Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE v. JULIA DEL ROSARIO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 188881 2014-04-21	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
Nothing on record shows, and petitioner itself makes no claim, that the Exhibits fall under any of the exceptions to the Best Evidence rule. Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the theory that the original cannot be produced by the party who offers the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Even then, the general rule is that secondary evidence is still not admissible until the non-production of the primary evidence has been sufficiently accounted for.[23]
	GR No. 190875 2012-06-13	ANICETO BANGIS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS v. ADOLFO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The bare testimony of one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis, that the subject document was only handed[43] to him by his father, Aniceto, with the information that the original thereof "could not be found"[44] was insufficient to justify its admissibility. Moreover, the identification made by Notary Public Atty. Valentin Murillo[45] that he notarized such document cannot be given credence as his conclusion was not verified against his own notarial records.[46] Besides, the Heirs of Bangis could have secured a certified copy of the deed of sale from the Assessor's Office[47] that purportedly had its custody in compliance with Section 7, Rule 130[48] of the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 150206 2009-03-13	HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.[36] Although the best evidence rule admits of exceptions and there are instances where the presentation of secondary evidence would be allowed, such as when the original is lost or the original is a public record, the basis for the presentation of secondary evidence must still be established. Thus, in Department of Education Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario,[37] we held that a party must first satisfactorily explain the loss of the best or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence. A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory explanation for non-production of the original instrument.