Evid Last Hw

8/12/2019 Evid Last Hw

1/17

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC(2 October 2007)

RULE ON DNA EVDENCERESOLUTON

Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee on Evidence submitting for theCourts consideration and approval the proposed Rule on DNA Evidence the Court Resolved to APPR!"E the same#$his Resolution shall ta%e effect on !ctober &' ())* follo+ing its publication in a ne+spaper of general circulation#!ctober ( ())*#

RULE ON DNA EVDENCESECTON 1. Scope., $his Rule shall appl- +henever DNA evidence as defined in Section . hereof is offered used orproposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as +ell as special proceedings#Sec. 2.Application of other Rules on Evidence., /n all matters not specificall- covered b- this Rule the Rules of Courtand other pertinent provisions of la+ on evidence shall appl-#Sec. !. Definition of Terms., 0or purposes of this Rule the follo+ing terms shall be defined as follo+s1

a# 2Biological sample3 means an- organic material originating from a persons bod- even if found in inanimateob4ects that is susceptible to DNA testing# $his includes blood saliva and other bod- fluids tissues hairs andbones5

b# 2DNA3 means deo6-ribonucleic acid +hich is the chain of molecules found in ever- nucleated cell of the bod-#$he totalit- of an individuals DNA is uni7ue for the individual e6cept identical t+ins5

c# 2DNA evidence3 constitutes the totalit- of the DNA profiles results and other genetic information directl-generated from DNA testing of biological samples5

d# 2DNA profile3 means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a

person +hich biological sample is clearl- identifiable as originating from that person5e# 2DNA testing3 means verified and credible scientific methods +hich include the e6traction of DNA from

biological samples the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from theDNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining +ith reasonable certaint- +hether or not theDNA obtained from t+o or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person 8directidentification9 or if the biological samples originate from related persons 8%inship anal-sis95 and

f# 2Probabilit- of Parentage3 means the numerical estimate for the li%elihood of parentage of a putative parentcompared +ith the probabilit- of a random match of t+o unrelated individuals in a given population#

Sec. ".Application for DNA Testing Order., $he appropriate court ma- at an- time either motu proprio or onapplication of an- person +ho has a legal interest in the matter in li tigation order a DNA testing# Such order shall issueafter due hearing and notice to the parties upon a sho+ing of the follo+ing1

a# A biological sample e6ists that is relevant to the case5b# $he biological sample1 8i9 +as not previousl- sub4ected to the t-pe of DNA testing no+ re7uested5 or 8ii9 +as

previousl- sub4ected to DNA testing but the results ma- re7uire confirmation for good reasons5c# $he DNA testing uses a scientificall- valid techni7ue5

d# $he DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce ne+ information that is relevant to the proper resolutionof the case5 and

e# $he e6istence of other factors if an- +hich the court ma- consider as potentiall- affecting the accurac- ofintegrit- of the DNA testing#

$his Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing +ithout need of a prior court order at the behest of an- part- including la+enforcement agencies before a suit or proceeding is commenced#Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. , /f the court finds that the re7uirements in Section : hereof have been complied +ith thecourt shall ,

a# !rder +here appropriate that biological samples be ta%en from an- person or crime scene evidence5b# /mpose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrit- of the biological sample the

testing process and the reliabilit- of the test results including the condition that the DNA test results shall besimultaneousl- disclosed to parties involved in the case5 and

c# /f the biological sample ta%en is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of confirmator- testing b- theother or the adverse part- and +here additional biological samples of the same %ind can no longer beobtained issue an order re7uiring all parties to the case or proceedings to +itness the DNA testing to be

conducted#

An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediatel- e6ecutor- and shall not be appealable# An- petition for certiorariinitiated therefrom shall not in an- +a- sta- the implementation thereof unless a higher court issues an in4unctive order#$he grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of an- component ofthe DNA evidence that ma- be obtained as a result thereof#Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing., Post;conviction DNA testing ma- be available +ithout need of prior court orderto the prosecution or an- person convicted b- final and e6ecutor- 4udgment provided that 8a9 a biological sample e6ists 8b9such sample is relevant to the case and 8c9 the testing +ould probabl- result in the reversal or modification of the

4udgment of conviction#Sec. 7.Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence., /n assessing the probative value of the DNA evidencepresented the court shall consider the follo+ing1

a# $he chair of custod- including ho+ the biological samples +ere collected ho+ the- +ere handled and thepossibilit- of contamination of the samples5

b# $he DNA testing methodolog- including the procedure follo+ed in anal- the results of the DNA testing shall be considered ascorroborative evidence# /f the value of the Probabilit- of Paternit- is ==#=> or higher there shall be adisputable presumption of paternit-#

Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing, Remed- if the Results Are 0avorable to the Convict# , $he convict or theprosecution ma- file a petition for a +rit of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post;conviction DNAtesting are favorable to the convict# /n the case the court after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious if shallreverse or modif- the 4udgment of conviction and order the release of the convict unless continued detention is 4ustified fora la+ful cause#

A similar petition ma- be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court or +ith an- member of said courts+hich ma- conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders#Sec. 11. "onfidentialit., DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall beconfidential# E6cept upon order of the court a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testingshall onl- be released to an- of the follo+ing under such terms and conditions as ma- be set forth b- the court1

a# Person from +hom the sample +as ta%en5b# Person from +hom the sample +as ta%en5c# ?a+-ers of private complainants in a criminal action5d# Dul- authori


2/17

Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence.$he trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totalit- including allbiological samples DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing# 0or this purpose thecourt ma- order the appropriate government agenc- to preserve the DNA evidence as follo+s1

a# /n criminal cases1i# for not less than the period of time that an- person is under trial for an offense5 orii# in case the accused is serving sentence until such time as the accused has served

his sentence5a# /n all other cases until such time as the decision in the case +here the DNA evidence +as introduced has

become final and e6ecutor-#$he court ma- allo+ the ph-sical destruction of a biological sample before the e6piration of the periods set forth aboveprovided that1

a# A court order to that effect has been secured5 orb# $he person from +hom the DNA sample +as obtained has consented in +riting to the disposal of the DNA

evidence#Sec. 1!.Applicabilit to Pending "ases.E6cept as provided in Section and &) hereof this Rule shall appl- to casespending at the time of its effectivit-#Sec. 1". Effectivit. $his Rule shall ta%e effect on !ctober &' ())* follo+ing publication in a ne+spaper of generalcirculation#

A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC.- RE% RULES ON ELECTRONC EVDENCE

EN #AN"RESOLUTON

Acting on the Memorandum dated & une ())& of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court to Draft the ruleson E;Commerce ?a+ R#A# No# *=( submitting the Rules on Electronic Evidence for this Courts consideration andapproval the Court Resolved to APPR!"ED the same#

$he Rules on Electronic Evidence shall appl- to cases pending after their effectivit-# $hese Rules shall ta%e effect on thefirst da- of August ())& follo+ing their publication before the ()th of ul- in t+o ne+spapers of general circulation in thePhilippines#&*th ul- ())

RULES ON ELECTRONC EVDENCE

R$%E &COVERA&E

SEC$/!N Scope.; Fnless other+ise provided herein these Rules shall appl- +henever an electronic data message asdefined in Rule ( hereof is offered or used in evidence#SEC# (# Cases covered. ; $hese Rules shall appl- to all civil actions and proceedings as +ell as 7uasi;4udicial andadministrative cases#SEC# .#Application of the other rules on evidence# ; /n all matters not specificall- covered b- these Rules the Rules of

Court and per tinent provisions of s tatues contain ing rules on evidence shall appl-#

