01 CASE TITLE: People v.

Tan AUTHOR: Mendoza

[G.R. No. L-14257 Date: July 31, 1959] NOTES:
TOPIC: Best Evidence Rule
PONENTE: Labrador Private-Respondents-Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales, Angelita
Centeno, Julia Carpio and others

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

A carbon copy of the original and bearing as it does the signature of the appellant, is admissible in evidence and possess all the
probative value of the original, and the same does not require an accounting for the non-production of the original.

Emergency Recit:
Respondents were charged of falsification of documents for making it appear in public documents that they distribute relief supplies
to calamity sufferers. To prove such charge, the prosecution presented witnesses that showed triplicate copies and not the originals
of the sales invoices of the purchased merchandise in Metro Drug. Judge Tan held that the triplicate copies were inadmissible
because they must prove that the originals cannot be reproduced. The SC held that the triplicate invoices were admissible because
such duplicate copy possesses all the probative value of the original.
FACTS:

1.Respondents were charged with Falsification of public documents as public officials and employees. Because they made it appear
that certain relief supplies and merchandise were purchase by one of the respondents, Madrigal-Gonzales, for distribution to
calamity indigents or sufferers from business establishments or persons in said public documents. When in fact, no such
distributions of such relief and supplies have ever been made.

2.To prove the crime, the prosecution presented 3 witnesses. The First witness presented a booklet of receipts containing blue
invoices of the Metro Drug Corporation in Cebu that included DISPUTED EVIDENCE:triplicate copies because the original
invoices were in Manila. Further, in preparing receipts for sales, 2 carbons were used between the three sheets i.e., the original, the
duplicate and the triplicate, which were marked as Exhibit D-1.

Respondent-Judge Bienvenido Tan, interrupted the proceedings holding that the triplicates are not admissible unless it is first
proven that the originals were lost and cannot be produced.

3.The second witness declared that the originals of the sales invoices are transmitted to Metro Drugs main office in Manila in
support of cash journal sheets. But the original practice of keeping the original practice of keeping the original white copies no
longer prevails as it were given to the customers , while the duplicate or pink copies are submitted to the Main Office.

Lastly, after the cross-examination the third witness went back to the identification of Triplicate Invoice (Exhibit D-1).

4.Judge Tan told that prosecution that according to Section 46, Rule 123 requires the production of the original and held that the
triplicate invoices to be inadmissible. The prosecution filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE(S):
Whether the Triplicate Invoices-which were produced by the used of carbon sheets that produced an exact copy of the originals- is
admissible

HELD:
Yes. The triplicates formed by the used of carbon papers are admissible in evidence. The Court below is ordered to proceed in trial
of the case in accordance with this ruling.
RATIO:
The admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been a settled question.

According to Moran, When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a
contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile or the exact copy
upon the sheets beneath, such signature being this reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed
impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in
evidence as such without accounting for the nonproduction of the others.

Citing People v. Quinones, that a carbon copy of the original and bearing as it does the signature of the appellant, is admissible in
evidence and possess all the probative value of the original, and the same does not require an accounting for the non-production of
the original.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):