You are on page 1of 1

People v.

Tan (Short title) ISSUE/S


GR # L-14257 | July 3, 1959 1. W/N duplicates/triplicates are admissible
Petitioner: The People of the Philippines
Respondent: Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan as Judge of the Court of First PROVISIONS
Instance of Manila. Br. Xiii, Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales, Angelita Centeno, Rule 130
Julia Carpio, Calixto Hermosa, and Crispula R. Pagaran alias Pula Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of
(Rule 130, Section 2.4) writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)
DOCTRINE Section 4. Original of document. —
When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same (a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject
time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as of inquiry.
originals. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
FACTS originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being
- Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales et. al were charged with falsification of public copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are
documents in their capacities as public employees. likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)
- They made it appear that supplies and/or merchandise were purchased
for calamity indigents as made to appear in the documents, when no RULING & RATIO
such distributions had ever been made. 1. Yes
- The prosecution presented as witness the salesman who issued the - This matter has received consideration from Moran, the foremost
triplicates contained in a booklet of receipts of the Metro Drug commentator on the Rules of Court.
Corporation. According to the witness, the original invoices were sent to - "When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of
Manila office, duplicates to customers, and triplicate put in the booklet. writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet,
- As the witness was explaining, Judge Tan interrupted the proceeding including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces 2
holding that the triplicates are not admissible unless proven that the facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
originals were lost and cannot be produced. reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or
- Another witness, the accountant of the Corporation, declared that sales exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
in the provinces were reported to the Manila office and that the originals duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as
of the sales invoices are transmitted to the main office in support of such without accounting for the nonproduction of the others."
cash journal sheets, but that the original practice of keeping the original - Also in People vs. Quinones, a carbon copy of the original and bearing
copies no longer prevails as the originals are given to the customers, as it does the signature of the appellant, is admissible in evidence and
while only the duplicate copies are submitted to the office. possess all the probative value of the original, and the same does not
- After the cross-examination of the accountant, the prosecution again require an accounting for the non-production of the original.
went back to the identification of the triplicate invoice. It was at this - Other authors on the law on evidence also have sustained the theory of
stage that the judge below told the prosecution that the law applicable is the admissibility of duplicate originals.
Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, which requires the - We find that the ruling of the court below to the effect that the triplicates
production of the originals. formed by the used of carbon papers are not admissible in evidence,
- In response, the special prosecutor claimed that the prosecution would without accounting first for the loss of the originals is incorrect and must
not be able to secure the production of the originals on account of loss. be reversed.
- In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution announced its
intention to file a petition for certiorari against the ruling of the court DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the court below is hereby ordered to proceed
below. Hence this petition. in the trial of the case in accordance with this ruling. No cost. So ordered.

NOTES

You might also like