R$%E 'DE'NTON O' TERMS AND CONSTRUCTON

SEC$/!N Definition of Terms. ; 0or purposes of these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s18a9 Asymmetric or public cryptosystem means a s-stem capable of generating a secure %e- pair consistingof a private %e- for creating a digital signature and a public %e- for verif-ing the digital signature#8b9 Business records include records of an- business institution association profession occupation andcalling of ever- %ind +hether or not conducted for profit or for legitimate purposes#8c9 Certificate means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature +hich purports to confirmthe identit- or other significant characteristics of the person +ho holds a particular %e- pair#8d9 Computer refers to an- single or interconnected device or apparatus +hich b- electronic electro;mechanical or magnetic impulse or b- other means +ith the same function can receive record transmitstore process correlate anal-


3/17

or b- mechanical or electronic re;recording or b- chemical reproduction or b- other e7uivalent techni7ues +hich isaccuratel- reproduces the original such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the e7uivalent of the original#Not+ithstanding the foregoing copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same e6tent as the original if1

8a9 a genuine 7uestion is raised as to the authenticit- of the original5 or8b9 in the circumstances it +ould be un4ust or ine7uitable to admit a cop- in lieu of the original#

R$%E *AUTENTCATON O' ELECTRONC DOCUMENTS

SEC$/!N Burden of proving authenticity# , $he person see%ing to introduce an electronic document in an- legalproceeding has the burden of proving its authenticit- in the manner provided in this Rule#SEC# (#(anner of authentication., Before an- private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidenceits authenticit- must be proved b- an- of the follo+ing means1

8a9 b- evidence that it had been digitall- signed b- the person purported to have signed the same58b9 b- evidence that other appropriate securit- procedures or devices as ma- be authori


4/17

/f the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document then the provisions of Rule ' shallappl-#

R$%E &'E''ECTVT*

SEC$/!N Applicability to pending case., $hese Rules shall appl- to cases pending after their effectivit-#SEC# (# Effectivity., $hese Rules shall ta%e effect on the first da- of August ())& follo+ing their publication before the()th da- of ul- ())& in t+o ne+spapers of general circulation in the Phili ppines#

&.R. No. 1706!! October 17 2007

MCC NDUSTRAL SALES CORPORATON petitionervs#SSAN&*ON& CORPORATONrespondents#

D E C S O NNACURA 0.%Before the Court is a petition for revie+ on certiorariof the Decision&of the Court of Appeals in CA;H#R# C" No# (=. andits Resolution(den-ing the motion for reconsideration thereof#Petitioner MCC /ndustrial Sales 8MCC9 a domestic corporation +ith office at Binondo Manila is engaged in the businessof importing and +holesaling stainless steel products#.!ne of its suppliers i s the Ssang-ong Corporation 8Ssang-ong9:aninternational trading compan-'+ith head office in Seoul South Iorea and regional head7uarters in Ma%ati Cit-Philippines#$he t+o corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecop- transmissions#*Ssang-ong +ould send the pro formainvoices containing the details of the steel product order to MCC5 if the latterconforms thereto its representative affi6es his signature on the fa6ed cop- and sends it bac% to Ssang-ong again b- fa6#

!n April &. ())) Ssang-ong Manila !ffice sent b- fa6 a letter=addressed to Hregor- Chan MCC Manager also thePresident&)of San-o Sei%i Stainless Steel Corporation to confirm MCCJs and San-o Sei%iJs order of 220 etr/c to

8M$9 of hot rolled stainless steel under a preferential rate of US1#60.00per M$# Chan on behalf of the corporationsassented and affi6ed his signature on the conformeportion of the letter#&&!n April &* ())) Ssang-ong for+arded to MCC $ro *orma/nvoice No# ST2-POSTSO"01&(containing the terms andconditions of the transaction# MCC sent bac% b- fa6 to Ssang-ong the invoice bearing the conformit- signature&.of Chan#As stated in thepro formainvoice pa-ment for the ordered steel products +ould be made through an irrevocable letter ofcredit 8?GC9 at sight in favor of Ssang-ong#&:0ollo+ing their usual practice deliver- of the goods +as to be made after the?GC had been opened#/n the meantime because of its confirmed transaction +ith MCC Ssang-ong placed the order +ith its steel manufacturerPohang /ron and Steel Corporation 8P!SC!9 in South Iorea&'and paid the same in full#Because MCC could open onl- a partial letter of credit the order for (()M$ of steel +as split into t+o &one for 110MTcovered b- $ro *orma/nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0"01-1&*and another for &&)M$ covered b- ST2-POSTS0"01-2&bothdated April &* ()))#!n une () ())) Ssang-ong through its Manila !ffice informed San-o Sei%i and Chan b- +a- of a fa6 transmittal thatit +as read- to ship &=.#'=*M$ of stainless steel from Iorea to the Philippines# /t re7uested that the opening of the ?GC befacilitated#&=Chan affi6ed his signature on the fa6 transmittal and returned the same b- fa6 to Ssang-ong#()

$+o da-s later on une (( ())) Ssang-ong Manila !ffice informed San-o Sei%i thru Chan that it +as able to secure aFSK.)GM$ price ad4ustment on the contracted price of FSK&)#))GM$ for the ())M$ stainless steel and that the goods

+ere to be shipped in t+o tranches the first &))M$ on that da- and the second &))M$ not later than une (* ()))#Ssang-ong reiterated its re7uest for the facilitation of the ?GCJs opening#(&

Ssang-ong later through its Manila !ffice sent a letter on une ( ())) to the $reasur- Hroup of San-o Sei%i that it+as loo%ing for+ard to receiving the ?GC details and a cable cop- thereof that da-#((Ssang-ong sent a separate l etter ofthe same date to San-o Sei%i re7uesting for the opening of the ?GC covering pa-ment of the first &))M$ not later thanune ( ()))#(.Similar letters +ere transmitted b- Ssang-ong Manila !ffice on une (* ()))#(:!n une ( ()))Ssang-ong sent another facsimile letter to MCC stating that its principal in Iorea +as alread- in a difficult situation('because of the failure of San-o Sei%i and MCC to open the ?GCJs#$he follo+ing da- une (= ())) Ssang-ong received b- fa6 a letter signed b- Chan re7uesting an e6tension of time toopen the ?GC because MCCJs credit line +ith the ban% had been full- availed of in connection +ith another transaction andMCC +as +aiting for an additional credit line#(!n the same date Ssang-ong replied re7uesting that it be informed of thedate +hen the ?GC +ould be opened preferabl- at the earliest possible time since its Steel $eam ( in Iorea +as havingproblems and Ssang-ong +as incurring +arehousing costs#(*$o maintain their good business relationship and to support

MCC in its financial predicament Ssang-ong offered to negotiate +ith its steel manufacturer P!SC! another FSK()GM$

discount on the price of the stainless steel ordered# $his +as intimated in Ssang-ongJs une .) ())) letter to MCC#(!nul- ())) another follo+;up letter(=for the opening of the ?GC +as sent b- Ssang-ong to MCC#Lo+ever despite Ssang-ongJs letters MCC failed to open a letter of credit#.)Conse7uentl- on August &' ()))Ssang-ong through counsel +rote San-o Sei%i that if the ?GCJs +ere not opened Ssang-ong +ould be compelled tocancel the contract and hold MCC liable for damages for breach thereof amounting to FSK=&.(#& inclusive of

+arehouse e6penses related interests and charges#.&

?ater $ro *orma/nvoice Nos# S$(;P!S$S));&.(and S$(;P!S$S));(..dated August & ())) +ere issued b-Ssang-ong and sent via fa6 to MCC# $he invoices slightl- varied the terms of the earlier pro formainvoices 8ST2-POSTSO"01 ST2-POSTS0"01-1and ST2-POSTS0"01-29 in that the 7uantit- +as no+ officiall- 100MTper invoice andthe price +as reduced to US1700.00per M$# As can be gleaned from the photocopies of the said August & ()))invoices submitted to the court the- both bear the conformit- signature of MCC Manager Chan#

!n August &* ())) MCC finall- opened an ?GC +ith PC/Ban% for FSK&*))))#)) covering pa-ment for &))M$ ofstainless steel coil under $ro *orma /nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-2#.:$he goods covered b- the said invoice +ere thenshipped to and received b- MCC#.'

