含羞草社区

The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (2019 amendments)introduced the new rule that a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original (the duplicate rule) subject to two exceptions:

1. 1. if a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; and
   2. it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate (rule 130, section 4[c]).

The 2019 amendments define “duplicate” as “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” (rule 130, section 4(b)).

According to the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, which drafted the 2019 amendments, the definition of “duplicate” and the duplicate rule, follows rule 4, section 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which in turn was adopted from rules 1001 and 1003 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).

The committee explained that the new rule “strikes a balance that preserves a preference for the original and, at the same time, gives due recognition to the accuracy of copies produced by modern means”.

Application of duplicate rule

Even after the 2019 Amendments took effect on 1 May 2020, the Supreme Court still applied the old rule in a 2024 case, where It denied a litigant’s appeal because the litigant merely presented photocopies of documents supporting its claim for actual damages.

The court finally applied the duplicate rule in the case of People of the Philippines v Lastimosa (3 February 2025).

In Lastimosa, the prosecution presented a photocopy of a death certificate to prove the fact and cause of death of the victim (gunshot wounds to the head and neck).

The accused appealed his conviction and argued that since no autopsy report was presented, he should be acquitted because the death certificate is inadmissible in evidence, and there is thus no proof that the proximate cause of the victim’s death was the gunshot wounds.

The court denied the appeal and ruled that the photocopy of the death certificate is a duplicate under the 2019 amendments and is admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original.

Applying the dictionary definition of a photocopy, which is a “counterpart produced by the same impression as the original through action of light on an electrically charged surface”, the court held that this clearly falls within the definition of a duplicate. The court also ruled that there is no allegation, much less proof, that it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate; hence, the court applied the duplicate rule.

The court also applied the 2019 amendments retroactively, even if the photocopy was presented in court in 2014, or before the effectivity of the 2019 amendments, citing the rule on the retroactive application of a procedural rule. The court concluded that “there is neither a defeat of a substantive right nor injustice due to the retroactive application of the new rule on duplicates”.

Significance of the application

The application of the duplicate rule marks a significant shift on the court’s approach to admitting documentary evidence. It reflects an emerging trend in other jurisdictions on the increasing loss of relevance of the traditional “best evidence rule”, and underscores a departure from an overly technical approach to adjudication in favour of deciding cases on their substantive merits.

The new rule finds special significance when read together with the expanded definition of “documentary evidence” to include not just writing, but also recordings, photographs (including videos), words, sounds, numbers, or their equivalent.

What then are the limits to the application of the duplicate rule? Is it limited to private documents, or does it extend to public documents? If corporate records are stored electronically, are they still admissible if these records were transferred from one cloud data storage service to another? Would the electronic re-recording of an original document, or a duplicate of a duplicate, still have the same treatment as an original in terms of admissibility?

Whatever novel question to be decided by the Supreme Court on the duplicate rule, it makes sense to be guided by what led to the liberalisation of the rule in the first place: “When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original.”

Anthony Jacoba is a partner at Ocampo & Suralvo in Manila

Ocampo & Suralvo
6th Floor, Liberty Center Bldg.
104 HV Dela Costa St., Salcedo Village
Makati City, Metro Manila – 1227, Philippines

Contact details:
T: +632 8800 6157
E: info@ocamposuralvo.com