Case law on Electronic Evidence

1. MCC vs. SSANGYONG, 2007

Facts: Petitioner MCC contracted with Ssangyong, a manufacturer of stainless steel with a head office in Seoul.
MCC ordered 220 metric ton of stainless steel for $1,860/metric ton. Ssangyong issued the sales invoices
through fax and MCC through its president George Chan shall sign and fax it back. The first $70,000 LC was
issued by MCC but the remaining $170,000 was not. Ssangyong was compelled to file a complaint for breach of
contract and damages. MCC alleged that the fax copies presented as document cannot be relied upon as the
best evidence.

Issue: W/N the print-out and photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as
such.

Held: A facsimile transmission is not considered as electronic evidence under the Electronic Commerce Act. In
MCC vs. Ssangyong, We determined the question of whether the original facsimile transmissions are "electronic
data messages" or "electronic documents" within the context of the Electronic Commerce Act, and we said: The
terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as
electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not
admissible as electronic evidence.

2. NPC vs. Codilla, 2007

Facts: M/V Dibena accidentally bumped the power barge of NAPOCOR. The latter filed a complaint for
damages. During the presentation of evidence, NPC presented as pieces of evidence Xerox copies that were
admitted in court. A motion to strike out the evidence was filed and granted. NPC aver that such documents
are within the purview of the electronic evidence.

Issue: W/N photocopies submitted by NAPOCOR be regarded as electronic evidence.

Held: The REE defined Electronic Document - Information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other models of written expression by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished and
by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. It is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any printout, readable by sight or other
means which accurately reflects the electronic document. What differentiates an electronic document from a
paper-based document is the manner by which the information is processed. The information contained in an
electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
A perusal of the photocopies reveals that the signatures of the persons who signed the document may be
recorded or produced electronically. It will be highly unacceptable to regard an information manually written
down to be regarded as electronic message. The argument of NPC that since the photocopies were produced
through an electronic process, then such are electronic documents under the REE is erroneous, if not
preposterous interpretation of the law. Since photocopies are not electronic documents, they are not
considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed in the law.

Section 2, Rule 130 ROC: Original writing must be produced; Exceptions :

1. The original was lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court.

2. The original is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered who fails to produce it after
reasonable notice.
3. The original is a record in the custody of a public officer.
4. The original was recorded in an existing record and a certified copy is made.
5. The original consists of numerous documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.

NPC cannot aver now to submit the original copies of the documents since they were given enough time to
submit such but they refused to do so and insist that the photocopies be admitted instead.

3. Nuez vs. Apao, 2005

Facts: Nuez, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAGCOR when the latter accused him of using illegal
drugs. He received an unfavorable court decision. He contacted, Elvira Cruz-Apao, an Executive Assistant II of
the acting Division Clerk of Court of CA. Elvira texted Zaldy, that a favorable decision can be made provided
P1M be given to her. Zaldy bargained for a lower amount but Elvira refused, mentioning that it is the flat rate
of the person who will make the favorable decision. Elvira texted Zaldy that they have to meet but Zaldy
coordinated to matter with PAOCTF for an entrapment operation and marked money was prepared. Eventually
the PAOCTF operators executed the entrapment and investigated her.

Issue: W/N ephemeral communications can be used as evidence in court.

Held: The REE defined Ephemeral Electronic Communication -refers to telephone conversation, text messages,
chat sessions, streaming audio or video or other forms of communication that is not recorded or retained. It
should be proven by the testimony of the person who was a party to the communication. In the absence of such
person, it shall be proven by other competent evidence. If the communication is recorded, it shall be proven as
an electronic document. Nuez was the recipient of the text messages, to which he has personal knowledge of
the communication. He was able to prove by his testimony on the text messages of Elvira, duly presented in
court that the latter asked for P1,000,000 in exchange for a favorable decision of his pending case with the CA.
The text messages were properly admitted as evidence.

4. Aznar vs. Citibank, 2007

Facts: Aznar is a prominent businessman and entrepreneur in Cebu. He decided to treat his wife together with
their grandchildren for an Asian Tour using his Citibank credit card. He deposited P485,000 to his account to
increase his credit limit from P150,000 to P635,000. He bought tickets to Kuala Lumpur amounting to P235,000.
When they were in Kuala Lumpur, they decided to purchase things but the credit card was dishonoured for over
the limit. Eventually the Ingatan Agency further dishonoured the card. They decided to go back Philippines and
instantly filed a complaint for damages. To prove that Citibank blacklisted his credit card, Aznar presented a
computer print-out, titled as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to him by
Ingtan Agency with the signature of one Victrina Elnado Nubi which shows that his card in question was “DECL
OVERLIMIT” or declared over the limit. The CA ruled that the computer print-out is an electronic document
which must be authenticated pursuant to the REE or under the Rules of Court. However, Aznar failed to prove
its authenticity, thus it must be excluded.