MCC then fa6ed to Ssang-ong a letter dated August (( ())) signed b- Chan re7uesting for a price ad4ustment of theorder stated in $ro *orma/nvoice No# S$(;P!S$S));& considering that the prevailing price of steel at that time +asFSK&'))#))GM$ and that MCC lost a lot of mone- due to a recent stri%e#.

Ssang-ong re4ected the re7uest and on August (. ())) sent a demand letter.*to Chan for the opening of the secondand last ?GC of FSK&*))))#)) +ith a +arning that if the said ?GC +as not opened b- MCC on August ( ()))Ssang-ong +ould be constrained to cancel the contract and hold MCC liable for FSK:)#== 8representing costdifference +arehousing e6penses interests and charges as of August &' ()))9 and other damages for breach# Chanfailed to repl-#E6asperated Ssang-ong through counsel +rote a letter to MCC on September && ())) canceling the sales contractunder ST2-POSTS0"01-1GST2-POSTS0"01-2 and demanding pa-ment of FSK=*.&*#.* representing losses

+arehousing e6penses interests and charges#.

Ssang-ong then filed on November & ())& a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against defendants

MCC San-o Sei%i and Hregor- Chan before the Regional $rial Court of Ma%ati Cit-# /n its complaint.=Ssang-ong allegedthat defendants breached their contract +hen the- refused to open the ?GC in the amount of FSK&*))))#)) for theremaining &))M$ of steel under $ro *orma/nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1and ST2-POSTS0"01-2#After Ssang-ong rested its case defendants filed a Demurrer to Evidence:)alleging that Ssang-ong failed to present theoriginal copies of thepro formainvoices on +hich the civil action +as based# /n an !rder dated April (: ()). the courtdenied the demurrer ruling that the documentar- evidence presented had alread- been admitted in the December &())( !rder:&and their admissibilit- finds support in Republic Act 8R#A#9 No# *=( other+ise %no+n as the ElectronicCommerce Act of ()))# Considering that both testimonial and documentar- evidence tended to substantiate the materialallegations in the complaint Ssang-ongJs evidence sufficed for purposes of a prima facie case#:(

After trial on the merits the R$C rendered its Decision:.on March (: ()): in favor of Ssang-ong# $he trial court ruledthat +hen plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants agreed to bu- the (()M$ of steel products for the price of FSK&) perM$ the contract +as perfected# $he sub4ect transaction +as evidenced b- $ro *orma/nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-&and ST2-POSTS0"01-2 +hich +ere later amended onl- in terms of reduction of volume as +ell as the price per M$follo+ing $ro *orma/nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0#0-1and ST2-POSTS0#0-2# $he R$C ho+ever e6cluded San-o Sei%ifrom liabilit- for lac% of competent evidence# $he falloof the decision reads1

@LERE0!RE premises considered udgment is hereb- rendered ordering defendants MCC /ndustrial SalesCorporation and Hregor- Chan to pa- plaintiff 4ointl- and severall- the follo+ing1&9 Actual damages of FSK=.:=.#* representing the outstanding principal claim plus interest at the rate of> per annum from March .) ())(9 Attorne-Js fees in the sum of P'))))#)) plus P()))#)) per counselJs appearance in court the same beingdeemed 4ust and e7uitable considering that b- reason of defendantsJ breach of their obligation under thesub4ect contract plaintiff +as constrained to litigate to enforce i ts rights and recover for the damages itsustained and therefore had to engage the services of a la+-er#.9 Costs of suit#No a+ard of e6emplar- damages for lac% of sufficient basis#S! !RDERED#::

!n April (( ()): MCC and Chan through their counsel of record Att-# Eladio B# Samson filed their Notice of Appeal#:'!n une ()): the la+ office of Castillo amora Poblador entered its appearance as their collaborating counsel#/n their Appeal Brief filed on March = ())':MCC and Chan raised before the CA the follo+ing errors of the R$C1

/# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH $LA$ APPE??AN$S "/!?A$ED $LE/R

C!N$RAC$ @/$L APPE??EE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt46


5/17

A# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH $LA$ APPE??AN$SAHREED $! PFRCLASE ()) ME$R/C $!NS !0 S$EE? PR!DFC$S 0R!M APPE??EE/NS$EAD !0 !N?O &)) ME$R/C $!NS#

$LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N ADM/$$/NH /NE"/DENCE $LE $0' *'0(A/N"!/CES @/$L RE0ERENCE N!S# S$(;P!S$S):)&;& AND S$(;P!S$S):)&;(#

//# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N A@ARD/NH AC$FA? DAMAHES $!APPE??EE#///# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N A@ARD/NH A$$!RNEOJS 0EES $!APPE??EE#/"# $LE L!N!RAB?E C!FR$A /'P?A/N?O ERRED /N 0/ND/NH APPE??AN$ HREH!RO CLAN

!/N$?O AND SE"ERA??O ?/AB?E @/$L APPE??AN$ MCC#:*

!n August .& ())' the CA rendered its Decision:affirming the ruling of the trial court but absolving Chan of an- liabilit-#$he appellate court ruled among others that Pro 0orma /nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0"01-1and ST2-POSTS0"01-28E6hibits E E;& and 09 +ere admissible in evidence although the- +ere mere facsimile printouts of MCCJs steelorders#:=$he dispositive portion of the appellate courtJs decision reads1

@LERE0!RE premises considered the Court holds18&9 $he a+ard of actual damages +ith interest attorne-Js fees and costs ordered b- the lo+er court is hereb-A00/RMED#8(9 Appellant Hregor- Chan is hereb- ABS!?"ED from an- liabilit-#S! !RDERED#')

A cop- of the said Decision +as received b- MCCJs and ChanJs principal counsel Att-# Eladio B# Samson on September&: ())'#'&$heir collaborating counsel Castillo amora Poblador'(li%e+ise received a cop- of the CA decision onSeptember &= ())'#'.!n October " 2005 Castillo amora Poblador on behalf of MCC filed a motion for reconsideration of the saiddecision#':Ssang-ong opposed the motion contending that the decision of the CA had become final and e6ecutor- on

account of the failure of MCC to file the said motion +ithin the reglementar- period# $he appellate court resolved onNovember (( ())' to den- the motion on its merits''+ithout ho+ever ruling on the procedural issue raised#Aggrieved MCC filed a petition for revie+ on certiorari'before this Court imputing the follo+ing errors to the Court ofAppeals1

$LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S DEC/DED A ?EHA? QFES$/!N N!$ /N ACC!RDANCE @/$LFR/SPRFDENCE AND SANC$/!NED A DEPAR$FRE 0R!M $LE FSFA? AND ACCEP$ED C!FRSE !0FD/C/A? PR!CEED/NHS BO RE"ERS/NH $LE C'/0T A /'1SD/SM/SSA? !0 $LE C!MP?A/N$ /NC/"/? CASE N!# )(;&(: C!NS/DER/NH $LA$1

/# $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S ERRED /N SFS$A/N/NH $LE ADM/SS/B/?/$O /N E"/DENCE !0$LE PR!;0!RMA /N"!/CES @/$L RE0ERENCE N!S# S$(;P!S$S!:)&;& AND S$(;P!S$S!:)&;( DESP/$E $LE 0AC$ $LA$ $LE SAME @ERE MERE PL!$!C!P/ES !00ACS/M/?E PR/N$!F$S#//# $LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S 0A/?ED $! APPREC/A$E $LE !B"/!FS 0AC$ $LA$ E"ENASSFM/NH PE$/$/!NER BREACLED $LE SFPP!SED C!N$RAC$ $LE 0AC$ /S $LA$PE$/$/!NER 0A/?ED $! PR!"E $LA$ /$ SF00ERED ANO DAMAHES AND $LE AM!FN$

$LERE!0#///# $LE A@ARD !0 AC$FA? DAMAHES /N $LE AM!FN$ !0 FSK=.:=.#* /S S/MP?OFNC!NSC/!NAB?E AND SL!F?D LA"E BEEN A$ ?EAS$ REDFCED /0 N!$ DE?E$ED BO$LE C!FR$ !0 APPEA?S#'*

