007 Magdayao vs People

007(case number) ENGR. BAYANI MAGDAYAO,

petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

AUTHOR :  NOTES: (if applicable) applicable)

152881_2004 TOPIC: 130 – best evidence rule PONENTE: CALLEO, SR., .! ACT!" (c#r$n$%$&'ca% $rer)

An Inforation !as filed c"ar#in# petitioner p etitioner !it" violation of $%&% $l#% ''  did t"en #nd t"ere $i%%&'%%(, 'n%#$&'%%( #nd &e%onio's%( )#*e, dr#$, iss'e #nd de%iver

to one RIC+Y OLIS, in p#()ent o& "is o-%i#tion to t"e %#tter, PNB C"e/* No. 011123 d#te d#ted d Sept Septe) e)-e -err 04, 511 115 5 in t"e t"e #)o #)o'nt 'nt o& SI6 SI6 H7NDR 7NDRED ED THO THO7SAN 7SAND D PESOS ESOS 8P244,444.449, 666 t"e petitioner, #ssisted -( /o'nse%, entered # p%e# o& not 'i%t(. 'i%t(. "en t"e case for trial !as called on *une +, 1--. for t"e prosecution to adduce its evidence, t"e petitioner and "is counsel !ere absent% T"e prosecution presented t"e private coplainant, /ic Olvis, !"o testified on direct e2aination t"at on Septeber 30, 1--1, t"e petitioner dre! and issued a c"ec in t"e aount of &00,000%00% t"e dra!ee ban dis"onored t"e c"ec for t"e reason 45ra!n A#ainst Insufficient 6unds4 staped on t"e dorsal  portion of t"e c"ec% Olvis testified t"at !"en infored t"at "is c"ec !as dis"onored, t"e petitioner pleaded for  tie to pa t"e aount t"ereof, but rene#ed on "is proise% Olvis t"en filed a criinal coplaint a#ainst t"e  petitioner for violation of $%&% $%&% $l#% $l#% '' on Septeber 7, 1--', doceted as I%S% No% -'839% T"e petitioner a#ain offered to repa Olvis t"e aount of t"e obli#ation b retrievin# t"e dis"onored c"ec and replacin# t"e sae !it" t!o ot"er c"ecs: one for &700,000%00 and anot"er for &'00,000%00 paable to Olvis% Tain# pit on t"e petitioner, "e a#reed% e t"en returned t"e ori#inal cop of t"e c"ec to t"e petitioner, but t"e latter a#ain failed to ae #ood on "is proise and failed to pa t"e &00,000%00% T"e prosecution oved t"at suc" direct e2aination of Olvis be continued on anot"er date, and t"at t"e  petitioner be ordered to appear before t"e court so t"at "e could be identified as t"e dra!er of o f t"e sub;ect c"ec% c"e c% T"e trial court #ranted t"e otion and set t"e continuation of t"e trial on *une 13, 1--+% In t"e eantie, t"e  prosecution ared a p"otocop of &N$ s &#i%'re to prod'/e t"e oriin#% t"ereo&  A%% )otions o& petitioner $ere denied  Tri#% /o'rt #d='ded petitioner 'i%t(. CA #?r)ed

I!!UE(!)" (a) t"e p"otocop of &N$ uirin# t"e production b t"e offeror of t"e best evidence is t"e prevention of fraud, because if a part is in possession of suc" evidence and !it""olds it and presents inferior or secondar evidence in its place, t"e presuption is t"at t"e latter evidence is !it""eld fro t"e court and t"e adverse part for a fraudulent or devious purpose !"ic" its production !ould e2pose and defeat% As lon# as t"e ori#inal evidence can be "ad, t"e court s"ould not receive in evidence t"at !"ic" is substitutionar in nature, suc" as p"otocopies, in t"e absence of an clear s"o!in# t"at t"e ori#inal !ritin# "as been lost or destroed or cannot be produced in court% Suc" p"otocopies ust be disre#arded, bein# inadissible evidence and barren of probative !ei#"t 6urt"erore, under Section 3(b), /ule 130 of t"e said /ules, secondar evidence of a !ritin# a be aditted !"en t"e ori#inal is in t"e custod or under t"e control of t"e part a#ainst !"o t"e evidence is offered, and t"e latter fails to  produce it after reasonable notice% To !arrant t"e adissibilit of secondar evidence !"en t"e ori#inal of a !ritin# is in t"e custod or control of t"e adverse part, Section  of /ule 130 provides t"at t"e adverse part ust be #iven reasonable notice, t"at "e fails or refuses to produce t"e sae in court and t"at t"e offeror offers satisfactor proof of its e2istence%

