People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan

Triplicate copies of a document produced simultaneously with the original by carbon sheets are duplicate originals admissible as primary evidence without prior accounting for the non-production of the originals. The trial court therefore erred in excluding the Metro Drug Corporation triplicate invoices under Section 46, Rule 123.

Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others were charged in Criminal Case No. 36885 of the Court of First Instance of Manila with falsification of public documents in their capacities as public officials and employees. The prosecution's theory was that public and official documents falsely showed purchases of relief supplies and/or merchandise for distribution to calamity indigents or sufferers. The evidentiary dispute concerned the best evidence rule, specifically Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, which the trial court read as requiring production of the originals before triplicate sales invoices could be admitted.

In Criminal Case No. 36885 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others were charged with falsification of public documents in their capacities as public officials and employees. The charge alleged that they made it appear that certain relief supplies and/or merchandise were purchased by Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales for distribution to calamity indigents or sufferers, in the quantities, at the prices, and from the business establishments or persons made to appear in the public documents, when in fact no such distributions of such relief and supplies as valued and supposedly purchased by Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales in the public and official documents had ever been made.

To prove the falsification, the prosecution presented a witness with a booklet of receipts marked Exh. "D", containing value invoices numbered 101301 to 101400 of the Metro Drug Corporation, Magallanes corner Jakosalem, Cebu City. The booklet contained the triplicate copies. According to the witness, the original invoices were sent to the Manila office of the company and the duplicates to the customers, so the triplicate copies remained in the booklet. In preparing receipts for sales, two carbons were used between the three sheets—the original, the duplicate, and the triplicate—so that the duplicates and triplicates were filled out by the carbons in the course of the preparation and signing of the originals. The witness giving this testimony was the salesman who issued the triplicate marked Exh. "D-1".

As the witness was explaining the figures or words appearing on the triplicates, Judge Bienvenido M. Tan, then presiding, interrupted the proceeding and held that the triplicates were not admissible unless it was first proven that the originals were lost and could not be produced. He stated: "Triplicates are evidence when it is proven first that the original is lost cannot be produced. But as the witness has alleged that the original is in the Manila Office, why not produce the original?" Another witness, the accountant of the Metro Drug Corporation in Manila, testified that sales in the provinces were reported to the Manila office and that the originals of the sales invoices were transmitted to the main office in support of cash journal sheets, but that the original practice of keeping the original white copies no longer prevailed because the originals were given to the customers, while only the duplicate or pink copies were submitted to the central office in Manila. He testified on cash journal sheets, Exhs. "A", "A-1" to "A-10", which he received from the Metro Drug Corporation, Cebu branch, and which contained the sales made in the Cebu branch.

After the cross-examination of the accountant, the prosecution again went back to the identification of the triplicate invoice, Exh. "D-1". At that stage, the judge told the prosecution that the applicable law was Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, which required the production of the originals. In response, the special prosecutor claimed that the evidence of the prosecution would not be able to secure the production of the originals on account of their loss. The prosecution then announced its intention to file a petition for certiorari against the ruling of the court below, to which the court agreed. Hence this petition.

The petition alleged that the invoices sought to be introduced were produced by the use of carbon sheets and thereby produced a facsimile of the originals, including the figures and signatures on the originals, and were therefore regarded as duplicate originals that may be introduced as such even without accounting for the non-production of the originals. The trial court's factual premise was that the originals were in the Manila office and could be produced; it thus required their production before admitting the triplicates.

• Duplicate Originals: Petitioner argued that the invoices sought to be introduced were produced by carbon sheets and thereby produced a facsimile of the originals, including the figures and signatures on the originals, so they are regarded as duplicate originals and may be introduced as such even without accounting for the non-production of the originals.
• Loss of Originals: Petitioner claimed that the prosecution would not be able to secure the production of the originals on account of their loss.

