G.R. No. L-14257 - People vs. Tan

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14257)

Petitioner’s Allegations and Charges

Respondents Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others were charged with falsification of public documents in their official capacities. The prosecution alleged that the respondents caused public and official documents to show that certain relief supplies and merchandise had been purchased by Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales for distribution to indigent calamity victims, when in truth no such distributions corresponding to the values and purchases indicated in the documents were ever made.

Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

The prosecution introduced a booklet of triplicate sales invoices from Metro Drug Corporation marked as Exhibit "D" (triplicates numbered 101301 to 101400). The booklet contained the triplicate copies; the salesman-witness who issued them testified that originals were sent to the Manila office and duplicates to the customers, producing triplicates by using two carbon sheets between three forms so that the duplicate and triplicate reflected the writing and signatures executed on the original. An accountant from Metro Drug Corporation (Manila) testified about reporting practices: sales from the Cebu branch were transmitted to the Manila main office to support cash journal sheets, but the practice of retaining white originals at the central office had changed, with originals being given to customers and duplicates or pink copies submitted to the central office. The prosecution also offered cash journal sheets (Exhibits "A", "A-1" to "A-10") showing Cebu branch sales.

Ruling Below and Reason for Immediate Appeal

During identification of the triplicate invoices (Exh. "D-1"), the trial judge interrupted and held that triplicate copies are not admissible unless the original is first proven lost and cannot be produced, invoking Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court (requiring production of originals). The prosecution asserted that admitting the triplicates without accounting for nonproduction of originals would be necessary because the originals could not be secured. The trial court agreed to allow the prosecution to seek relief by petition for certiorari, prompting review by the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether triplicate or carbon copies produced contemporaneously with the original document (duplicate originals) may be admitted in evidence without first accounting for the nonproduction or loss of the original, i.e., whether such copies enjoy the status of duplicate originals and thus constitute primary evidence admissible without proof of the original’s unavailability.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court treated the admissibility of duplicate originals made by carbon or similar means as a settled question of evidence. It explained that when carbon paper is placed between sheets so that writing on the outer sheet—including a signature—produces facsimiles upon the sheets beneath contemporaneously, all sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals. The Court cited established commentary and precedent (including Moran and People v. Quinones) and authorities on evidence law (Wharton’s Criminal Evidence; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence) recognizing that carbon copies made at the same time and by the same stroke are primary evidence equivalent in probative force to the original and may be introduced without accounting for the nonproduction of the original.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s ruling was incorrect. Triplicates produced by the use of carbon sheets and thus constituting duplicate originals are admissible in evidence without first proving the loss or nonproduction of the originals. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and ordered the trial court to procee

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14257)

Facts of the Case

Criminal Case No. 36885 in the Court of First Instance of Manila charged respondents Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others with falsification of public documents in their capacities as public officials and employees.
The complaint alleged that respondents made it appear in public documents that certain relief supplies and/or merchandise were purchased by Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales for distribution to calamity indigents or sufferers, in specific quantities, at specific prices, and from specified business establishments or persons, when in truth no such distributions or purchases as valued and purportedly made had ever been effected.
To prove falsification, the prosecution presented a booklet of receipts marked Exh. "D", consisting of blue invoices numbered 101301 to 101400 of the Metro Drug Corporation, Magallanes corner Jakosalem, Cebu City.
The booklet contained triplicate copies; according to a prosecution witness (the salesman who issued the triplicates), the originals were sent to the Manila office of the company, duplicates were sent to customers, and the triplicate copies remained in the booklet.
The salesman-witness explained that, in preparing receipts for sales, two carbons were used between the three sheets so that the duplicates and triplicates were filled out by the use of carbons concomitantly with the preparation and signing of the originals; the triplicates offered were marked Exh. "D-1".
While the salesman was explaining figures and words on the triplicates, Hon. Bienvenido M. Tan, then presiding in the court below, interrupted and ruled that the triplicates were not admissible unless it was first proven that the originals were lost and could not be produced, questioning why the originals could not be produced if allegedly in the Manila office.
The prosecution called another witness, an accountant of Metro Drug Corporation in Manila, who testified that sales in the provinces were reported to the Manila office and that originals of sales invoices were transmitted to the main office in support of cash journal sheets; however, he also testified that the earlier practice of keeping white original copies no longer prevailed because originals were given to customers and only the duplicate (pink) copies were submitted to the central office in Manila.
The accountant testified to certain cash journal sheets (Exhs. "A", "A-1" to "A-10") received from the Metro Drug Corporation, Cebu branch, and stated that those sheets contained sales made in the Cebu branch.
After cross-examination of the accountant, the prosecution resumed identification of the triplicate invoice Exh. "D-1"; at this stage the trial judge invoked Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court requiring production of originals.
The special prosecutor asserted that the prosecution’s evidence would be adversely affected by the ruling and indicated inability to secure production of the originals on account of their loss.
The prosecution announced its intention to file a petition for certiorari against the trial court’s ruling; the trial court agreed to the filing, and the matter was brought to this Court by petition.

Procedural Posture

The matter reached the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari seeking review of the trial court judge’s ruling that triplicate invoices (Exh. "D-1") were not admissible without first accounting for the nonproduction of the originals.
The ruling of the trial court effectively excluded the triplicates from evidence pending production or accounting for the originals, prompting the petition by the People of the Philippines.

Issue Presented

Whether triplicate invoices produced by the use of carbon paper (duplicate originals) are admissible in evidence without first accounting for the nonproduction or loss of the originals.
Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the triplicates are inadmissible unless it is proven that the originals are lost and cannot be produced, under Section 46, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court (as invoked by the trial judge).

Evidence Presented by Prosecution (as detailed in the record)

Exh. "D": a booklet of triplicate blue invoices numbered 101301 to 101400 from the Metro Drug Corporation (Magallanes corner Jakosalem, Cebu City).
Exh. "D-1": the triplicate copies from the booklet, identified and explained by the salesman-witness who issued them, who described the use of two carbon sheets producing duplicates and triplicates concomitantly with the original.
Testimony by the salesman-witness that the originals were sent to the Manila office, duplicates to customers, triplicates retained in the booklet.
Testimony by the Metro Drug Corporation accountant in Manila that provincial sales were reported to the Manila office and originals, historically, we