Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ssanyong Corporation
Issue:
W/n the print-out and/or photocopies of
facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and
admissible in evidence.
Held:
No.
R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000,
considers an electronic data message or
an electronic document as the functional
equivalent of a written document for
evidentiary purposes. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence regards an electronic
document as admissible in evidence if it
complies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws, and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the said Rules. An
electronic document is also the equivalent
of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately.
Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an
electronic data message or to be
considered as the functional equivalent of
an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost
be an "electronic data message" or an
"electronic document."
Since a facsimile transmission is not an
"electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as
electronic evidence by the Court, with
greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax
transmission not electronic evidence.
o
In the present case, therefore,
Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2POSTS0401-1 and ST2POSTS0401-2 (Exhibits "E"
and "F"), which are mere
photocopies of the original fax
transmittals, are not electronic
evidence, contrary to the
position of both the trial and the
appellate courts.
SC: claim for actual damages was not proven, petition
partially granted, the 2 pro forma invoices were
inadmissible in evidence.
Electronic data message/Electronic document there is no original copy to speak of, as all direct
printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all
respects, and are considered as originals AND could
NOT have included facsimile transmissions, which
have an original paper-based copy as sent and a
paper-based facsimile copy as received.
2.
3.
Issue:
W/n the 2 letters sent by Villanueva were
admissible as evidence against Raz.
Held:
Yes.
Rule 132, Section 21, for one of the modes
prescribed therein for proving the execution
and authenticity of any private writing is
by evidence of the genuineness of
the handwriting of the maker.
Hence,
the
documentary
evidence
presented by Alfonso were not admissible
in evidence.
Issue:
W/n
the
prosecutions
evidence
be
admissible.
Held:
No.
All documentary evidence submitted by
Alfonso were uncertified photocopies of
certain documents, the signatures on which
were either unidentified or unauthorized.
Sec. 20, Rule 132:
Before any private document offered be
admitted in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
- By anyone who saw the
document
executed
or
written; or
- By
evidence
of
the
genuineness
of
the
signature or handwriting of
the maker
Layno vs. People and Sandiganbayan
Issue:
W/n the testimony of Mr. Pandi was
sufficient to prove the genuineness of the signature of
Layno in Appointment Document, hence, admissible in
evidence against Layno. OR
W/n Layno signed the appoinment
document presented as evidence in SB.
Held:
Both Yes.
Issue:
W/n not the CA erred in disregarding the
Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase.
Held:
Yes.
Under Section 21, Rule 132, it states that:
Where
a
private
document is more than 30 years old,
is produced from the custody in
which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of
suspicions, no other evidence of its
authenticity need be given.
Therefore, it was
unnecessary
to
Issue:
W/n the Document Examiners expert
testimony was sufficient to prove the alleged forgery.
Held:
No.
Expert testimony regarding handwriting The initial step in the investigation of a
disputed handwriting is the introduction of
the genuine handwriting of the party sought
to be charged with the disputed writing
this is to serve as a standard of
comparison.
o
In the case, the originals of the
alleged forged checks had to
be produced, since it was
NEVER shown. What the
private respondent offered were
mere photocopies of the checks
in question. It never explained
the reason why it could not
produce the originals of the
checks.
o
Hence, no basis or no standard
of comparison.
o
The testimony of the expert
witness in the case was
insufficient because of want of
standard of comparison.
In proving genuineness of handwriting
Section 22, Rule 132 must be applied.
Issue:
1.
2.
Held:
1.
2.
more
than
merely
preoponderant.
Realubit
failed
to
overcome
the
presumption of regularity of the Deed of
Assigment by clear and convincing
evidence.
SC: Petition denied, judgment affirmed. Favored
Spouses Jaso.
Issue:
W/n the notarization conclusively confer
validity on the Deed of Assignment.
Held:
Yes.
A document acknowledged before a notary
public becomes a public instrument.
Hence, its execution and authenticity
need not be proved if presented as
evidence in court.
Hence, the notarized Deed of Assignment
in the case is considered as public
document, which enjoys the presumption of
regularity and considered as a prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein.
o
A party assailing the due
execution and authenticity of a
notarized
document
is
required to present evidence
that id clear, convincing, and
Issue:
W/n the presumption of regularity on the
notarized PDR sale was overcome.
Held:
Yes.
Section 30, Rule 132 states that: (dont
mention this in the recit, just the provision)
Every instrument duly
acknowledged or
proved and
notarized by a Notary Public, may be
presented in evidence without further
proof, being prima facie evidence of
the execution of the document
involved.