Issue: W/N the print out of the computer generated document was properly authenticated to be admissible in
court.

Held: The Rules of Court provides that whenever any private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed
or written or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Aznar did not
actually see the document executed or written, neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of
the signature or handwriting of Nubi. Even if examined under the REE, the authentication of the computer print-
out would still be found wanting.
Section 2. Manner of Proving Authenticity of Private Documents: The electronic evidence must be proven before it is
offered as authentic in any of the following manner:
1. Evidence that it was signed digitally by the person.
2. Evidence that appropriate security procedures were applied as may be authorized by law or the SC .
3. Other evidence showing integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the court.

Manner of Authenticating Electronic Signature:

1. Evidence to prove the method to establish and verify a digital signature.
2. Other means provided by law.
3. Any means to satisfy the court of its genuineness.

Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out was generated and how the
information is true.

5. Ang vs. CA, 2010

Facts: Ang and Sagud were lovers. Sagud heard that Ang impregnated another woman so she broke up with
him. Ang asked her to elope with him to which Irish refused. To pressure her to get back with him he sent
multimedia messages to Irish, bearing a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and superimposed face of
Irish on it. He even added in the text message that it is easy for him to spread those pictures in the internet.
Sagud asked help from the local police. An entrapment operation was conducted that led to the arrest of Ang.

Issue: W/N the court properly admitted in evidence the multimedia messages of an obscene picture.

Held: The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA. Ang claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish
through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an
electronic signature under REE. He objected to the admissibility of the obscene picture but the objection is too
late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.

6. Torres vs. PAGCOR, 2011

Facts: Torres was a slot machine operator supervisor in PAGCOR. He was investigated and was found guilty of
padding the credit meter reading of the slot machines The administrative tribunal adjudged for the dismissal of
Torres. Torres filed a motion for reconsideration for the said judgment through facsimile transmission.

Issue: W/N the transmission of the motion for reconsideration through facsimile be regarded as equivalent of
filing taking into consideration the advancement of technology.

Held: Sections 38 and 39 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provide:

38. Filing of motion for reconsideration. - The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for
reconsideration with the disciplining authority who rendered the same within 15 days from receipt thereof.

39. When deemed filed. - A motion for reconsideration sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the
postmark on the envelope which shall be attached to the records of the case and in case of personal delivery, the date
stamped thereon by the proper office.

Clearly, a motion for reconsideration may either be filed by mail or personal delivery. A facsimile or fax
transmission is a process involving the transmission and reproduction of printed and graphic matter by scanning
an original copy, one elemental area at a time, and representing the shade or tone of each area by a specified
amount of electric current. The current is transmitted as a signal over regular telephone lines or via microwave
relay and is used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the elemental area in the proper position and the
correct shade. The receiver is equipped with a stylus or other device that produces a printed record on paper
referred to as a facsimile. A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy
preserving all the marks of an original. Without the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether
the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in
fact, be a sham pleading. It was ruled that in MCC vs. Ssangyong, "electronic data message" and "electronic
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional
equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule.

7. Expert Travel &Tours vs CA, 2005

Facts: Korean Air filed a complaint against Expert Travel & Tours for collection of sum of money and damages.
The complaint was signed by Atty. Mario Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent and
legal counsel of KAL. At the hearing, Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that thru a special meeting which was a
teleconference, a resolution of Korean Air Board of Directors approved and authorized him to file the
complaint. The general manager provided no written copy of the said resolution.

Issue: Whether or not the court can take judicial notice of the said teleconference.

Held: In this age of modern technology, the courts take judicial notice that business transactions may be made
by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is an interactive group communication through an
electronic medium, bringing people together under one roof even though they are separated by hundreds of
miles. In the Philippines, teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members of the board of directors of
private corporations is a reality. RA 8792 and the SEC issued a Memorandum Circular providing the guidelines to
be complied in such conferences. However, the Court is not convinced that one was conducted, even if there
had been one, the Court is not inclined to believe that a board resolution was duly passed specifically
authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file the complaint.