ADVANTAGES OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

I. COMPUTER FORENSICS

Computer forensics has become an important of litigation. Computers have

become an important part of your lives. This does not exclude criminals who
have the technical know how of hacking into computer network systems.
Electronic evidence has played a role in court but obtaining can be difficult.

There have been issues of authenticity concerned with this type of evidence.
Nonetheless it still used today with the help of legal standards to make them
admissible in court. Computer forensics is beneficial but it also has
disadvantages.
Computers are the most dominant form of technology. It has been used in
variety of purposes which has made digital and electronic evidence
important. However there are still setbacks to this field.

Pros and Cons

The exchange of information is taking place everyday over the internet.

Although this may be convenient for us, it can also pose as an opportunity
for criminals. Phishing, corporate fraud, intellectual property disputes, theft,
breach of contract and asset recovery are some of the situations wherein
computer forensics can be used.

Apart from the technical aspect, legal issues are also involved. Computer
forensic analysts make their investigation in such a way that the electronic
evidence will be admissible in court.

There are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to computer

forensics. This field is relatively new and criminal matters usually dealt with
physical evidences. This makes electronic evidence something very new.
Fortunately it has been a helpful tool wherein important data needed for a
case that has been lost, deleted or damaged can be retrieved.

Computer forensics’ main advantage is its ability to search and analyze a

mountain of data quickly and efficiently. They can search keywords in a
hard drive in different languages which is beneficial since cyber crimes can
easily cross borders through the internet.

Valuable data that has been lost and deleted by offenders can be retrieved
which becomes substantial evidence in court. Legal professionals are able to
produce data in court that were previously impossible.
The first setback when using electronic or digital evidence is making it
admissible in court. Data can be easily modified. Analyst must be bale to
fully comply with standards of evidence required in the court of law. The
computer forensic analyst must show that the data is tampered.

His or her own investigation must also be fully documented and accounted
for. Computer forensics must also training of legal standard procedures
when handling evidence.

The main disadvantage is the cost of when retrieving data. Computer

forensic experts hire per hour. Analysis and reporting of data can take as
long as 15 hours but it will also depend on the nature of the case. Another
one is that when retrieving data, analyst may inadvertently disclose
privilege documents.

Legal practitioners involved in the case must also have knowledge of

computer forensics. If not they will not be able to cross examine an expert
witness. This also applies to the judge, solicitors and barristers. Computer
forensics is still fairly new and some may not understand it. The analyst
must be able to communicate his findings in a way that everyone will
understand.

Although computer forensics has its disadvantage, this can be solved by the
party involved. Evidence on the other hand can only be captured once. The
use of computers and the rise of cyber crimes also call for an equally high
the method of stopping it.

SOURCE: https://sentreesystems.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-
of-computer-forensics/

II. BIGGEST DISADVANTAGE:

It can be easily tampered with or altered by an individual.

SOURCE: https://lawaspect.com/discoverability-electronic-evidence/

III. DIGITAL FORENSICS

Example Uses of Digital Forensics

In recent time, commercial organizations have used digital forensics in

following a type of cases:

1. Intellectual Property
2. theft
3. Industrial espionage
4. Employment disputes
5. Fraud investigations
6. Inappropriate use of the Internet and email in the workplace
7. Forgeries related matters
8. Bankruptcy investigations
9. Issues concern with the regulatory compliance

Advantages of Digital forensics

1. To ensure the integrity of the computer system.

2. To produce evidence in the court, which can lead to the punishment
of the culprit.
3. It helps the companies to capture important information if their
computer systems or networks are compromised.
4. Efficiently tracks down cybercriminals from anywhere in the world.
5. Helps to protect the organization's money and valuable time.
6. Allows to extract, process, and interpret the factual evidence, so it
proves the cybercriminal action's in the court.

