MHLE Law

MHLE Law Notarial Services • Legal Advice • Litigation Support

11/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a duplicate or photocopy of original documents, whether in paper or electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court, provided there is no genuine question regarding the original’s authenticity or fairness in using the copy.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Ybo Lastimosa (Lastimosa) for the murder of Ildefonso Vega, Jr. (Vega) in a case involving the use of a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate as key evidence.

Witnesses testified during trial that Lastimosa shot Vega in the head outside a cockpit in Cebu City. Vega’s wife also testified that Vega was already dead when she found him at the hospital. To support her testimony, the prosecution presented a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate, which confirmed that he died from gunshot wounds.

Convicted by the trial court of homicide and by the Court of Appeals of murder, Lastimosa argued before the SC that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was committed because the original death certificate was not presented. He claimed that a photocopy, without comparison to the original for authentication, should not have been admitted as evidence.

The SC affirmed the Court of Appeals, sentencing Lastimoso to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay PHP 275,000 in civil indemnity and damages. It explained that under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, a duplicate is admissible as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or it would be unfair to use the duplicate.

This rule applies to both paper-based and electronic documents, reflecting the modern reality where duplicates are often as reliable as originals.

However, the SC emphasized that while a photocopy may be admissible, its weight or value depends on how well it corroborates or supports other available evidence.

In this case, the photocopy of the death certificate, combined with the testimonies of Vega’s wife and other eyewitnesses, sufficiently established that Vega died from gunshot wounds and that Lastimosa was responsible.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://tinyurl.com/36r9m76u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mwe35fhe.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

05/05/2025

Muling iginiit ng na bagamat ipinapalagay na authentic o totoo ang mga notarized o naipa-notaryo na dokumento, mawawalan ng bisa ang mga ito kung mapapatunayang peke.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, nagpasya ang Second Division na walang pananagutan si Gil Chua (Chua) para sa hindi nabayarang PHP 150 milyong loan ng Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc. (Interbrand) mula sa Bank of Commerce.

Ang loan ay sinigurado sa pamamagitan ng promissory notes at notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) na nilagdaan ng ilan sa mga opisyal ng Interbrand. Si Chua ay nakalista bilang isa sa mga surety, pero hindi tulad ng ibang mga lumagda, hindi siya isang opisyal, direktor, o shareholder ng kumpanya.

Nang hindi mabayaran ng Interbrand ang mga pautang, idinemanda ng bangko ang kumpanya at lahat ng mga surety. Itinanggi ni Chua ang anumang pagkakasangkot. Sinabi niyang hindi siya pumirma sa isang CSA o humarap sa isang public notary. Iginiit ng Bangko na ang CSA, bilang isang notarized na dokumento, ay ipinapalagay na wasto.

Kinatigan ng Korte ang pagkwestiyon ni Chua sa bisa ng CSA. Itinanggi ni Chua ang pagpirma sa dokumento o ang pagharap sa isang notaryo. Wala siyang posisyon o interes sa Interbrand, at ang Bangko ay walang specimen ng kanyang lagda para i-verify ang CSA. Bukod pa rito, ang kanyang CSA at ng isa pa ay pinirmahan diumano sa parehong araw sa magkahiwalay na mga lokasyon pero may magkaparehong mga saksi na lalong nakadagdag sa pagdududa kung tunay ang dokumento. Hindi rin iniharap sa korte ang notary public na umano’y nagnotaryo sa CSA.

Inutusan ng Korte ang Interbrand at ang mga natitirang surety na bayaran ang Bank ng PHP 150 milyon pati interes at penalties, at PHP 1 milyon na attorney’s fees.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-forged-documents-still-void-even-if-notarized/.


Address

Dasmariñas

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when MHLE Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share