Xerox Copy May Be Admissible as Evidence, SC clarifies

 

Photocopies are admissible as duplicates under the Original Document Rule, subject to exceptions

Under Philippine law, a photocopy of a document may be admitted in evidence even without producing the original, provided it qualifies as a duplicate under the Revised Rules on Evidence and no applicable exception prevents its admission.

Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence embodies the Original Document Rule, which generally requires the presentation of the original document when its contents are the subject of inquiry. However, this rule must be read together with Section 4, which expressly recognizes the admissibility of duplicates.[1]

Under Section 4(b), a duplicate includes a counterpart produced through photography, mechanical or electronic reproduction, or other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduce the original. Section 4(c) further provides that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless:

1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or

2. Under the circumstances, it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in place of the original.

Supreme Court ruling

In People v. Lastimosa (G.R. No. 265758, February 3, 2025), the Supreme Court clarified that the admissibility of duplicates extends to both electronic and paper-based documents.[2]

The case involved a prosecution for murder in which a photocopy of the victim's death certificate was presented. The accused questioned its evidentiary value because the prosecution had not presented the original document.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the photocopy was inadmissible merely because it was a reproduction. It explained that, under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, a photocopy falls within the definition of a duplicate and is admissible to the same extent as the original, subject to the exceptions provided by Section 4(c).

The Court found no genuine question concerning the authenticity of the original death certificate and no showing that admitting the photocopy would be unjust or inequitable. Accordingly, it sustained the photocopy's admissibility.

The reason for the ruling is that an accurately reproduced document can establish the contents of the original without requiring its physical production in every case. The rules nevertheless protect the opposing party when the original's authenticity is genuinely disputed or when admitting the duplicate would be unfair.

Distinction from secondary evidence of an unavailable original

The admissibility of a duplicate under Section 4(c) must be distinguished from the presentation of secondary evidence under Section 5, Rule 130.

Where the original document has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, Section 5 allows proof of its contents upon establishing its execution or existence, the cause of its unavailability, and the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror. The contents may then be established through the forms of secondary evidence in the order provided by the Rule.[1]

In Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario (G.R. No. 146586, January 26, 2005), the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of adequately proving the loss or unavailability of the original document before resorting to secondary evidence.[3]

The Court found that DECS had failed to establish a sufficiently diligent search for the purportedly lost deed of donation, particularly in offices where additional copies or notarial records might have been found. Consequently, the Court denied DECS's petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling against it.

Thus, proof that an original document was lost is necessary when relying on its unavailability under Section 5, but is not a prerequisite to admitting an otherwise admissible duplicate under Section 4(c).

The two provisions address different evidentiary situations and should not be confused.

A separate requirement concerns the formal offer of evidence. In Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha (G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007), the Supreme Court emphasized that documentary evidence must be formally offered and that failure to make the offer within the required period may result in waiver.[4] That decision concerns formal offer rather than the foundation for admitting secondary evidence.

---

Related: 2022 Bar Examination

Remedial Law I — Question No. 15 (5 points)

In a case for Estafa, the prosecution offered the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt signed by the accused showing personal receipt of the sum of money from the private complainant to prove the amount of damage. Accused objected to the offer of the photocopy on the sole ground that it is a mere reproduction of the original in violation of the original document rule. The court overruled the accused’s objection and admitted in evidence the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt.

Did the court err in admitting the photocopy? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Suggested answer (ALAC method)

Answer: No, the court did not err in admitting the photocopy because a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original under the Revised Rules on Evidence, unless a recognized exception applies.

Law: Under Section 4(b) and (c), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a photocopy qualifies as a duplicate and is admissible to the same extent as the original, unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in its place.

Application: In this case, the accused objected solely on the ground that the acknowledgment receipt was a mere photocopy. The objection did not raise a genuine question concerning the authenticity of the original receipt or establish circumstances making admission of the duplicate unjust or inequitable. Consequently, the prosecution was not required to prove that the original receipt had been lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable as a prerequisite to admitting the photocopy under Section 4(c).

Conclusion: Hence, the court correctly overruled the objection and admitted the photocopy, subject to the other applicable rules on admissibility and the court's assessment of its probative value.

References

[1] "A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence" (https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html), Rule 130, Sections 3, 4 and 5; effective May 1, 2020.

[2] "People of the Philippines v. Ybo Lastimosa, G.R. No. 265758, February 3, 2025" (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_265758_2025.html), First Division, Gesmundo, C.J.

[3] "Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 146586, January 26, 2005" (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_146586_2005.html), First Division, Carpio, J.

[4] "Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007" (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155483_2007.html), Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J.

[5] "2022 Bar Examinations, Remedial Law I, Question No. 15" (https://lawphil.net/courts/bm/barQ/2022/pdf/remedial-I_Q.pdf).