14, 2015 it
was held that Supreme Court has the discretion to utilize live, two-way video testimony
pursuant to its inherent power, but only where exceptional circumstances so require, or when
all parties consent.
In the case stated, the State merely indicated that Dr. Peterson could not appear in court on
short notice and was somehow limited by her remaining employment with an Office of
Mental Hygiene facility.
Respondent claimed that permitting Dr. Peterson to deliver her testimony via video
conference over respondent’s objection without requiring a proper showing of exceptional
circumstances was error.
The court, however, held that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence
presented by the State (cf. Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 348 [2014]).