Disadvantages of Digital Forensics

1. However, it is must be proved that there is no tampering

2. Producing electronic records and storing them is an extremely costly
affair Legal
 3. practitioners must have extensive computer knowledge
4. Need to produce authentic and convincing evidence
5. If the tool used for digital forensic is not according to specified
standards, then in the court of law, the evidence can be disapproved
by justice.
6. Lack of technical knowledge by the investigating officer might not
offer the desired result

Summary:

Digital Forensics is the preservation, identification, extraction, and

documentation of computer evidence which can be used in the court of law
Process of Digital forensics includes 1) Identification, 2) Preservation, 3)
Analysis, 4) Documentation and, 5) Presentation Different types of Digital
Forensics are Disk Forensics, Network Forensics, Wireless Forensics,
Database Forensics, Malware Forensics, Email Forensics, Memory Forensics,
etc. Digital forensic Science can be used for cases like 1) Intellectual Property
theft, 2) Industrial espionage 3) Employment disputes, 4) Fraud
investigations.

SOURCE: https://www.guru99.com/digital-forensics.html

Why is electronic evidence important?

With the prolific usage of electronic devices such as smartphones and

computers, the amount of data generated from these devices is vast. As such,
there can be an expectation within almost any investigation for the need to
identify digital evidence. If identified, collected and analysed in a
forensically sound manner, electronic evidence can prove crucial to the
outcome of criminal, civil and corporate investigations.

What is electronic evidence?

Electronic evidence, also commonly known as digital evidence, is data

stored within electronic devices or systems that can be recovered by forensic
experts and used as admissible evidence in court.
What forms of media are considered electronic evidence?

Data recovered from the following devices and applications are considered
as evidence. However, this is only admissible if recovered using a forensic
methodology by a certified expert.

• Computers, laptops and tablets

• Mobile phone data
• HDD, RAID and SSD hard drives
• USB memory sticks and SD cards
• Social media information
• Whatsapp messages
• Cloud storage data
• Digital photographs
• CCTV

SOURCE: https://cyfor.co.uk/the-importance-of-electronic-evidence/

Is electronic evidence admissible in criminal cases?

On Aug. 1, 2001, the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) went into effect. The
REE applies whenever a piece of electronic data message or electronic
evidence is offered or used as evidence.

“Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or

stored by electronic, optical or similar means.

“Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of

information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or
produced electronically.

Electronic documents include digitally signed documents and any printout

or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic document.
For purposes of the REE, electronic document is the same as electronic data
message. Some examples of electronic data message or electronic evidence
are files in computer hard drives and diskettes, computer printouts, text
messages (SMS), Facebook chats, multimedia messages (MMS) and CCTV
footage. Coverage When the REE first went into effect, its applicability was
limited to “civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases.” (Section 1, Rule 1).

Notably, criminal cases were excluded from the coverage of the REE.
However, about a year thereafter, or on Sept. 24, 2002, the Supreme Court
issued a resolution expanding the coverage of the REE to criminal cases. The
resolution amended Section 1, Rule 1 of the REE as follows

“SEC. 2. Cases covered.—These Rules shall apply to all criminal and civil
actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.”

The amendment took effect on October 14, 2002 following its publication in
the Manila Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, on Sept. 27, 2002.
However, about 10 years after the amendment, the Supreme Court, in Ang
v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010), held that the REE does
not apply to criminal actions.

In this case, the accused, Rustan Ang, was charged under R.A. 9262 (Violence
against Women & Children Act) for sending an MMS to his ex-girlfriend
(Irish Sagud) consisting of a picture of a naked woman with legs spread and
with her face superimposed on the figure. After she got the obscene picture,
Irish got other text messages from Rustan, boasting that it would be easy for
him to create and send through the Internet similarly scandalous pictures of
her. Rustan Ang questioned the admissibility of the obscene picture which
he sent as MMS to the complainant. He claimed that since the MMS was not
authenticated in accordance with the REE, it was inadmissible as evidence
against him.

The Supreme Court held that Rustan Ang waived the objection as he did not
raise it at the time the electronic message was offered in evidence. The High
Court added: “Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal
action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-
judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings.”

Significantly, the Ang case made no mention of the 2002 amendment

extending the coverage of the REE to criminal cases. The dilemma So there’s
the dilemma. Through a duly published amendment way back in 2002, the
Supreme Court expressly stated that the REE applies to criminal actions. Yet,
about 10 years thereafter, the court, in the Ang case, expressly held that it
does not apply to criminal cases.

