Magdayao v.

People
G.R. No. 152881, 17 August 2004
Facts: On September 16, 1993, Engr. Magdayao was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22
for having issued to Ricky Olvis a check dates September 30, 1991, in the amount of
P600,000.00, despite not having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank, the
Philippine National Bank, Dipolog Branch. Olvis alleged that, upon learning that the check
was dishonored, Magdayao pleaded for time to pay the amount by retrieving the check and
replacing it with two other checks. Magdayao, however, reneged on his promise. Despite
repeated demands by Olvis, Magdayao failed to make good the checks value.
As evidence for the prosecution, a photocopy of PNB Check No. 399967 was admitted by the
court. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of Olvis.
Issue: Was the photocopy of the subject check inadmissible in evidence for failure of the
prosecution to produce the original dishonored check?
Held: No. The law says that the making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of
which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank,
when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer
pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full
by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such
check has not been paid by the drawee.
It was incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce in evidence the original copy of PNB Check
No. 399967 to prove the contents thereof, especially the names of the drawer and endorsee,
the date and amount and the dishonor thereof, as well as the reason for such dishonor.
Under the Rules on Evidence, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document,
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original thereof. This rule requiring the
production of the best evidence is to prevent fraud. If a party is in possession of such
evidence and withholds it and presents inferior or secondary evidence in its place, the
presumption is that the best evidence was withheld from the court and the adverse party for
a fraudulent or devious purpose which its production would expose and defeat. In case the
original is in the custody or control of the adverse party, the latter must be given reasonable
notice, and if he still fails or refuses to produce the original in court, only then may
secondary evidence be presented.
In this case, Magdayao never produced the original of the check, much less offered to
produce the same. He deliberately withheld the original of the check as a bargaining chip for
the court to grant him an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense, which he hailed to
do due to numerous unjustified postponements.
Doctrine: As long as the original evidence can be had, the court should not receive in
evidence that which is substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any
clear showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in
court. To warrant the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original of a writing is in
the custody or control of the adverse party, Section 6 of Rule 130 provides that the adverse
party must be given reasonable notice that he fails or refuses to produce the same in court.
MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. SSANGYONG CORPORATION,
respondents.
G.R. No. 170633; October 17, 2007
Facts:

Petitioner is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless steel products.
One of its suppliers is the responded, an international trading company with head office in
Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City, Philippines. The two
corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy
transmissions. Respondent would send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the
steel product order to petitioner; if the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes his
signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to the respondent, again by fax.
Respondent filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against petitioner
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In its complaint, respondent alleged that
defendants breached their contract when they refused to open the letter of credit in the
amount of US$170,000.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice Nos.
ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2.
After respondent rested its case, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that
respondent failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the civil
action was based. Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices
presented by respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of
sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A. No. 8792, because
the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal. On the other hand,
respondent posits that, from a reading of the law and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
original facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an
electronic document and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules.
Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fax transmittals (specifically ST2POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2) are admissible under the Rules on Evidence because
the respondent sufficiently explained the non-production of the original fax transmittals.
Issue:
Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence
and admissible as such?
Held:
Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the
Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means,
showing 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.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8792 defines the Electronic Data
Message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or
similar means, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail,
telegram, telex or telecopy.
The phrase but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram,
telex or telecopy in the IRRs definition of electronic data message is copied from the
Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), from which majority of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792
were taken. While Congress deleted this phrase in the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, the
drafters of the IRR reinstated it. The deletion by Congress of the said phrase is significant
and pivotal.

Moreover, when Congress formulated the term electronic data message, it intended the
same meaning as the term electronic record in the Canada law. This construction of the
term electronic data message, which excludes telexes or faxes, except computergenerated faxes, is in harmony with the Electronic Commerce Laws focus on paperless
communications and the functional equivalent approach that it espouses. Facsimile
transmissions are not, in this sense, paperless, but verily are paper-based.
[I]n an ordinary facsimile transmission, there exists an original paper-based information or
data that is scanned, sent through a phone line, and re-printed at the receiving end. [I]n a
virtual or paperless environment, technically, 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. Ineluctably, the laws definition of electronic data message, which, as aforesaid,
is interchangeable with electronic document, could not have included facsimile
transmissions, which have an original paper-based copy as sent and a paper-based facsimile
copy as received. These two copies are distinct from each other, and have different legal
effects. While Congress anticipated future developments in communications and computer
technology when it drafted the law, it excluded the early forms of technology, like telegraph,
telex and telecopy (except computer-generated faxes, which is a newer development as
compared to the ordinary fax machine to fax machine transmission), when it defined the
term electronic data message.
[T]he terms electronic data message and electronic document, as defined under the
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a
facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional
equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic
evidence.

SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS. AUTOCORP GROUP AND PAUL Y.

RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 164326, October 17, 2008
FACTS:Petitioner Seaoil Petroleum Corporation purchased one unit of ROBEX 200 LC
Excavator, Model 1994 from respondent Autocorp Group. The sales agreement was
embodied in the Vehicle Sales Invoice No. A-0209 and Vehicle Sales Confirmation
No. 258. Seaoil issued 12 checks as payment therefor; however 10 checks were not
honored by the bank since Seaoil requested that payment be stopped. Autocorp
filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and replevin in the
Regional Trial Court.
Seaoil claims that Seaoil and Autocorp were only utilized as conduits to settle the
obligation of one foreign entity named Uniline Asia, in favor of another foreign
entity, Focus Point International, Incorporated. The real transaction is that Uniline,
through Rodriguez, owed money to Focus. In lieu of payment, Uniline instead agreed
to convey the excavator to Focus. This was to be paid by checks issued by Seaoil
but which in turn were to be funded by checks issued by Uniline.
Petitioner Seaoil in sum alleges that the written agreement failed to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties, thus parol evidence is admissible.

ISSUE:
Whether or not parol evidence rule is applicable in this case.
HELD:
No. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it
cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless
there has been fraud or mistake. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of
a valid contract.
The Vehicle Sales Invoice is the best evidence of the transaction. The terms of the
subject sales invoice are clear. They show that Autocorp sold to Seaoil one unit
Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued by one Romeo Valera.