/n its Comment Ssang-ong sought the dismissal of the petition raising the follo+ing arguments1 that the CA decisiondated &' August ())' is alread- final and e6ecutor- because MCCJs motion for reconsideration +as filed be-ond thereglementar- period of &' da-s from receipt of a cop- thereof and that in an- case it +as apro formamotion5 that MCCbreached the contract for the purchase of the steel products +hen it failed to open the re7uired l etter of credit5 that theprintout copies andGor photocopies of facsimile or telecop- transmissions +ere properl- admitted b- the trial court becausethe- are considered original documents under R#A# No# *=(5 and that MCC is liable for actual damages and attorne-Jsfees because of its breach thus compelling Ssang-ong to litigate#$he principal issues that this Court is called upon to resolve are the follo+ing1/ , @hether the CA decision dated &' August ())' is alread- final and e6ecutor-5// , @hether the print;out andGor photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as such5/// , @hether there +as a perfected contract of sale bet+een MCC and Ssang-ong and if in the affirmative +hether MCC

breached the said contract5 and/" , @hether the a+ard of actual damages and attorne-Js fees in favor of Ssang-ong is proper and 4ustified#

; / ;/t cannot be gainsaid that inAlbano v. Court of Appeals'+e held that receipt of a cop- of the decision b- one of severalcounsels on record is notice to all and the period to appeal commences on such date even if the other counsel has not -etreceived a cop- of the decision# /n this case +hen Att-# Samson received a cop- of the CA decision on September &:())' MCC had onl- fifteen 8&'9 da-s +ithin +hich to file a motion for reconsideration conformabl- +ith Section & Rule '(of the Rules of Court or to file a petition for revie+ on certiorari in accordance +ith Section ( Rule :'# $he period shouldnot be rec%oned from September (= ())' 8+hen Castillo amora Poblador received their cop- of the decision9 becausenotice to Att-# Samson is deemed notice to collaborating counsel#@e note ho+ever from the records of the CA that it +as Castillo amora Poblador not Att-# Samson +hich filed bothMCCJs and ChanJs Brief and Repl- Brief# Apparentl- the arrangement bet+een the t+o counsels +as for the collaboratingnot the principal counsel to file the appeal brief and subse7uent pleadings in the CA# $his e6plains +h- it +as Castillo

amora Poblador +hich filed the motion for the reconsideration of the CA decision and the- did so on !ctober ' ())'+ell +ithin the &';da- period from September (= ())' +hen the- received their cop- of the CA decision# $his could alsobe the reason +h- the CA did not find it necessar- to resolve the 7uestion of the timeliness of petitionerJs motion forreconsideration even as the CA denied the same#/ndependent of this consideration though this Court assiduousl- revie+ed the records and found that strong concerns ofsubstantial 4ustice +arrant the rela6ation of this rule#/n $hilippine $orts Authority v. Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation'=+e ruled that1

/n 'rata v. "ntermediate Appellate Court +e held that +here strong considerations of substantive 4ustice aremanifest in the petition this Court ma- rela6 the strict application of the rules of procedure in the e6ercise of itslegal 4urisdiction# /n addition to the basic merits of the main case such a petition usuall- embodies 4ustif-ingcircumstance +hich +arrants our heeding to the petitionerJs cr- for 4ustice in spite of the earlier negligence ofcounsel# As +e held in 'but v. Court of Appeals1

@e cannot loo% +ith favor on a course of action +hich +ould place the administration of 4usticein a straight 4ac%et for then the result +ould be a poor %ind of 4ustice if there +ould be 4ustice at all#"eril- 4udicial orders such as the one sub4ect of this petition are issued to be obe-ed

nonetheless a non;compliance is to be dealt +ith as the circumstances attending the case ma-+arrant# @hat should guide 4udicial action is the principle that a part-;litigant is to be given thefullest opportunit- to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to loselife libert- honor or propert- on technicalities#

$he rules of procedure are used onl- to secure and not override or frustrate 4ustice# A si6;da- dela- in theperfection of the appeal as in this case does not +arrant the outright dismissal of the appeal# /n DevelopmentBan of the $hilippines vs. Court of Appeals +e gave due course to the petitionerJs appeal despite the latefiling of its brief in the appellate court because such appeal involved public i nterest# @e stated in the said casethat the Court ma- e6empt a particular case from a strict application of the rules of procedure +here theappellant failed to perfect its appeal +ithin the reglementar- period resulting in the appellate courtJs failure toobtain 4urisdiction over the case# /n 0epublic vs. "mperial- 2r# +e also held that there is more lee+a- toe6empt a case from the strictness of procedural rules +hen the appellate court has alread- obtained

4urisdiction over the appealed case# @e emphasi


6/17

; // ;$he second issue poses a novel 7uestion that the Court +elcomes# /t provides the occasion for this Court to pronounce adefinitive interpretation of the e7uall- innovative provisions of the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) 8R#A# No# *=(9 vis&3&visthe Rules on Electronic Evidence#Although the parties did not raise the 7uestion +hether the original facsimile transmissions are electronic data messagesor electronic documents +ithin the conte6t of the Electronic Commerce Act 8the petitioner merel- assails as inadmissibleevidence the photocopies of the said facsimile transmissions9 +e deem it appropriate to determine first +hether the saidfa6 transmissions are indeed +ithin the coverage of R#A# No# *=( before ruling on +hether the photocopies thereof arecovered b- the la+# /n an- case this Court has ample authorit- to go be-ond the pleadings +hen in the i nterest of 4usticeor for the promotion of public polic- there is a need to ma%e its o+n findings in order to support its conclusions#.

Petitioner contends that the photocopies of thepro formainvoices presented b- respondent Ssang-ong to prove the

perfection of their supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall +ithin the ambit of R#A# No# *=(because the la+ merel- admits as the best evidence the originalfa6 transmittal# !n the other hand respondent posits thatfrom a reading of the la+ and the Rules on El ectronic Evidence the original facsimile transmittal of the pro formainvoice isadmissible in evidence since it is an electronic document and therefore the best evidence under the la+ and the Rules#Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fa6 transmittals 8specificall- ST2-POSTS0"01-1and ST2-POSTS0"01-29 are admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficientl- e6plained the non;production of the original fa6 transmittals#/n resolving this issue the appellate court ruled as follo+s1

Admissibility of $ro *orma"nvoices4 Breach of Contractby Appellants$urning first to the appellantsJ argument against the admissibilit- of the Pro 0orma /nvoices +ith ReferenceNos# S$(;P!S$S):)&;& and S$(;P!S$S):)&;( 8E6hibits E E;& and 0 pp# (&';(& Records9appellants argue that the said documents are inadmissible 8sic9 being violative of the best evidence rule#$he argument is untenable#

$he copies of the said pro;forma invoices submitted b- the appellee are admissible in evidence although the-are mere electronic facsimile printouts of appellantJs orders# Such facsimile printouts are considered ElectronicDocuments under the Ne+ Rules on Electronic Evidence +hich came into effect on August & ()) 8Rule (Section & h A#M# No# )&;*;)&;SC9#

8h9 JElectronic documentJ refers to information or the representation of information data figuress-mbols or other modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich aright is established or an obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed

+hich is received recorded transmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-#/t includes digitall- signed documents and an- printout or output readable b- sight or othermeans +hich accuratel- reflects the electronic data message or el ectronic document# 0orpurposes of these Rules the term J electronic documentJ ma- be used interchangeabl- +ithJelectronic data messageJ#

An electronic document shall be regarded as the e7uivalent of an original document under the Best EvidenceRule as long as it is a printout or output readable b- sight or other means sho+ing to reflect the dataaccuratel-# 8Rule : Section & A#M# No# )&;*;)&;SC9