Some say that the quoted statement from Ang is just obiter dictum. Others
disagree. Whatever it is, the seeming confusion must be clarified as early as
possible. For example, there are the computer files of Benhur Luy wherein
he listed public officials who are allegedly part of the PDAF scam by
receiving part of the money from Janet Napoles.

Will these computer files, or their printouts, be admissible in the criminal

cases against the concerned public officials? Also, there are CCTV footages
establishing the commission of crimes by their perpetrators. Are these
footages admissible in evidence against those accused of the crimes? If we
follow the 2002 amendment, they are, but not if we follow the Ang case.
These examples demonstrate the practical implication of the issue

SOURCE: https://business.inquirer.net/175246/is-electronic-evidence-
admissible-in-criminal-cases#
 SURVEY OF CASES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

THE ENACTMENT in June 2000 of the Electronic Commerce Act (E-

Commerce Act), as well as the issuance in August 2001 by the Supreme
Court (SC) of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (E-Evidence Rules), provided
a legal framework that addresses various concerns relative to electronic
documents and transactions. To date, the SC promulgated a handful of
decisions that interpreted the relevant provisions of said legal measures.
However, there appears to be a bifurcation in their interpretation and
application.

A. SMS/TEXT MESSAGES AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

The case of Nuez v. Cruz-Apao (April 12, 2005) resolved the issue on
whether SMS or text messages are admissible as electronic evidence. The SC
admitted as evidence SMS or text messages, and cited Section 1(k) of the E-
Evidence Rules which defined the term "ephemeral electronic
communication" and classified text messages as such. "Ephemeral electronic
communication" refers to "telephone conversations, text messages, chat
room sessions, steaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms
of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained." The
SC had a similar ruling in the later case of Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud (Sept.
9, 2005).

B. COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

In the case of Aznar v. Citibank (March 28, 2007), the SC resolved the issue
of whether a computer print-out with handwritten notations is an electronic
document. The SC declared that such document "cannot be considered
admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not sufficiently
established" by the party offering the same as evidence. The SC applied the
Rules of Court (ROC), particularly Section 20, Rule 132, as the E-Evidence
Rules was not yet in existence at the time the lower court’s decision was
promulgated. The ROC provides that whenever any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by: (a) anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker. The SC said that, in his testimony, the person
offering the said computer print-out did not actually see the document
executed or written.

The SC also discussed the provisions of the E-Evidence Rules and said that
even if the E-Evidence Rules was applied, the authentication of the subject
document was also found to be "wanting." It ruled that the offeror’s
testimony failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-
out was generated and how said information could be relied upon as true.

C. FAX TRANSMISSIONS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

The SC, in the case of MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. (Oct.
17, 2007), ruled that print-outs and photocopies of facsimile transmissions
are not electronic evidence. It determined whether an original print-out of a
facsimile transmission is an electronic data message or electronic document,
and noted the differences in the definitions of electronic data message
and/or electronic document in the E-Commerce Act and its implementing
rules and regulations and in the E-Evidence Rules, in light of the UNCITRAL
Model Law and the legislative deliberations on the E-Commerce Act.

In the UNCITRAL Model Law, data message is defined as "information

generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means
including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic
mail, telegram, telex or telecopy." This definition is similar to the IRR’s
definition of what constitutes electronic data message.

The SC pointed out that the intention of the legislature when it passed the E-
Commerce Act is to exclude facsimile transmissions. Notably, the definition
in the E-Commerce Act of "electronic data message" does not include the
latter portion of the UNCITRAL’s definition, i.e., the portion "but not limited
to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or
telecopy." The E-Evidence Rules defines electronic data message and
electronic document substantially the same as how the E-Commerce Act
defines said terms. The SC stressed that said deletion from the E-Commerce
Act’s definition was intentional, as Congress intended to focus the thrust of
the law to paper-less communications and digital transactions. In its obiter
dictum, the SC reiterated this ruling in the 2011 case of Torres vs. PAGCOR
(Dec. 14, 2011).
D. PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENTS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

The case of National Power Corp. v. Codilla (April 3, 2007) focused on

determining whether photocopies of documents are electronic evidence. In
said case, the subject matter is photocopies of documents with handwritten
notations. The party presenting said documents failed to present the original
copies thereof.

In denying their admissibility, the SC pointed out that under the E-Evidence
Rules, an electronic document is relevant only in terms of the information
contained therein. What differentiates an electronic document from a paper-
based document is the manner by which the information contained therein
is processed - to be considered an electronic document, the information must
be "received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or
produced electronically." The subject documents were not considered by the
SC as electronic evidence due to the existence of manual notations.

E. APPLICABILITY OF THE E-EVIDENCE RULES

In the obiter dictum of the case of Rustan Ang vs. Pascua (April 20, 2010), the
SC further ruled that the E-Evidence Rules does not apply in criminal
actions, but only in civil, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings.
This ruling runs contrary to the clear letter of the E-Evidence Rules, which
does not exclude criminal action in its scope of application.

Parallel to its efforts to establish a more efficient court system through a

paper-less Judiciary, it is hoped that the SC shall continue to enrich the local
legal landscape by, among others, promulgating decisions on cases
involving electronic documents and electronic evidence.

SOURCE:
https://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=a-
survey-of-cases-on-electronic-evidence&id=66437
 New Rules (of Court) for the New Economy

Computers changed the way we do things in profound ways. Information

technology ushered in the era of electronic commerce, where transactions
are made at the speed of light in a paperless environment. But this
convenience of the so-called New Economy, also raises a number of legal
problems.

For example, how do lawyers prove that two parties have agreed on a
contract when the transaction was conducted primarily through the
Internet? Most of our laws assume the existence of paper records as evidence
in court, although oral testimony and other kinds of physical evidence have
been part of legal proceedings.

As more and more people transact business by electronic means, a law

addressing how evidence of these transactions could be made available in
court becomes an urgent necessity.

When Republic Act 8792 or the E-Commerce Act was signed into law on June
14 last year, observers hailed it as a landmark piece of legislation that finally
placed the Philippines on the map of electronic commerce.

Other than penalizing hacking, here is a law that expressly addressed the
admissibility of electronic evidence in court and administrative bodies, so
lawyers said.

Chapter II of the law, for example, provides for the legal recognition of
electronic data message (Section 6), electronic documents (Section 7) and
electronic signatures (Section 8).

The same chapter also describes the procedure for authenticating electronic
data messages and electronic documents (Section 11); the admissibility and
evidential weight of electronic data messages and electronic documents
(Section 12); acceptable procedures for retention of such messages or
documents (Section 13); procedures for proving admissibility (Section 14);
and cross-examination of witnesses to a dispute involving electronic data
(Section 15).
But the law, as it is, only provides the groundwork for addressing legal
problems associated with computer-generated records. Section 11 of the law
provides procedures for authenticating electronic data messages and
electronic documents "until the Supreme Court by appropriate rules shall
have so provided."

Legal experts said the procedures laid down were only temporary,
providing Philippine courts with a "working ability" to accept electronic
documents. They said that in the first place, the law is silent on electronic
notarization. The implementing rules and regulations of the E-Commerce
Act drafted by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of
Budget and Management and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas also do not
address this matter.

The Supreme Court has finally filled in the gaps in the law, approving a new
set of Rules of Electronic Evidence last July 17 through an en banc resolution
on Administrative Matter No. 01-7-01. The rules take effect Aug. 1. The
rules were drafted under the auspices of the UP Law Center Internet and
Society Program with the participation of key leaders of the Philippine
Internet Commerce Society. Lawyer Claro Parlade, UP law professor JJ
Disini and information technology experts Albert de la Cruz and Lito Averia
played major roles in drafting the rules.

The rules consist of 12 provisions. Rule 1 deals with its scope; Rule 2,
definition of terms and rules of interpretation; Rule 3, admissibility of
electronic documents as evidence; Rule 4 is the Best Evidence Rule as it
applies to electronic documents; Rule 5, procedures of authenticating
electronic documents; Rule 6, usage and authentication of electronic
signatures; Rule 7, weight of electronic documents when used as evidence in
court; Rule 8, electronic business records as exceptions to the hearsay rule;
and Rule 9, method of proof that an electronic document is authentic. The
rules added another provision on the admissibility of audio, photographic,
video and ephemeral evidence in court proceedings (Rule 11).

