“Our courts cannot render a fair judgment if the documents presented and identified are based on fabricated facts”
Documents are commonly used in courts or tribunals as evidence to prove a party’s claim, charge, or defense.
It is imperative that the documentary evidence marked, presented, and identified in court is authentic. Otherwise, the truth will not be ascertained by our courts.
There is a notion that an original document presented and identified by a witness is automatically authentic or genuine. This is inaccurate since what may appear to be an original document may have been falsified, forged, or tampered with.
It is for this reason that every document presented, identified, and marked in court must be authenticated.
During the pre-trial, the parties are required to mark their respective evidence, examine the copy and compare it to the original, and manifest in open court that the copy presented is a faithful reproduction of the original (Section 2, Rule 18, Rules of Civil Procedure).
Even after this point, the documentary evidence is still not definitively authenticated. The marking and comparison of documents are conducted only to ensure that all the evidence is available and marked before the trial.
However, there are instances in pre-trial when the parties may agree on the genuineness and due execution of the documents (Section 2, Rule 18).
There are also documents which are judicially admitted for their genuineness and due execution, such as actionable documents (which are the bases of the claim) not specifically denied under oath by the adverse party, and documents subject of and attached to a Request for Admission (Section 7, Rule 8; Rule 26).
There are two classes of documents, public and private.
Public documents include: (a) written official acts or records of sovereign authority, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) documents acknowledged before a notary public; (c) documents considered public documents under treaties and conventions; and (d) public records of private documents required to be entered in the Philippines (Section 19, Rule 132, Rules on Evidence).
All other documents or writings are private.
However, it is not enough to present, mark and identify a document to authenticate it. It must go through a process of authentication pursuant to the requirements of the Rules of Court, which may vary depending on the nature and kind of document.
Written official acts or records of sovereign authority may be authenticated by the official publication or certificate of the officer in custody of the document (Section 24, Rule 132).
The latter is publicly known as the “certified true copy,” obtained from government agencies or entities. Examples of these documents are laws, governmental rules and regulations, letters of authority from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, or decisions of the courts.
Any person who obtained a published official copy or certified true copy of the public document can be presented as a witness. The author of the official act or the officer of the agency is not required to be presented in court to authenticate the public document.
Documents acknowledged before the notary public are authenticated by presenting the notarized document with the “acknowledgement” in evidence.
There is no necessity to present the notary public as a witness since the acknowledgement is prima facie evidence of the execution of the document (Section 30, Rule 132).
The notary public will only be presented if there are questions on the genuineness and due execution of the document, such as tampering, insertion of information, or forgery of signatures.
In the absence of these issues, a party or witness to a notarized document can testify to identify the document in court.
Not all notarized documents are to be considered as public documents. Only those which are duly acknowledged before the notary public are considered public documents within the contemplation of the Rules.
A “jurat” is a notarial act, but will not convert or make the document a public document (Francisco, Evidence; citing Minutes of the Rules of Court Revision Committee).
Public documents under treaties and convention which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source are authenticated by a certificate or form prescribed in the treaty or convention.
An example is the Apostille Convention, which took effect in the Philippines on May 14, 2019 after the Philippines acceded to it on September 12, 2018.
Under this Convention, the tedious requirements of legalization in different jurisdictions are disposed of. The internationally accepted certificate, otherwise known as an “allonge,” satisfies the requirement of authentication.
However, this applies only between and among the countries which signed or have acceded to the convention. The certificate must contain: (a) an authentication of the signature of the signatory; (b) the capacity in which the person signing is acting; and (c) where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp it bears (Article 2, Apostille Convention).
The diplomatic officer or agent need not be presented as a witness in court, since the presentation of the allonge will be sufficient to authenticate the document attached to and referred therein. The person who applied for and processed the certificate or allonge may be presented in court as a witness to identify it.
In case the foreign country from which the document originates is not a party to the Apostille Convention or other conventions, the secretary of the embassy or consular officers of the Philippines in the foreign country, in which the record is kept, may authenticate it by the seal of their office (Section 24, Rule 132).
The certificate of the consular office may be identified in a Philippine court by a witness who applied for and processed its authentication.
The consular officers who signed the certificate and affixed the seal of the office are not required to be presented as witnesses.
The most common public documents are private documents recorded in a public office.
It is the recording of the document, as required by law, that makes it a public document. Examples are birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, affidavits of adverse claim, and certificates of land registration, among others.
This kind of public document is proved by the original record in the custody of the interested party or by securing a certified true copy of the recorded private document in the public office where it is kept (Section 27, Rule 132).
Conversely, if there is no such record in the office, it will issue a certificate of no record. In either case, the person who applied for it may be presented as a witness to identify the certificate.
On the other hand, private documents may be proven authentic by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; (b) evidence of genuineness of the handwriting or signature of the maker; or (c) other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity (Section 20, Rule 132).
A witness who saw the person write, or has acted or been in charge of the person’s documents, may be presented as a witness to prove the genuineness of the handwriting.
A comparison made by the witness or the court, with a specimen of handwriting treated as genuine by the other party, may be used to prove its genuineness (Section 22, Rule 132).
Furthermore, a person sufficiently familiar with the handwriting of another may be presented as a witness (Section 53, Rule 130).
After complying with the authentication of documents, these must then be formally offered.
According to the Rules, the Court shall not consider evidence which has not been formally offered (Section 34, Rule 132). In simpler words, only documents formally offered and admitted by the court can be considered in the rendition of judgment.
The authentication of documents is indispensable in the orderly administration and just disposition of cases.
Our courts cannot render a fair judgment if the documents presented and identified are based on fabricated facts.