$he ruling of the Appellate Court is incorrect# R#A# No# *=(:other+ise %no+n as the Electronic Commerce Act of ()))considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional e7uivalent of a +ritten document forevidentiar- purposes#'$he Rules on Electronic Evidenceregards an electronic document as admissible in evidence if itcomplies +ith the rules on admissibilit- prescribed b- the Rules of Court and related la+s and is authenticated in themanner prescribed b- the said Rules# *An electronic document is also the e7uivalent of an original document under theBest Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable b- sight or other means sho+n to reflect the data accuratel-#

$hus to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional e7uivalent of anoriginal document under the Best Evidence Rule the +riting must foremost be an !electronic data message! or an!electronic document.!$he Electronic Commerce Act of ())) defines electronic data message and electronic document as follo+s1

Sec# '# Definition of Terms# 0or the purposes of this Act the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s1666

c# Electronic Data Message refers to i nformation generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical orsimilar means#

666

f# Electronic Document refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols orother modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or an

obligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recordedtransmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-#

$he /mplementing Rules and Regulations 8/RR9 of R#A# No# *=(=+hich +as signed on ul- &. ())) b- the thenSecretaries of the Department of $rade and /ndustr- the Department of Budget and Management and then Hovernor ofthe Bango Sentral ng $ilipinas defines the terms as1

Sec# # Definition of Terms# 0or the purposes of this Act and these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined asfollo+s1

6668e9 Electronic Data Message refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical orsimilar means but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, ortelecopy. Throughout these 0ules- the term !electronic data message! shall be e%uivalent to and be used

interchangeably +ith !electronic document.!6 6 6 68h9 Electronic Document refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols orother modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or anobligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recordedtransmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# Throughout these 0ules- the term!electronic document! shall be e%uivalent to and be used interchangeably +ith !electronic data message#

$he phrase but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy in the /RRJsdefinition of electronic data message is copied from the Model ?a+ on Electronic Commerce adopted b- the FnitedNations Commission on /nternational $rade ?a+ 8FNC/$RA?9*)from +hich ma4orit- of the provisions of R#A# No# *=(

+ere ta%en#*&@hile Congress deleted this phrase i n the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) the drafters of the /RRreinstated it# $he deletion b- Congress of the said phrase is significant and pivotal as discussed hereunder#$he clause on the interchangeabilit- of the terms electronic data message and electronic document +as the result ofthe Senate of the PhilippinesJ adoption in Senate Bill &=)( of the phrase electronic data message and the Louse ofRepresentativeJs emplo-ment in Louse Bill ==*& of the term electronic document#*(/n order to e6pedite the

reconciliation of the t+o versions the technical +or%ing group of the Bicameral Conference Committee adopted both termsand intended them to be the e7uivalent of each one#*.Be that as it ma- there is a slight difference bet+een the t+o terms#@hile data message has reference to information electronically sent- stored or transmitted- it does not necessarily meanthat it +ill give rise to a right or e,tinguish an obligation *:unli%e an electronic document# Evident from the l a+ ho+ever isthe legislative intent to give the t+o terms the same construction#$he Rules on Electronic Evidence promulgated b- this Court defines the said terms in the follo+ing manner1

SEC$/!N Definition of Terms# , 0or purposes of these Rules the follo+ing terms are defined as follo+s16 6 6 68g9 Electronic data message refers to information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical orsimilar means#8h9 Electronic document refers to information or the representation of information data figures s-mbols orother modes of +ritten e6pression described or ho+ever represented b- +hich a right is established or anobligation e6tinguished or b- +hich a fact ma- be proved and affirmed +hich is received recordedtransmitted stored processed retrieved or produced electronicall-# "t includes digitally signed documents andprint&out or output- readable by sight or other means- +hich accurately reflects the electronic data message or

electronic document. *or purposes of these 0ules- the term !electronic document! may be usedinterchangeably +ith !electronic data message #

Hiven these definitions +e go bac% to the original 7uestion1 /s an original printout of a facsimile transmission an electronicdata message or electronic document$he definitions under the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) its /RR and the Rules on Electronic Evidence at first glanceconve- the impression that facsimile transmissions are electronic data messages or electronic documents because the-are sent by electronic means# $he e6panded definition of an electronic data message under the /RR consistent +ith theFNC/$RA? Model ?a+ further supports this theor- considering that the enumeration 666 is not limited to electronic datainterchange 8ED/9 electronic mail telegram tele6 or telecopy# And to telecop- is to send a document from one place toanother via a fa, machine #*'As further guide for the Court in its tas% of statutor- construction Section .* of the Electronic Commerce Act of ()))provides that

Fnless other+ise e6pressl- provided for the interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its internationaloriginand the need to promote uniformit- in its application and the observance of good faith in internationaltrade relations# $he generall- accepted principles of international la+ and convention on electronic commerce

shall li%e+ise be considered#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_170633_2007.html#fnt75


7/17

!bviousl- the international origin mentioned in this section can onl- refer to the FNC/$RA? Model ?a+ and theFNC/$RA?Js definition of data message1

Data message means information generated sent received or stored b- electronic optical or similar meansincluding- but not limited to- electronic data interchange 5ED"6- electronic mail- telegram- tele, or telecopy#*

is substantiall- the same as the /RRJs characteri


8/17

Paper records that are produced directl- b- a computer s-stem such as printouts are themselves electronicrecords being 4ust the means of intelligible displa- of the contents of the record# Photocopies of the printout

+ould be paper records sub4ect to the usual rules about copies but the original printout +ould be sub4ect tothe rules of admissibilit- of this Act#Lo+ever printouts that are used onl- as paper records and +hose computer origin is never again called onare treated as paper records# See subsection :8(9# /n this case the reliabilit- of the computer s-stem thatproduced the record is relevant to its reliabilit-#&

$here is no 7uestion then that +hen Congress formulated the term electronic data message it intended the samemeaning as the term electronic record i n the Canada la+# $his construction of the term electronic data message +hiche,cludes tele,es or fa,es- e,cept computer&generated fa,es is in harmon- +ith the Electronic Commerce ?a+Js focus onpaperless communications and the functional e7uivalent approach(that it espouses# /n fact the deliberations of the

?egislature are replete +ith discussions on paperless and digital transactions#0acsimile transmissions are not in this sense paperless but veril- are paper;based#A facsimile machine +hich +as first patented in &:. b- Ale6ander Bain.is a device that can send or receive picturesand te6t over a telephone line# /t +or%s b- digiti


9/17

@@ @>


10/17

Ssang-ong avers that these documents +ere prepared after MCC as%ed for the splitting of the original order into t+o sothat the latter can appl- for an ?GC +ith greater facilit-# /t ho+ever failed to e6plain +h- the originals of these documents

+ere not presented#$o determine +hether these documents are admissible in evidence +e appl- the ordinar- Rules on Evidence for asdiscussed above +e cannot appl- the Electronic Commerce Act of ())) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence#Because these documents are mere photocopies the- are simpl- secondar- evidence admissible onl- upon compliance

+ith Rule &.) Section ' +hich states +hen the original document has been lost or destro-ed or cannot be produced incourt the offeror upon proof of its e6ecution or e6istence and the cause of its unavailabilit- +ithout bad faith on his partma- prove its contents b- a cop- or b- a recital of its contents in some authentic document or b- the testimon- of

+itnesses in the order stated# 0urthermore the offeror of secondar- evidence must prove the predicates thereof namel-18a9 the loss or destruction of the original +ithout bad faith on the part of the proponentGofferor +hich can be sho+n b-

circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents5 8b9 the proponent must prove b- a fairpreponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original cop-5 and 8c9 it mustbe sho+n that a diligent and bona fidebut unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place orplaces# /t has been held that +here the missing document is the foundation of the action more strictness in proof isre7uired than +here the document is onl- collaterall- involved#&).

Hiven these norms +e find that respondent failed to prove the e6istence of the original fa6 transmissions of E6hibits E and0 and li%e+ise did not sufficientl- prove the loss or destruction of the originals# $hus E6hibits E and 0 cannot be admittedin evidence and accorded probative +eight#/t is observed ho+ever that respondent Ssang-ong did not rel- merel- on E6hibits E and 0 to prove the perfectedcontract# /t also introduced in evidence a variet- of other documents as enumerated above together +ith the testimoniesof its +itnesses# Notable among them are $ro *orma/nvoice Nos# ST2-POSTS0#0-1and ST2-POSTS0#0-2+hich +ereissued b- Ssang-ong and sent via fa6 to MCC# As alread- mentioned these invoices slightl- varied the terms of the earlierinvoices such that the 7uantit- +as no+ officiall- 100MTper invoice and the price reduced to US1700.00per M$# $hecopies of the said August & ())) invoices submitted to the court bear the conformit- signature of MCC Manager Chan#$ro *orma/nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-18E6hibit T9 ho+ever is a mere photocop- of its original# But then again

petitioner MCC does not assail the admissibilit- of this document in the instant petition# "eril- evidence not ob4ected to isdeemed admitted and ma- be validl- considered b- the court in arriving at its 4udgment#&):/ssues not raised on appeal aredeemed abandoned#As to $ro *orma/nvoice No# ST2-POSTS0#0-28E6hibits &;A and (;C9 +hich +as certified b- PC/Ban% as a true cop-of its original&)'it +as in fact petitioner MCC +hich introduced this document in evidence# Petitioner MCC paid for theorder stated in this i nvoice# /ts admissibilit- therefore is not open to 7uestion#$hese invoices 8ST2-POSTS0"01 ST2-POSTS0#0-1 8 ST2-POSTS0#0-29 along +ith the other unchallengeddocumentar- evidence of respondent Ssang-ong preponderate in favor of the claim that a contract of sale +as perfectedb- the parties#$his Court also finds merit in the follo+ing observations of the trial court1

Defendants presented ?etter of Credit 8E6hibits & &;A to &;R9 referring to Pro 0orma /nvoice for ContractNo# S$(P!S$S));( in the amount of FSK&*))))#)) and +hich bears the signature of Hregor- ChanHeneral Manager of MCC# Plaintiff on the other hand presented Pro 0orma /nvoice referring to Contract No#S$(;P!S$S));& in the amount of FSK&*))))#)) +hich li%e+ise bears the signature of Hregor- ChanMCC# Plaintiff accounted for the notation &G( on the right upper portion of the /nvoice that is that it +as the

first of t+o 8(9 pro forma invoices covering the sub4ect contract bet+een plaintiff and the defendants#Defendants on the other hand failed to account for the notation (G( i n its Pro 0orma /nvoice 8E6hibit &;A9#!bservabl- further both Pro 0orma /nvoices bear the same date and details +hich logicall- mean that the-both appl- to one and the same transaction#&)

/ndeed +h- +ould petitioner open an ?GC for the second half of the transaction if there +as no first half to spea% of$he logical chain of events as gleaned from the evidence of both parties started +ith the petitioner and the respondentagreeing on the sale and purchase of (()M$ of stainless steel at FSK&)#)) per M$# $his initial contract +asperfected#?ater as petitioner as%ed for several e6tensions to pa- ad4ustments in the deliver- dates and discounts in the price asoriginall- agreed the parties slightl- varied the terms of their contract +ithout necessaril- novating it to the effect that theoriginal order +as reduced to ())M$ split into t+o deliveries and the price discounted to FSK&*)) per M$# Petitionerho+ever paid onl- half of its obligation and failed to open an ?GC for the other &))M$# Notabl- the conduct of both partiessufficientl- established the e6istence of a contract of sale even if the +ritings of the parties because of their contestedadmissibilit- +ere not as e6plicit in establishing a contract#&)*Appropriate conduct b- the parties ma- be sufficient toestablish an agreement and +hile there ma- be instances +here the e6change of correspondence does not disclose thee6act point at +hich the deal +as closed the actions of the parties ma- indicate that a binding obligation has been

underta%en#&)

@ith our finding that there is a valid contract it is cr-stal;clear that +hen petitioner did not open the ?GC for the first half ofthe transaction 8&))M$9 despite numerous demands from respondent Ssang-ong petitioner breached its contractualobligation# /t is a +ell;entrenched rule that the failure of a bu-er to furnish an agreed letter of credit is a breach of thecontract bet+een bu-er and seller# /ndeed +here the bu-er fails to open a letter of credit as stipulated the sell er ore6porter is entitled to claim damages for such breach# Damages for failure to open a commercial credit main appropriatecases include the loss of profit +hich the seller +ould reasonabl- have made had the transaction been carried out#&)=

; /" ;$his Court ho+ever finds that the a+ard of actual damages is not in accord +ith the evidence on record# /t is a6iomaticthat actual or compensator- damages cannot be presumed but must be proven +ith a reasonable degree of certaint-#&&)/nillafuerte v. Court of Appeals&&&+e e6plained that1

Actual or compensator- damages are those a+arded in order to compensate a part- for an in4ur- or loss he

suffered# $he- arise out of a sense of natural 4ustice and are aimed at repairing the +rong done# E6cept asprovided b- la+ or b- stipulation a part- is entitled to an ade7uate compensation onl- for such pecuniar- lossas he has dul- proven# /t is hornboo% doctrine that to be able to recover actual damages the claimant bearsthe onus of presenting before the court actual proof of the damages alleged to have been suffered thus1

A part- is entitled to an ade7uate compensation for such pecuniar- loss actuall- suffered b- himas he has dul- proved# Such damages to be recoverable must not onl- be capable of proof butmust actuall- be proved +ith a reasonable degree of certaint-# @e have emphasi


11/17

DESCR/P$/!N1 Lot Rolled Stainless Steel Coil SFS .):

S/E AND QFAN$/$O1

(# MM T :J T C &)#)M$

.#) MM T :J T C ('#)M$

:#) MM T :J T C &'#)M$

:#' MM T :J T C &'#)M$

'#) MM T :J T C &)#)M$

#) MM T :J T C ('#)M$

$!$A?1 &))M$&&

0rom the foregoing +e find merit in the contention of MCC that Ssang-ong did not ade7uatel- prove that the items resoldat a loss +ere the same items ordered b- the petitioner# $herefore as the claim for actual damages +as not proven theCourt cannot sanction the a+ard#Nonetheless the Court finds that petitioner %no+ingl- breached i ts contractual obligation and obstinatel- refused to pa-despite repeated demands from respondent# Petitioner even as%ed for several e6tensions of time for it to ma%e good itsobligation# But in spite of respondentJs continuous accommodation petitioner completel- reneged on its contractual dut-#0or such inattention and insensitivit- MCC must be held liable for nominal damages# Nominal damages are Jrecoverable

+here a legal right is technicall- violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual presentloss of an- %ind or +here there has been a breach of contract and no substantial in4ur- or actual damages +hatsoeverhave been or can be sho+n#J&&*Accordingl- the Court a+ards nominal damages of P()))))#)) to respondentSsang-ong#As to the a+ard of attorne-Js fees it is +ell settled that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not ever-

+inning part- is entitled to an automatic grant of attorne-Js fees# $he part- must sho+ that he falls under one of theinstances enumerated in Article (() of the Civil Code#&&/n the instant case ho+ever the Court finds the a+ard ofattorne-Js fees proper considering that petitioner MCCJs un4ustified refusal to pa- has compelled respondent Ssang-ongto litigate and to incur e6penses to protect its rights#+ERE'ORE PREMSESCONSDERED the appeal is PARTALL* &RANTED# $he Decision of the Court of Appealsin CA;H#R# C" No# (=. is MOD'EDin that the a+ard of actual damages is DELETED# Lo+ever petitioner isORDEREDto pa- respondent NOMNAL DAMA&ES in the amount of P()))))#)) and the ATTORNE*9S 'EESasa+arded b- the trial court#SO ORDERED#Fnares&Santiago- Chairperson- Austria&(artine)- Chico&:a)ario- 0eyes- 22.-concur#

$L/RD D/"/S/!N&.R. No. 170"$1 Ar/3 " 2007NATONAL PO+ER CORPORATON Petitionervs#ON. RAMON &. CODLLA :R. Pre//; :


12/17

$hen another ground for den-ing admission of petitioners E6hibits A C D E L / I ? M N ! P Q R and S b- therespondent 4udge is that said pieces of documentar- evidence +ere merel- photocopies of purported documents orpapers# $here is no gainsa-ing the fact that the respondent 4udge acted +ithin the pale of his discretion +hen he deniedadmission of said documentar- evidence# Section . of Rule &.) of the Rules of Court of the Philippines is ver- e6plicit inproviding that +hen the sub4ect of in7uir- are the contents of documents no evidence shall be admissible other than theoriginal documents themselves e6cept in certain cases specificall- so enumerated therein and the petitioner has notsho+n that the non;presentation or non;production of its original documentar- pieces of evidence falls under suche6ceptions# As aptl- pointed out b- the respondent 4udge in the order issued b- him on November & ()):16 6 6 $he record sho+s that the plaintiff 8petitioner herein9 has been given ever- opportunit- to present the originals of theTero6 or photocopies of the documents it offered# /t never produced said originals#So the petitioner has onl- itself to blame for the respondent 4udges denial of admission of its aforementioned

documentar- evidence#!f course the petitioner tries to contend that the photocopies of documents offered b- it are e7uivalent to the originaldocuments that it sought to offer in evidence based on the Rules on Electronic Evidence +hich +ere in force and effectsince August & ()) Lo+ever such a contention is devoid of merit# $he pieces of documentar- evidence offered b- thepetitioner in Civil Case CEB;&( +hich +ere denied admission b- the respondent 4udge do not actuall- constitute aselectronic evidence as defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence# $he informations therein +ere not received retrievedor produced electronicall-# $he petitioner has not ade7uatel- established that its documentar- evidence +ere electronicevidence# it has not properl- authenticated such evidence as electronic documents assuming arguendothat the- are#?astl- the petitioner has not properl- established b- affidavit pursuant to Rule = of the Rules on Electronic Evidence theadmissibilit- and evidentiar- +eight of said documentar- evidence#$hus b- an- legal -ardstic% it is manifest that the respondent 4udge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in den-ingadmission of the aforementioned documentar- evidence of petitioner#But even if it be granted 4ust for the sa%e of argument that the respondent 4udge committed an error in den-ing theaforementioned documentar- evidence of the petitioner still the petition for certiorari filed in this case must fail# Such error

+ould at most be onl- an error of la+ and not an error of 4urisdiction# /n 7ee vs. $eople- G=G SC0A G=H the Supreme

Court of the Philippines said that certiorari +ill not lie i n case of an error of la+# 6 6 6#@LERE0!RE in vie+ of the foregoing premises 4udgment is hereb- rendered b- us D/SM/SS/NH the petition filed in thiscase and A00/RM/NH the assailed orders issued b- respondent 4udge in Civil Case No# CEB;&(#:

Aggrieved b- the afore7uoted decision petitioner filed the instant petition#$he focal point of this entire controvers- is petitioners obstinate contention that the photocopies it offered as formalevidence before the trial court are the functional e7uivalent of their original based on its inimitable interpretation of theRules on Electronic Evidence#Petitioner insists that contrar- to the rulings of both the trial court and the appellate court the photocopies it presented asdocumentar- evidence actuall- constitute electronic evidence based on its o+n premise that an electronic document asdefined under Section &8h9 Rule ( of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is not li mited to information that is receivedrecorded retrieved or produced electronicall-# Rather petitioner maintains that an electronic document can also refer toother modes of +ritten e6pression that is produced electronicall- such as photocopies as included i n the sections catch;all proviso1 an- print;out or output readable b- sight or other means#@e do not agree#/n order to shed light to the issue of +hether or not the photocopies are indeed electronic documents as contemplated in

Republic Act No# *=( or the /mplementing Rules and Regulations of the Electronic Commerce Act as +ell as the Ruleson Electronic Evidence +e shall enumerate the follo+ing documents offered as evidence b- the petitioner to +it1

E6hibit A is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- a certain ose C# $ro-o +ith RECE/"EDstamped thereon together +ith a hand+ritten date5(# E6hibit C is a photocop- of a list of estimated cost of damages of petitioners po+er barges ()* and ()=prepared b- Lope+ell Mobile Po+er S-stems Corporation and manuall- signed b- Messrs# Re6 Malaluan and"irgilio Asprer5.# E6hibit D is a photocop- of a letter manuall- signed b- a certain Nestor H# Enri7ue


13/17

8e9 @hen the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents +hich cannot be e6amined i n court+ithout great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is onl- the general result of the+hole#

@hen the original document has been lost or destro-ed or cannot be produced in court the offeror upon proof of i tse6ecution or e6istence and the cause of its unavailabilit- +ithout bad faith on his part ma- prove its contents b- a cop- orb- a recital of its contents in some authentic document or b- the testimon- of +itnesses in the order stated#&&$he offerorof secondar- evidence is burdened to prove the predicates thereof1 8a9 the loss or destruction of the original +ithout badfaith on the part of the proponentGofferor +hich can be sho+n b- circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destructionof documents5&(8b9 the proponent must prove b- a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference ofthe loss or destruction of the original cop-5 and 8c9 it must be sho+n that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful searchhas been made for the document in the proper place or places#&.Lo+ever in the case at bar though petitioner insisted in

offering the photocopies as documentar- evidence it failed to establish that such offer +as made in accordance +ith thee6ceptions as enumerated under the above7uoted rule# Accordingl- +e find no error in the !rder of the court a 7uoden-ing admissibilit- of the photocopies offered b- petitioner as documentar- evidence#0inall- it perple6es this Court +h- petitioner continued to obduratel- disregard the opportunities given b- the trial court forit to present the originals of the photocopies it presented -et comes before us no+ pra-ing that it be allo+ed to present theoriginals of the e6hibits that +ere denied admission or in case the same are lost to la- the predicate for the admission ofsecondar- evidence# Lad petitioner presented the originals of the documents to the court instead of the photocopies itobstinatel- offered as evidence or at the ver- least laid the predicate for the admission of said photocopies thiscontrovers- +ould not have unnecessaril- been brought before the appellate court and finall- to this Court for ad4udication#Lad it not been for petitioners intransigence the merits of petitioners complaint for damages +ould have been decidedupon b- the trial court long ago# As aptl- articulated b- the Court of Appeals petitioner has onl- itself to blame for therespondent 4udges denial of admission of its aforementioned documentar- evidence and conse7uentl- the denial of itspra-er to be given another opportunit- to present the originals of the documents that +ere denied admission nor to la- thepredicate for the admission of secondar- evidence in case the same has been lost#@LERE0!RE premises considered the instant petition is hereb- DEN/ED# $he Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA;

H#R# CEB;SP No# )): dated = November ())' is hereb- A00/RMED# Costs against petitioner#S! !RDERED#

SEC!ND D/"/S/!N&.R. No. 1#2#!5 Ar/3 20 2010RUSTAN AN& ? PASCUA Petitionervs#TE ONORALE COURT O' APPEALS 8 RS SA&UDRespondents#

D E C / S / ! NAAD 0.7$his case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against +omen +hen a former bo-friend sent to the girlthe picture of a na%ed +oman not her but +ith her face on it#

$he /ndictment$he public prosecutor charged petitioner;accused Rustan Ang 8Rustan9 before the Regional $rial Court 8R$C9 of BalerAurora of violation of the Anti;"iolence Against @omen and $heir Children Act or Republic Act 8R#A#9 =(( in an

information that reads1$hat on or about une ' ())' in the Municipalit- of Maria Aurora Province of Aurora Philippines and +ithin the

4urisdiction of this Lonorable Court the said accused +illfull- unla+full- and feloniousl- in a purposeful and rec%lessconduct sent through the Short Messaging Service 8SMS9 using his mobile phone a pornographic picture to one /rishSagud +ho +as his former girlfriend +hereb- the face of the latter +as attached to a completel- na%ed bod- of another

+oman ma%ing it to appear that it +as said /rish Sagud +ho is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picturethereb- causing substantial emotional anguish ps-chological distress and humiliation to the said /rish Sagud# &

$he 0acts and the Case$he evidence for the prosecution sho+s that complainant /rish Sagud 8/rish9 and accused Rustan +ere classmates at@esle-an Fniversit- in Aurora Province# Rustan courted /rish and the- became on;and;off s+eethearts to+ards the endof ()):# @hen /rish learned after+ards that Rustan had ta%en a live;in partner 8no+ his +ife9 +hom he had gottenpregnant /rish bro%e up +ith him#Before Rustan got married ho+ever he got in touch +ith /rish and tried to convince her to elope +ith him sa-ing that hedid not love the +oman he +as about to marr-# /rish re4ected the proposal and told Rustan to ta%e on his responsibilit- tothe other +oman and their child# /rish changed her cellphone number but Rustan someho+ managed to get hold of it and

sent her te6t messages# Rustan used t+o cellphone numbers for sending his messages namel- )=();:*=.)& and )=(&;):*# /rish replied to his te6t messages but it +as to as% him to leave her alone#

/n the earl- morning of une ' ())' /rish received through multimedia message service 8MMS9 a picture of a na%ed+oman +ith spread legs and +ith /rishs face superimposed on the figure 8E6hibit A9#($he senders cellphone numberstated in the message +as )=(&;):* one of the numbers that Rustan used# /rish surmised that he copied the pictureof her face from a shot he too% +hen the- +ere in Baguio in ()). 8E6hibit B9#.After she got the obscene picture /rish got other te6t messages from Rustan# Le boasted that it +ould be eas- for him tocreate similarl- scandalous pictures of her# And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet# !ne ofthe messages he sent to /rish +ritten in te6t messaging shorthand read1 (adali lang ialat yun- my chatrum ang tarlacrayt p+ede ring send sa lahat ng chatter#:/rish sought the help of the vice ma-or of Maria Aurora +ho referred her to the police# Fnder police supervision /rishcontacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used i n sending the picture and his te6t messages# /rish as%edRustan to meet her at the ?orentess Resort in Brg-# Ramada Maria Aurora and he did# Le came in a motorc-cle# After

par%ing it he +al%ed to+ards /rish but the +aiting police officers intercepted and arrested him# $he- searched him andsei


14/17

:# @hether or not the R$C properl- admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case#$he Courts Rulings

Section .8a9 of R#A# =(( provides that violence against +omen includes an act or acts of a person against a +oman +ith+hom he has or had a se6ual or dating relationship# $hus1

SEC# .# Definition of $erms# , As used in this Act8a9 "iolence against +omen and their children refers to an- act or a series of acts committed b- an- personagainst a +oman +ho is his +ife former +ife or against a +oman +ith +hom the person has or had a se6ualor dating relationship or +ith +hom he has a common child or against her child +hether legitimate orillegitimate +ithin or +ithout the famil- abode +hich result in or is li%el- to result in ph-sical se6ualps-chological harm or suffering or economic abuse including threats of such acts batter- assault coercionharassment or arbitrar- deprivation of libert-#

6 6 6 6Section ' identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against +omen and these include an- form ofharassment that causes substantial emotional or ps-chological distress to a +oman# $hus1SEC# '# Acts of "iolence Against @omen and $heir Children# , $he crime of violence against +omen and theirchildren is committed through an- of the follo+ing acts16 6 6 6h# Engaging in purposeful %no+ing or rec%less conduct personall- or through another that alarms or causessubstantial emotional or ps-chological distress to the +oman or her child# $his shall include but not be limitedto the follo+ing acts16 6 6 6'# Engaging in an- form of harassment or violence5

$he above provisions ta%en together indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against +omen throughharassment are1

$he offender has or had a se6ual or dating relationship +ith the offended +oman5(# $he offender b- himself or through another commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the

+oman5 and.# $he harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or ps-chological distress to her#

!ne# $he parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to prove that accused Rustan had a dating relationship+ith /rish# Section .8e9 provides that a dating relationship includes a situation +here the parties are romanticall- involvedover time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship# $hus18e9 Dating relationship refers to a situation +herein the parties live as husband and +ife +ithout the benefit of marriage orare romanticall- involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship# A casual ac7uaintanceor ordinar- sociali


15/17

+henever +arranted b- the gravit- of the offense the supreme penalt- of dismissal in an administrative case is meted toerring personnel#&$he above pronouncement of this Court in the case of (endo)a vs. Tiongson(is applicable to the case at bar#$his is an administrative case for Dishonest- and Hrave Misconduct.against Elvira Cru


16/17

$his Court is not persuaded b- respondents version# Based on the evidence on record +hat happened +as a clear caseof entrapment and not instigation as respondent +ould li%e to claim#/n entrapment +a-s and means are resorted to for the purpose of ensnaring and capturing the la+;brea%ers in thee6ecution of their criminal plan# !n the other hand in instigation the instigator practicall- induces the +ould;be defendantinto the commission of the offense and he himself becomes a co;principal#:/n this case complainant and the la+ enforcers resorted to entrapment precisel- because respondent demanded theamount of !ne Million Pesos 8P&))))))#))9 from complainant in e6change for a favorable decision of the latterspending case# Complainants narration of the incidents +hich led to the entrapment operation are more in accord +ith thecircumstances that actuall- transpired and are more credible than respondents version#Complainant +as able to prove b- his testimon- in con4unction +ith the te6t messages from respondent dul- presentedbefore the Committee that the latter as%ed for !ne Million Pesos 8P&))))))#))9 in e6change for a favorable decision of

the formers pending case +ith the CA# $he te6t messages +ere properl- admitted b- the Committee since the same areno+ covered b- Section &8%9 Rule ( of the Rules on Electronic Evidence'+hich provides12Ephemeral electronic communication3 refers to telephone conversations te6t messages # # # and other electronic forms ofcommunication the evidence of +hich is not recorded or retained#3Fnder Section ( Rule && of the Rules on Electronic Evidence 2Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven b-the testimon- of a person +ho +as a part- to the same or +ho has personal %no+ledge thereof # # # #3 /n this casecomplainant +ho +as the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal %no+ledge thereof testified on theircontents and import# Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainants cellphone from

+hich the messages originated +as hers#Moreover an- doubt respondent ma- have had as to the admissibilit- of thete6t messages had been laid to rest +hen she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracit- of the te6t messagesbet+een her and complainant#*/t is also +ell to remember that in administrative cases technical rules of procedure andevidence are not strictl- applied#@e have no doubt as to the probative value of the te6t messages as evidence indetermining the guilt or lac% thereof of respondent in this case#Complainants testimon- as to the discussion bet+een him and respondent on the l atters demand for !ne Million Pesos8P&))))))#))9 +as corroborated b- the testimon- of a disinterested +itness Siringan the reporter of "mbestigador+ho

+as present +hen the parties met in person# Siringan +as priv- to the parties actual conversation since she accompaniedcomplainant on both meetings held on (: and ( of September ()): at ollibee#Respondents evidence +as comprised b- the testimon- of her daughter and sister as +ell as an ac7uaintance +ho merel-testified on ho+ respondent and complainant first met# Respondents o+n testimon- consisted of bare denials and self;serving claims that she did not remember either the statements she herself made or the contents of the messages shesent# Respondent had a ver- selective memor- made apparent +hen clarificator- 7uestions +ere propounded b- theCommittee#@hen she +as as%ed if she had sent the te6t messages contained in complainants cellphone and +hich reflected hercellphone number respondent admitted those that +ere not incriminating but claimed she did not remember those thatclearl- sho+ed she +as transacting +ith complainant# $hus during the &* November ()): hearing +here respondent

+as 7uestioned b- ustice Sala


17/17