Ephemeral communication refers to telephone conversations, text messages,

chatroom sessions, streaming audio and video, and other electronic forms of
communication, the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. Rule 12
deals with the effectivity of the provisions. More importantly, it expressly
provides that the rules shall apply to "cases pending after their effectivity."
Major points Rule 3, Section 1 considers an "electronic document" as a
functional equivalent of a paper-based document.

Rule 4, the Best Evidence Rule, provides in its first section that "an electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately." The Best Evidence Rule
applied to paper documents simply answers the question: How close is the
record to its "original" version? Has its admissibility been maintained or are
there differences between the record and its "original version"?

The rules also provide for the authentication of electronic documents and
electronic signatures (Rules 5 and 6). Authentication answers the question:
Is the record what it purports to be? In the case of electronic documents,
they are authenticated in any of the following manner:
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported
to have signed it;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as
may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document, or
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge. The rules provide that "a document
electronically notarized in accordance with rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved
as a notarial document under the Rules of Court." Digital signature
Electronic or digital signatures are admissible as evidence as the
functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written
document if authenticated in any of the following manner:
4. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
5. By any other means provided by law; or
6. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic signature.

For purposes of the rules, digital signatures are included in an electronic

signature. Here certification authorities (CAs) come into play. CAs are
responsible for verifying the identity of the applicant of a digital signature.
They check the identity of the author of the signature. They process
applications, validate the information and issue digital certificates, which
contain public/private keys used to create digital signatures.

The rules speak of the Public/Private Key method, which is the most widely
accepted form of digital signature. This "Key Pair," in an asymmetric
cryptosystem, refers to a private key and its mathematically related public
key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former
creates. In other words, under this method, only the owner of the private key
can decrypt data or information encrypted by its corresponding public key,
and vice versa.

Hence, digital signatures by themselves do not assure integrity. The CAs –

which are third-party bodies – affirm and validate electronic documents.

A major difficulty in presenting electronic documents in court is the issue of

accuracy. Electronic records, experts concede, may be more vulnerable than
paper records to undetectable modification, whether intended or
unintended. Two other issues must also be addressed: admissibility and
weight.

Proof of integrity

In the heart of the new rules is a shift from the traditional dependence on the
proof of integrity of the original document to a dependence on the proof of
the integrity of the record-keeping system. In other words, the integrity of
the record-keeping system is the key to proving the integrity of the record,
including any manifestation of the record created, maintained, displayed,
reproduced or printed out of a computer system. The higher the integrity of
the record-keeping system, the better. This is seen in Rule 7, which lays
down a long list of factors for assessing the evidentiary weight of documents
(nine factors) and the integrity of an information and communication system
(three factors).

Rule 8 carries a long paragraph describing certain electronically stored

business data as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule, simply put,
answers the question: Can the document be relied upon as evidence of the
truth of its contents? A document is hearsay if is a second-hand
representation of the information about a matter to which the statements in
a document relate, as opposed to statements made by an eyewitness who
can be cross-examined. It is inadmissible in court unless it falls under a
recognized exception, as in the case of business records regularly kept.

Rule 9 provides for the use of an affidavit establishing the admissibility and
evidentiary weight of an electronic document. This is a promising test for
integrity. For example, an affiant may declare, subject to cross-examination,
that the computer system that generated the electronic evidence is reliable,
providing a rebuttable presumption regarding the integrity of the record.
Only that the rule here does not explicitly require that it would be sufficient
for the proponent to make an assertion to the effect that the computer system
was working properly at the relevant or material time and by including any
supporting evidence the proponent may wish to provide to support such
assertion, as some authorities suggested.

Rule 10 allows the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means

after a summary hearing of the parties on the affidavit mentioned in the
previous rule. It recognizes electronic testimony and provides guidelines on
how it should be recorded and stored – a preview of the electronic courtroom
of the future which Chief Justice Hilario Davide envisions for the
Philippines.

