TITLE VDA DE CORPUZ V BRABANGCO (1963)

Facts Tiburcia Brabangco is the declared owner of two parcels of land. The surviving widow and children of German Corpus alleged that they were sold by the former to Corpus in 1925 for P450, of which P300 was paid right upon the execution of the deed of sale in due form, as witnessed by Pablo and Bonifacio Villareal and acknowledged by Tiburcia before the Notary Public, Jose Tirador. The balance was also alleged to have been paid by Corpus to Tiburcia, as evidenced by a receipt. Corpus heirs claim that Corpus had been in possession of said lands from 1925 until his death. Six months after Corpus death, however, the defendants, with the aid and protection of policemen, entered the property, cut down and carried away 1,000 bamboos as well as 2 and sacks of corn. Tiburcia denied having sold the land, alleging that she simply accommodated and allowed the Corpuses to build their evacuation cottage when Japanese forces occupied the Philippines. Corpus heirs could not produce the deed of sale, however, which had allegedly been lost during the war. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs and upheld the sale.

Issue Were the heirs of Corpus able to establish the contents of the deed of sale despite the absence of the original document?

Held Held: Yes. As the heirs alleged, the original deed of sale signed by Tiburcia was lost during the war. Corpus heirs made efforts to trace the whereabouts of Notary Public Jose Tirador to get a copy of the deed, but the latters children said that their parents were already dead and that their house in chich their father had kept his documents had burned down. The existence of the deed, however, was convincingly proven not only by the testimony of Corpus widow, and by the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence, but also by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Ableza, a municipal counselor who served as one of the witnesses in the execution of the sale. After proper proof of the due execution and delivery of the instrument, and its loss or destruction, oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document or read it.

Doctrine(s) It is not necessary that the witness should be able to testify with verbal accuracy as to the contents of a lost instrument; it is sufficient that the contents are stated in substance. Witnesses cannot be expected to recite the content word for word. It is enough if intelligent witnesses have read the paper and can state substantially its contents and import with reasonable accuracy.

VILLA REY TRANSIT V FERRER (1968)

It is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Neither is it required that the party entitled to the custody of the

Best Evidence Rule | Alegre

Jose Villarama sold his 2 CPC to PANTRANCO with the condition that the seller "shall not for a period of 10 years from the date of this sale, apply for any TPU service identical or competing with the buyer." Barely 3 mos. thereafter, Villa Rey Transit Inc was organized where Natividad, wife of Jose Villarama, was one of the incorporators. It was granted provisional permit to operate by PSC. However, 2 of its CPC were sold to Ferrer who then sold them to Pantranco. Villa Rey Corp filed for annulment of the sheriffs sale and sale to Pantranco. Pantranco filed a 3rd party complaint against Villarama invoking the restriction clause.

WON the photostatic copies of the ledger entries and vouchers showing that Villarama had comingled his personal funds and transactions with those made in the name of the Corporation were admissible

YES. 2nd, 3rd, 4th requisites admitted by Villarama. First element also met, even if lost. Taking account of the foregoing evidence, together with Celso Rivera's testimony,16 it would appear that: Villarama supplied the organization expenses and the assets of the Corporation, such as trucks and equipment;17 there was no actual payment by the original subscribers of the amounts of P95,000.00 and P100,000.00 as appearing in the books;18 Villarama made use of the money of the Corporation and deposited them to his private accounts;19 and the Corporation paid his personal accounts.20 Villarama himself admitted that he mingled the corporate funds with his own money.21 He also admitted that gasoline purchases of the Corporation were made in his name22 because "he had existing account with Stanvac which was properly secured and he wanted the Corporation to benefit from the rebates that he received."23 The foregoing circumstances are strong persuasive evidence showing that Villarama has been too much involved in the affairs of the Corporation to altogether negative the claim that he was only a part-time general manager. They show

Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse party, thus: (1) opponent's possession of the original; (2) reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original; (3) satisfactory proof of its existence; (4) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court.

beyond doubt that the Corporation is his alter ego.

instrument should, on being notified to produce it, admit having it in his possession.14 Hence, secondary evidence is admissible where he denies having it in his possession.