• Admissibility of Triplicate Invoices: Whether triplicate copies of sales invoices produced by carbon sheets simultaneously with the originals are admissible in evidence as duplicate originals without prior accounting for the non-production of the originals.
• Trial Court's Reliance on Section 46, Rule 123: Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the triplicates were inadmissible unless the originals were first proven lost and could not be produced under Section 46, Rule 123.

• Admissibility of Triplicate Invoices: Yes. Triplicate invoices produced by carbon sheets simultaneously with the originals are duplicate originals admissible as primary evidence without accounting for the non-production of the originals.
• Trial Court's Reliance on Section 46, Rule 123: Yes. The trial court erred; the ruling that the triplicates were inadmissible without proof of loss of the originals was incorrect and was reversed.

• Admissibility of Triplicate Invoices: The admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been settled. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing on the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged, produces a facsimile on the sheets beneath, the signature is reproduced by the same stroke of the pen; all the sheets are regarded as duplicate originals, and either may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others. The Metro Drug Corporation triplicate invoices, marked Exh. D-1, were produced by carbon sheets in the ordinary course of preparing and signing the originals; they therefore fell within this rule and were admissible as primary evidence. The Court also cited People vs. Quinones, which held that a carbon copy of an original bearing the appellant's signature is admissible and possesses all the probative value of the original, without requiring an accounting for the non-production of the original. Wharton's Criminal Evidence and Underhill's Criminal Evidence were likewise cited in support of the admissibility of duplicate originals.
• Trial Court's Reliance on Section 46, Rule 123: The trial court ruled that Section 46, Rule 123 required the prosecution to produce the originals before the triplicates could be admitted. That ruling was incorrect. Because the triplicates were duplicate originals rather than secondary evidence, no prior showing of loss or inability to produce the originals was required. The Court relied on the duplicate-originals rule and on People vs. Quinones, which cited Section 47, Rule 123, and reversed the trial court's exclusionary ruling.

• Duplicate Originals — When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing on the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged, produces a facsimile on the sheets beneath, the signature is reproduced by the same stroke of the pen; all sheets are duplicate originals, and either may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others. The Court applied this to the triplicate Metro Drug invoices, which were produced simultaneously with the originals by carbon sheets.
• Best Evidence Rule — The best evidence rule requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact. Carbon copies made at the same time and on the same machine as the original are duplicate originals and are as much primary evidence as the originals; hence they may be admitted without accounting for the non-production of the originals. The Court relied on this principle to reverse the trial court's ruling that the triplicates were inadmissible under Section 46, Rule 123.

• "When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces 2 facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the nonproduction of the others." — This passage, quoted from Moran, states the canonical duplicate-originals rule applied to the triplicate invoices.
• "The said confession Exhibit B, being a carbon copy of the original and bearing as it does the signature of the appellant, is admissible in evidence and possess all the probative value of the original, and the same does not require an accounting for the non-production of the original." — Quoted from People vs. Quinones, this passage supports the admissibility and probative value of carbon copies as duplicate originals.
• "We find that the ruling of the court below to the effect that the triplicates formed by the used of carbon papers are not admissible in evidence, without accounting first for the loss of the originals is incorrect and must be reversed." — This is the Court's dispositive conclusion reversing the trial court's exclusionary ruling.

• People vs. Quinones, 44 Off. Gaz., No. 5, 1520, 1525 — The Court cited this as authority that a carbon copy of an original bearing the appellant's signature is admissible in evidence and possesses all the probative value of the original, without requiring an accounting for the non-production of the original under Section 47, Rule 123.

• Section 46, Rule 123, Rules of Court — The trial court invoked this provision as requiring production of the originals before the triplicate invoices could be admitted. The Supreme Court held the invocation was incorrect because the triplicates were duplicate originals.
• Section 47, Rule 123, Rules of Court — Cited in People vs. Quinones for the rule that a carbon copy of an original bearing the signature of the party is admissible and does not require an accounting for the non-production of the original.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concurred.