SOURCE:
https://www.philstar.com/business/technology/2001/07/27/128086/new-
rules-of-court-new-economy

NEW RULES ON EVIDENCE: PHOTOCOPIES AS EVIDENCE AND

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS (2020)

In an effort to adopt technological advancements and incorporate

developments in the law, jurisprudence and international conventions, the
Supreme Court (SC) proposed amendments to the revised rules on evidence
(RRE) in A.M. 19-08-15-SC, which took effect on May 1, 2020. The material
changes in the amended RRE discussed here are: the new definition of
“original document;” expanded coverage of privilege communications; and
a new hearsay rule.

Duplicates as original documents

One notable change in the rules on documentary evidence is the inclusion of

a “duplicate” as an original document. Under Section 4(b) of Rule 130 of the
RRE, a duplicate is defined as a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of
photography including enlargement and miniatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction or by other equivalent
process or technique that accurately reproduce the original. This raises
questions on the admissibility of photocopies as evidence of an original
document.

A photocopy is a photographic copy of a printed or written material

produced by a process involving the action of light on a specifically prepared
surface. Under the old rules on evidence, photocopies were treated as
secondary evidence when presented before the court. It is only admissible as
such when the offeror of the photocopy has complied with specific
conditions set forth under the old rules.

Based on the expanded definition of an original of a document under the

RRE, it would appear that a photocopy may now be admissible as a
duplicate, so photocopies are no longer treated as secondary evidence. Given
that a photocopy of a document is a counterpart produced by photography,
a technique that accurately reproduces the original, it falls within the
definition of a duplicate that includes a counterpart produced through
photography.

Under Section 4(c) of Rule 130, a duplicate is as admissible as the original.

However, the admissibility of duplicates as an original is limited. A
duplicate is not as admissible as the original if a genuine question is raised
on the authenticity of the original or, in the circumstances, it is unjust or
inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. The admissibility of
a photocopy as a duplicate may still be questioned by the opposing party on
these grounds.
Given the novelty of the RRE and that there is no jurisprudence on the
admissibility of photocopies as an original under the amended rules, it
remains to be seen how courts would rule when parties present photocopies
as evidence of original documents before the court.

Other changes in the rules on documentary evidence

Another notable amendment is the change of the term “Best Evidence Rule”
to “Original Document Rule.” This change was made to reflect the precept
that the application of the rule is limited to documentary evidence only.

Furthermore, the RRE expanded the definition of documentary evidence.

Under Section 2 of Rule 130, documentary evidence includes writing,
recording, photograph or other record.

Photographs, still pictures, drawings, stored images, X-ray films and motion
pictures or videos are expressly included in the definition of documentary
evidence. Given that photographs and recordings are considered
documentary evidence, the “Original Document Rule” likewise applies.

Expanded coverage of privileged communications

The coverage of privileged communications with respect to attorney-client

and physician-patient relationships has also been expanded. Under Section
24(b) of Rule 130, the attorney-client privilege applies even to a person
reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to practice law.

On the physician-client privilege, under Section 24(c) of Rule 130, this also
applies to members of the patient’s family who have participated in the
diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or
psychotherapist.

Hearsay rule

In addition, the definition of “hearsay” and some of its exceptions have been
amended. Hearsay is now defined as a statement other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth
of the facts asserted therein, including oral or written assertions, and
nonverbal conduct of the person intended as an assertion. A new exception
to this rule was introduced, which can be considered a catchall provision,
known as “Residual Exception.”

Under Section 50 of Rule 130, the residual exception pertains to a statement

not specifically covered by any specific exception set forth under the rules,
but have equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

Impeachment of witness

Under the RRE, a witness may now be impeached by proof of evidence of

conviction of a crime, if it has a penalty in excess of one year, or a crime
involving moral turpitude.

The amendments to the RRE were made to reflect the changing times. It is a
welcome development that should help courts better ascertain the truth on
matters of fact and make more informed decisions.

SOURCE: https://mtfcounsel.com/2020/09/17/new-rules-on-evidence-
photocopies-as-evidence-and-other-highlights/