Best Evidence

Best Evidence

Vallarta vs. Ca

163 SCRA 58

Facts: Alfonso Vallarta was charged and convicted with the crime of malversation. He filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied. It was sustained Court of Appeal thus, the accused filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Assailed by the petitioner, among others, as erroneous is the respondent court's appreciation of exhibit 2, the charge order of one Flavio Vasquez for 353 cavans and 50 kilos of rice.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Exhibit 2 was not signed and duly authenticated; it is a mere carbon copy and no explanation was given why Flavio Vasquez was not presented as a witness.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in their appreciation of the evidence leading to the conviction of the accused.

Held: The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe introduced in evidence without accounting for the non- production of the original. But, an unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a carbon copy is not competent evidence. It is because there is no public officer acknowledging the accuracy of the copy.

The charge order submitted is at best secondary evidence and is not admissible, unless it is made manifest that the primary evidence is unavailable, as where it is shown that it has been lost or destroyed, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court or is in the hands of the opposite party who, on due notice, fails to produce it. Petitioner-movant here had access to a certified or a true copy of the charge order, as it was allegedly presented as an exhibit during the reinvestigation of the case before the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija yet, the accused did not request for a copy and exhibit the same before the trial court. The non-production by the accused of the original document, unless justified under the exceptions in Section 2, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence" adverse to him.