COMPANIA M ARITIMA V ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION (1977)

The union was performing arraste and stevedoring services for the companys vessels. It was stipulated that the union shall be paid by cargo owners and consignees. The latter refused to pay for the stevedoring services. The contract was verbally renewed. Pending a certification case filed by the union to be the exclusive bargaining unit of the employees, the company later on terminated the contract. It entered into a new contract with ISA. The union picketed for nine days. The company filed for rescission, injunction, and damages. TC ruled against the union.

WON the accountants reports (damages suffered by the company only amounted to 349,245.37, and not 450,000) are admissible by virtue of Sec 3(c), Rule 130

NO. The voluminous character of the records was not duly established. It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the company, of the summary may be tested on cross-examination (29 Am Jur 2nd 517-8; 32A C.J.S. 111). What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made by, or the testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the like" (Anno 52 ALR 1266). That general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court (29 Am Jur 2nd 529).

CITIBANK V TEODORO (2003)

Efren Teodoro was a credit cardholder of Citibank. He refused payment saying that the amt demanded did not correspond to his actual obligations. Pet filed a complaint for collection. During trial, pet presented photocopies of several sales invoices or charge slips.

WON the photocopies were admissible

NO. Offeror failed to prove any of the exceptions as well as the conditions of admissibility. The existence of the original sales invoices was established by the photocopies and the testimony of Hernandez. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that the originals had been lost or could not be produced in court after reasonable diligence and good faith in searching for them. Indeed, the loss of the originals and reasonable diligence in the search for them were conditions that were not met, because the sales invoices might have been found by Equitable. Hernandez, testifying that he had requested the originals from Equitable, failed to show that he had subsequently followed up the request. Also, triplicates were produced, although the cardholder signed the sales invoice only once.[19] During the trial, Hernandez explained that an original copy had gone to respondent, another to the merchant, and still another to petitioner. Petitioner failed to show that all three original copies were unavailable, and that due diligence had been exercised in the search for them.

Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.[14] The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the sound discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary. When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be

Best Evidence Rule | Alegre

used without accounting for the other originals. TENEBRO V CA (2004) Veronico Tenebro, in his life, contracted 3 marriages. After the 2nd wife Ancajas learned of the 3rd marriage and upon verifying the existence of the 1st marriage, Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy. Tenebro denied the validity of the 1st marriage. RTC found him guilty. WON the first marriage was valid considering the NSO and Civil Registrar Certificates saying that the respective offices do not have a record of the 1st marriage YES. Prosecution presented sufficient evidence, oral and documentary to prove first marriage. (Documentary: copy of the marriage contract and handwritten letter of 1st wife to Ancajas). Pursuant to Sec 7, Rule 130, the certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between petitioner and Villareyes on November 10, 1986, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. The NSO and CR cert. do not attest as a positive fact that there was no marriage celebrated, only that they do not have a record of the marriage. YES. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, the prosecution adduced preponderant evidence to prove the existence, the due execution and the authenticity of the said checks and charge invoices consisting of the admission of no less than the petitioner in his counter-affidavit. The petitioner admitted therein that he received the total amount ofP1,500,150.00 from VMCI in full payment of the delivery and sale of the empty bags by NMI to VMCI and that the said amount was in the custody of the said corporation. With the admissions of the petitioner in his counter-affidavit, the prosecution even no longer needed to adduce evidence aliunde to prove the existence, due execution and the authenticity of the charge invoices and the checks.

LEE V PEOPLE (2004)

NMI, in 3 separate transactions, sold and delivered to VMCI pieces of empty white bags evidenced by charge invoices. As payment, VMCI issued 2 BPI checks payable to the order of NMI. NMIs trustee, upon dissolution, requested stockholder/president Lee to turn over the payment of VMCI. It then filed a complaint for estafa against Lee. The accused objected to the admission of the photocopies of the checks and charge invoices.

WON the TC properly admitted in evidence the photocopies of the checks and charge invoices in lieu of the original copies thereof.

