PHILIPPINES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alexander J. Poblador, Dino Vivencio A. A. Tamayo, Anzen P. Dy and Justin Christopher C. Mendoza, Poblador Bautista & Reyes Law Offices
would be “admissible to the same extent as an origi- nal”, thus: “(a) An ‘original’ of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An ‘original’ of a photograph includes the negative or any print there- from. If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or oth- er means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an ‘original.’ (b) A ‘duplicate’ is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re- recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. (c) 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) in the circum- stances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the dupli- cate in lieu of the original”. There were differences, however, among judges, court staff, and lawyers in the interpretation of the term “duplicate”. Some believed that a “duplicate” referred only to a literal carbon copy – a document executed simultaneously with the original (and therefore no dif- ferent from an “original”) – while others held the view that a “duplicate” necessarily contemplated a plain photocopy. To be safe, most lawyers adopted a con- servative approach and simply followed the traditional “Best Evidence Rule” they had become accustomed to; they offered the original and, if not available, made sure to lay the appropriate factual foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence. People of the Philippines vs . YBO Lastimosa , G.R. No. 265758, 3 February 2025 (“Lastimosa”) settled the debate wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a photocopy is precisely the “duplicate” contemplated under the 2019 revisions to the Rules on Evidence. In the words of the High Court, “(a) photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as the orig- inal absent any genuine question as to the authenticity
of the original or a showing that it is unjust or ineq- uitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original”. In Lastimosa , a murder conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground, among others, that the prosecution had failed to prove the death of the vic- tim beyond reasonable doubt. One of the accused’s arguments was that the trial court should not have given any probative value to the photocopy of the vic- tim’s death certificate. In overruling the accused, the Court, after tracing the history of the “Best Evidence Rule”, noting the passage of the 2001 Rules on Elec- tronic Evidence, and pointing out that the new rule on admissibility of “duplicates” was reproduced from the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, held that “the duplicate of any original, whether an electronic data message, electronic document, or paper-based document, is admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) under the cir- cumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original”. The Supreme Court’s formulation is strikingly similar to the principle typically applied in commercial and construction arbitrations, that is, as a rule, a purported photocopy of a document will be admitted and treated as authentic, and will be considered by the arbitral tri- bunal, unless a party immediately questions its genu- ineness and authenticity. That said, with the advent of various tools and tech- nologies to fabricate and mimic authentic documents, courts and litigants can be expected to be more vigi- lant in assessing whether a “genuine question” ought to be raised about the authenticity of a “duplicate” or the original that it purports to be a “duplicate” of. Proving “shareholder” status Although a shareholder may not control a company, under Philippine law, a stockholder has various rights, including the right to vote for the election or removal of directors, the right to vote on critical and fundamental corporate acts (including, but not limited to, amend- ments to the company’s charter, mergers and con- solidations, and the disposition of all or substantially all of the corporation’s assets), the right to inspect corporate records, and the right to bring a derivative
460 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook