GR L 14257; (July, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14257; July 31, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Br. XIII, PACITA MADRIGAL-GONZALES, ANGELITA CENTENO, JULIA CARPIO, CALIXTO HERMOSA, and CRISPULA R. PAGARAN alias PULA, respondents.
FACTS
In Criminal Case No. 36885 for falsification of public documents, the prosecution sought to introduce as evidence a triplicate copy (Exh. “D-1”) from a booklet of receipts (Exh. “D”) of the Metro Drug Corporation, Cebu branch. The witness, a salesman, testified that the triplicate copies were filled out simultaneously with the originals and duplicates using carbon paper, with the originals sent to the Manila office and the duplicates given to customers. The trial judge, Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, interrupted the proceedings, ruling that the triplicate was inadmissible under Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court unless the prosecution first proved the loss or non-production of the original. The prosecution announced its inability to produce the originals due to loss and expressed its intention to file a petition for certiorari, leading to this case.
ISSUE
Whether a triplicate copy of a sales invoice, produced simultaneously with the original and duplicate by the use of carbon paper, is admissible as evidence without first accounting for the non-production of the original.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, the People of the Philippines. It held that when documents are produced by inserting carbon paper between sheets so that the writing, including signatures, on the original produces facsimiles on the sheets beneath, all such sheets are considered duplicate originals. Citing authoritative commentators (Moran, Wharton, Underhill) and its own precedent (People vs. Quinones), the Court declared that any one of these duplicate originals may be introduced in evidence without the need to account for the non-production of the others. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was incorrect. The Court reversed the order and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with this ruling. No costs were awarded.