When a duplicate document is admissible as evidence
By: Atty. Keshia Daniell L. Valencia on August 6, 2026
UNDER the current Revised Rules on Evidence (“RRE”), a “duplicate” can be admissible in evidence, subject to certain conditions.
Since the year 1901, the rules of procedure in the Philippines have required that the original document itself be submitted before it may be admitted as evidence by the courts. The submission of secondary evidence is admissible only under certain circumstances.
However, on May 1, 2020, the RRE took effect. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 130 changed the title of the “Best Evidence Rule” to the “Original Document Rule” and also introduced the definition of a “duplicate” document.
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original document; or (2) under the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original document.
An “original” pertains to the document itself or any counterpart thereof intended to have the same effect by the person executing or issuing it. On the other hand, a “duplicate” refers to the counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
A photocopy, which is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original through action of light on an electrically charged surface, falls under the definition of a duplicate.
A photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible as evidence to the same extent as the original, absent any of the two conditions stated above.
It must, however, be pointed out that admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value. Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight or probative value of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.
Landmark case
In a 2025 landmark case, and on the basis of the amendments introduced by the RRE, the Supreme Court admitted as evidence the photocopy of the victim’s death certificate, even if the prosecution failed to present the original document, to prove an element of the crime of murder that a person was, indeed, killed.
In this case, no question was raised as to the authenticity of the original death certificate.
There was also no allegation that it would be unjust or inequitable to admit such photocopy. The court, however, emphasized that the duplicate or photocopy merely serves to corroborate the testimony of the witness that the victim had already passed away when the witness arrived at the hospital.
This 2025 landmark case finds application as well to tax cases. The Court of Tax Appeals (“CTA”) has upheld and adopted the rules on admissibility of photocopied documents.
In a 2026 tax case, CIR v. Service Resources, Inc., the CTA En Banc granted the tax refund of the creditable withholding taxes (BIR Form No. 2307) pertaining to the taxpayer’s branches, despite failure to verify the details thereon with the branches’ BIR Certificate of Registration (“COR”).
Initially, the CTA did not admit the CORs as evidence for failure of the taxpayer to submit the original documents for comparison. However, after careful deliberation, the CTA eventually ruled that the photocopied CORs should be admissible as duplicates. The Court held that this conclusion is aligned with the prevailing general rule on the admissibility of a duplicate, such as a photocopy, to the same extent as an original.
However, the dissenting opinion of the Service Resources case pointed out that in tax cases, the Rules of Court (including Rule 130, Section 4 of the RRE) apply suppletorily to the Revised Rules of the CTA (“RRCTA”).
RRCTA sets a more exacting standard regarding the presentation of documentary evidence. It provides that original documents must be presented for purposes of comparison and verification. For example, during the trial stage, Section 4 of Rule 12 of RRCTA states that the reception of documentary evidence by a court official shall be for the sole purpose of marking, comparison with the original, and identification by the witnesses of such documentary evidence.
Further, under Section 5(b) of Rule 12 of the RRCTA, it provides that the original copies of documents must be ready for verification and comparison in case doubt on its authenticity is raised during the hearing or resolution of the formal offer of evidence.
Taken together, the dissent said that the provisions under the cited sections of the RRCTA underscore the requirement that the parties must still present original documents before the CTA may consider them as evidence, unless the party sufficiently establishes the unavailability of the original documents and that the circumstances justify the presentation of secondary evidence.
Thus, while the majority of the CTA En Banc has applied the liberal rule under the RRE on admissibility of duplicates, the Supreme Court has yet to settle the matter, considering the stricter RRCTA rules, as pointed out by the dissenting opinion.
Keshia Daniell L. Valencia is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on August 6 2026. Please see this link.