Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CA
227 SCRA 391
OCTOBER 26, 1993
FACTS:
The case involves an action for a sum of money filed by respondent
against petitioner.
Kue Cuisons Binondo branch Manager Tiu Huy Tiac ordered various kinds of
paper products amounting to P297, 486.30 from Valiant and had it delivered
to Lilian Tan of LT Trading. Upon delivery, Lilian Tan paid for the merchandise and Tiu
Huy Tiac issued 9 post-dated checks to Valiant as payment for the paper products
but the checks bounced. Upon demand by Valiant, Kue Cuison denies having any
involvement with Tiu Huy Tiacs business with Valiant.
Left with no recourse, private respondent filed an action against petitioner for
the collection of P297, 487.30 representing the price of the merchandise. After due
hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint against petitioner for lack of merit.
On appeal, however, the decision of the trial court was modified, but was in effect
reversed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tiu Huy Tiac possessed the required authority from
petitioner sufficient to hold the latter liable for the disputed transaction.
HELD:
It is evident from the records that by his own acts and admission,
petitioner held out Tiu Huy Tiac to the public as the manager of his store in Sto.
Cristo, Binondo, Manila. More particularly, petitioner explicitly introduced Tiu Huy
Tiac to Bernardino Villanueva, respondent's manager, as his (petitioner's) branch
manager as testified to by Bernardino Villanueva. Secondly, Lilian Tan, who has
been doing business with petitioner for quite a while, also testified that she knew
Tiu Huy Tiac to be the manager of petitioner's Sto. Cristo, Binondo branch. This
general perception of Tiu Huy Tiac as the manager of petitioner's Sto. Cristo store is
even made manifest by the fact that Tiu Huy Tiac is known in the community to be
the "kinakapatid" (godbrother) of petitioner. In fact, even petitioner admitted his
close relationship with Tiu Huy Tiac when he said that they are "like brothers" ( Rollo,
p. 54). There was thus no reason for anybody especially those transacting business
with petitioner to even doubt the authority of Tiu Huy Tiac as his manager in the
Sto. Cristo Binondo branch.
branch, three (3) months after Tiu Huy Tiac left petitioner's employ, petitioner even
sent, communications to its customers notifying them that Tiu Huy Tiac is no longer
connected with petitioner's business. Such undertaking spoke unmistakenly of Tiu
Huy Tiac's valuable position as petitioner's manager than any uttered disclaimer.
More than anything else, this act taken together with the declaration of petitioner in
open court amount to admissions under Rule 130 Section 22 of the Rules of Court,
to wit : "The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him." For well-settled is the rule that "a man's acts,
conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him,
for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is
his fault if they do not. If a man's extrajudicial admissions are admissible against
him, there seems to be no reason why his admissions made in open court, under
oath, should not be accepted against him." (U.S. vs. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578, 583
[1912]).
FACTS:
P/Sr. Insp. Daniel received an information that a certain Oca was
engaged in the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs. P/Sr. Insp. Daniel relayed the
information to P/Chief Inspector Pagdilao, who ordered the formation of a buy-bust
team to be headed by P/Sr. Insp. Daniel.
P/Sr. Insp. Daniel and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of
Oca. P/Sr. Insp. Daniel presented himself as a buyer of shabu, and that he was
buying three (3) kilos. Oscar Sanga quoted the price at P950, 000.00 per kilo.
After two failed attempts, the sale finally took place. Oca arrived on board a
green KIA Pride. His driver remained inside the car, while Oca and P/Sr. Insp. Daniel
proceeded to the garage. Oca asked P/Sr. Insp. Daniel if he had the money, and
when he answered in the affirmative, Oca went to the KIA Pride car and took out a
black and white Felix the Cat pillowcase from the back seat. He tore the pillowcase
open and removed two plastic bags containing some white crystalline substance. At
this point, P/Sr. Insp. Daniel beeped his Voyager, a two-way radio transmitter, as a
pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team who were strategically
positioned within the vicinity.
The team immediately rushed to the garage. P/Sr. Insp. Daniel and PO2
Francisco T. Duran apprehended Oca, while SPO2 Manibo checked on the driver of
the KIA Pride car, later identified as accused Hector Mariano y Tengco. SPO2 Manibo
confiscated a black belt bag from accused Mariano. The bag contained five (5) small
plastic bags of shabu with a total weight of more or less 342.4 grams. SPO2 Manibo
arrested accused Mariano. Separate charges were filed against accused Sanga and
Mariano.
However, on November 29, 1995, before SPO2 Manibo could testify, he was
killed while conducting another buy-bust operation. The prosecution was
constrained to present the testimonies of P/Sr. Insp. Daniel and PO2 Duran against
accused Mariano.
P/Sr. Insp. Daniel testified that SPO2 Ruben Manibo apprehended accused
Mariano. He had no participation in the frisking of accused Mariano and has no
knowledge whether the 342.4 grams of shabu were actually found in accused
Marianos possession.
PO2 Duran testified that he assisted P/Sr. Insp. Daniel in apprehending Oscar
Sanga. He claimed that, at the same time, SPO2 Manibo conducted a search on
accused Mariano. SPO2 Manibo recovered five small pieces of plastic from the black
belt bag which accused Mariano was then wearing. While testifying in the court a
quo, a black belt bag was shown to PO2 Duran and he identified the same as the
bag worn by accused Mariano. During the cross-examination, accused Marianos
counsel asked accused to wear the belt bag, but the same did not fit his waistline.