Best Evidence Rule | Alegre

(NOTE: The prosecution offered the photocopies of the invoices in evidence to prove the contents thereof: (a) VMCI purchased 203,500 empty bags from NMI for the total price of P1,500,150.00; (b) VMCI received the said goods in good order and condition; and (c) NMI charged VMCI for the purchase price of said goods. The prosecution offered the checks to prove the contents thereof as well as the following: (a) VMCI drew and delivered the checks to the NMI; (b) the said checks were endorsed by the petitioner; and (c) the said checks were deposited by the petitioner with the Solidbank which was not the official depository of NMI. )

Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery, and modern technique of electronic copying, the best evidence rule was designed to guard against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the introduction of altered copies and the withholding of the originals. But the modern justification for the rule has expanded from the prevention of fraud to a recognition that writings occupy a central position in the law. The importance of the precise terms of writings in the world of legal relations, the fallibility of the human memory as reliable evidence of the terms, and the hazards of inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns addressed by the best evidence rule. The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents;40 (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places.41 It has been held that where the missing document is the

CONSOLIDATED BANK V DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS (2005)

Pet extended a loan of 1M to Resps as evidenced by a promissory note. Resps defaulted despite demands by pet. Pet filed for collection of sum of money and sought the admission of the photocopy of the promissory note. TC granted resps opposition. Case was dismissed.

WON there was a need to present original copy of the PN

NO. BER does not apply. (The content of the PN was not subject of inquiry.) 1) The defendants failed to deny specifically and under oath the due execution and genuineness of the document. This judicial admission sufficiently established resps liability. 2) Had it been given the opportunity, petitioner could have sufficiently established the original of the PN, calling into application one exception.

foundation of the action, more strictness in proof is required than where the document is only collaterally involved Best evidence rule first appeared in the yr 1699-1700 in one case involving a goldsmith, Holt, C.J. stating that stating that they should take into consideration the usages of trade and that "the best proof that the nature of the thing will afford is only required." Rationale: RISK OF MISTRANSMISSION
1)

2)

3)

Precision in presenting exact words is beyond average importance Substantial hazard of inaccuracy in making a handwritten or typewritten copy Special risk of error in oral testimony based on memory

REPUBLIC V M ARCOSMANOTOC (2012)

This is one of the civil cases filed y PCGG before the Sandiganbayan to recover the Marcoses alleged ill-gotten wealth. This case involves P200 billion of the Marcoses alleged accumulated ill-gotten wealth. It also includes the alleged use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and RPN-9 for the Marcos familys personal benefit; the alleged use of De Soleil Apparel for dollar salting; and the alleged illegal acquisition and operation of the bus company Pantranco North Express, Inc. (Pantranco). The Sandiganbayan at first admitted the evidence presented, but rendered them inadmissible as violative of the best evidence rule.

WON the photocopies presented were admissible on the theory that since they were collected by PCGG, they are public records in a public office

NO. Re Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III: Petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not presented, or any compelling ground why the court should admit these documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of the witnesses who had executed them. The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the course of its investigations does not make them per se public records referred to in the quoted rule. Record officer Maria Lourdes Magno, who testified that these public and private documents had been gathered by and taken into the custody of the PCGG in the course of the Commissions investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses was not a credible witness who could testify as to their contents. To reiterate, [i]f the writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those witnesses. Witnesses can testify only to those facts which are of their personal knowledge; that is, those derived from their own perception.[35] Thus, Magno could only testify as to how she obtained custody of these documents, but not as to the contents of the documents themselves. Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these Affidavits or Memoranda submitted to the court. Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as hearsay evidence. The origin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as early as the 18th century in Omychund v. Barker,[34] wherein the Court of Chancery said: The judges and sages of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit. The rule is, that if the writings have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those witnesses. The first ground judges have gone upon in departing from strict rules, is an absolute strict necessity. Secondly, a presumed necessity. In the case of writings, subscribed by witnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of their hands is sufficient to establish the deed: where an original is lost, a copy may be admitted; if no copy, then a proof by witnesses who have heard the deed, and yet it

Best Evidence Rule | Alegre

As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG, while it may be considered as a public document since it was taken in the course of the PCGGs exercise of its mandate, it was not attested to by the legal custodian to be a correct copy of the original. (Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court)

is a thing the law abhors to admit the memory of man for evidence.

Re Yeung Chun Kam, Yeung Chun Ho And Yeung Chun Fan: To prove its allegations, petitioner submitted the controverted Exhibits P, Q, R, S, and T. As earlier discussed in detail, these pieces of evidence were mere photocopies of the originals and were unauthenticated by the persons who executed them; thus, they have no probative value. Even the allegations of petitioner itself in its Petition for Review are bereft of any factual basis for holding that these documents undoubtedly show respondents participation in the alleged dollar salting.

Best Evidence Rule | Alegre