T"e ere fact t"at t"e ori#inal of t"e !ritin# is in t"e custod or control of t"e part a#ainst !"o it is offered does not !arrant t"e adission of secondar evidence% T"e offeror ust prove t"at "e "as done all in "is po!er  to secure t"e best evidence b #ivin# notice to t"e said part to produce t"e docuent% T"e notice a be in t"e for of a otion for t"e production of t"e ori#inal or ade in open court in t"e presence of t"e adverse part or  via a subpoena duces tecu, provided t"at t"e part in custod of t"e ori#inal "as sufficient tie to produce t"e sae% "en suc" part "as t"e ori#inal of t"e !ritin# and does not voluntaril offer to produce it or refuses to

 produce it, secondar evidence a be aditted% In t"is case, Olvis, t"e private coplainant, testified t"at after t"e c"ec !as dis"onored b t"e dra!ee ban for  insufficienc of funds, "e returned it to t"e petitioner upon t"e latter?s offer to pa t"e aount of t"e c"ec b dra!in# and issuin# t!o c"ecs, one for &700,000%00 and t"e ot"er for &'00,000%00% o!ever, t"e petitioner  still failed to satisf "is obli#ation to Olvis In "is 4@otion to Suspend &roceedin#s4 in t"e trial court, t"e petitioner aditted t"at "e received t"e ori#inal cop of t"e dis"onored c"ec fro t"e private coplainant and t"at "e caused t"e non8paent of t"e dis"onored c"ec% T"e petitioner cannot fei#n i#norance of t"e need for t"e production of t"e ori#inal cop and t"e fact t"at t"e  prosecution !as able to present in evidence onl a p"otocop t"ereof because t"e ori#inal !as in "is possession In fact t"e petitioner coplained of t"e prosecution?s violation of t"e best evidence rule% T"e petitioner, "o!ever, never produced t"e ori#inal of t"e c"ec, uc" less offered to produce t"e sae% T"e petitioner deliberatel !it""eld t"e ori#inal of t"e c"ec as a bar#ainin# c"ip for t"e court to #rant "i an opportunit to adduce evidence in "is defense, !"ic" "e failed to do follo!in# "is nuerous un;ustified postponeents 2n an r 'ssue"

T"ere !as no lon#er a need for t"e prosecution to present as !itness t"e eploee of t"e dra!ee ban !"o ade t"e notation at t"e dorsal portion of t"e dis"onored c"ec to testif t"at t"e sae !as dis"onored for "avin# been dra!n a#ainst insufficient funds% T"e petitioner "ad alread been infored of suc" fact of dis"onor and t"e reason t"erefor !"en Olvis returned t"e ori#inal of t"e c"ec to "i% In fact, as s"o!n b t"e testion of Olvis, t"e petitioner dre! and issued t!o ot"er separate c"ecs, one for &700,000%00 and t"e ot"er for &'00,000%00, to replace t"e dis"onored c"ec% $ecause of "is dilator tactics, t"e petitioner failed to adduce evidence to overcoe t"at of t"e prosecution?s% T"e petitioner?s contention t"at Olvis failed to identif "i as t"e dra!er of t"e sub;ect c"ec is nettlesoe% It  bears stressin# t"at Olvis !as read to identif t"e petitioner after "is direct e2aination, but t"e latter and "is counsel ine2plicabl failed to appear% T"e direct e2aination of Olvis "ad to be continued to enable "i to point to and identif t"e petitioner as t"e dra!er o f t"e c"ec% CA!E A3 OCTRINE: I!!ENTINCONCURRIN OPINION(!):