The trial court rendered a judgment finding accused Hector Mariano y Tengco
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu), a regulated drug, and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Mariano on the basis
of the uncorroborated testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
HELD:
Yes. The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence
required to overturn this presumption is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is that
proof which produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind. In a long line of
cases, the Court has held consistently that where the inculpatory facts admit of
several interpretations, one consistent with accuseds innocence and another with
his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fails to meet the test of moral certainty.
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove, first, that a crime has been
committed and second, that the accused is responsible therefor. In the case at bar,
it is undisputed that five (5) pieces of small plastic bags containing shabu were
seized during the buy-bust operation. However, there is want of evidence to
establish the fact of possession of the same by accused-appellant Mariano, the very
crime for which he was charged with. The testimony of PO2 Duran is vague on this
point.
The veracity of the allegation that accused was wearing the belt bag from which
the plastic bags were taken thus became questionable. SPO2 Manibo would have
been the best witness to testify on the charge against accused-appellant Mariano;
unfortunately, he was killed in another buy-bust operation before he could take the
witness stand. While his demise evokes sympathy from the Court, it may not be
used as a justification for regarding the testimony of PO2 Duran as veritable,
especially since it pertains to the very essence of the crime charged against
accused-appellant Mariano.
Even assuming that accused-appellant was indeed wearing the belt bag, PO2
Duran was still not certain whether the plastic bags actually contained shabu. The
evidence, taken in its entirety, must be clear and convincing to prove an accuseds
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he is entitled to an acquittal.
FACTS:
Jonathan Barlis, accompanied by his uncle, Pfc. Patrocinio Mercado of
the Northern Police District, surrendered to Pfc. Mariano Rivera at the Kamias police
station, Quezon City. Jonathan admitted that he was with the group which was
responsible for the killing of Honorina Ballerda inside her house and that on the
same occasion, one of his companions, "Buboy" (Eduardo Nining), took three men's
watches while his other companion, Ferdie (Ferdinand Lopez) took some money
which they later divided among themselves. Thereafter, assisted by Atty. Confesor
B. Sansano, Chairman of the Legal Assistance Office of the IBP-Quezon City Chapter,
Jonathan signed a sworn statement wherein he narrated in detail how the crime was
committed and the extent of his participation.
An information for robbery with homicide was filed with the RTC of Quezon
City against Jonathan Barlis and his companions. Trial proceeded against Jonathan
Barlis only because the two other accused remained at large.
Adela Argate, who was the house helper and companion of the deceased
victim, was able to identify Jonathan "because he is tall and had no hat." His
companions were thin and young, but she failed to identify them because they were
always looking down and were hiding behind Jonathan.
The trial court promulgated its decision finding Jonathan Barlis guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused Jonathan
Barlis of the crime of robbery with homicide.
HELD:
To sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is
necessary that the robbery itself be proved as conclusively as any other essential
element of the crime. The taking with intent to gain of personal property belonging
to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon things are the essential elements of robbery. There is robbery with
homicide when by reason or on occasion of a robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of person, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed.
As shown above, the only evidence of the taking of the personal property of
the victim is the extrajudicial confession of the appellant. Under Section 3, Rule 133
of the Rules of Court, "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti."Corpus delicti is the body (material substance) upon which a crime has been
committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man or the charred remains of a house
burned down. In a derivative sense, it means the substantial fact that a crime was
committed. It is made up of two elements:
(a) that a certain result has been proved, for example, a man has died or a building
has been burned; and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for the
act. Section 3, Rule 133 does not mean that every element of the crime charged
must be clearly established by independent evidence apart from the confession. It
means merely that there should be some evidence tending to show the commission
of the crime apart from the confession. Otherwise, utility of the confession as a
species of proof would vanish if it were necessary, in addition to the confession, to
adduce other evidence sufficient to justify conviction independently of such
confession. Otherwise stated, the other evidence need not, independently of the
confession, establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
On May 5, 2004, SI Saul received information from a confidential
informant that accused-appellant Normina Gani (Normina), alias Rohaima, was
looking for a buyer of shabu. SI Saul agreed to meet the informant and accusedappellant Normina for negotiation at the Pearl Hotel in Manila, just in front of the NBI
Headquarters. Accused-appellant Normina initially offered to sell 500 grams of
shabu to SI Saul. SI Saul reported back to the NBI Headquarters to tell his superior
and they coordinated with the PDEA. SI Saul was designated as the poseur-buyer
and was given the marked money constituting of two P1,000.00 bills, with
severalP20.00 bills in between, to make it appear that the money was worth One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), the purchase price agreed upon by SI
Saul and accused-appellant Normina for the shabu.
The Accused-Appellants were apprehended by the NBI and PDEA in a buybust operation wherein prohibited drugs were seized, a .45 caliber pistol, and the
motorcycle.
RTC ruled against the accused-appellants. They appealed the RTCs
judgement to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
Hence, the accused-appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In their Brief, accused-appellants assert that the prosecution failed to comply
with the rules on the custody of seized drugs provided under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165. According to accused-appellants, there is no showing that the
inventory and picture-taking of the shabu were conducted in their presence, as well
as in the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official, immediately after accused-appellants arrest
and seizure of the shabu purportedly sold by them. When accused-appellants were
brought by the buy-bust team to the barangay hall following their arrest, there was
already a typewritten inventory report for signature by the barangay officials, which,
accused-appellants surmise was already prepared at the NBI Office. It is likewise not
clearly established where and when the markings on the plastic sachets of shabu
were made. Accused-appellants reason that the suspicions regarding the actual
conduct of an inventory of the shabu allegedly sold by them could have been
avoided had the prosecution presented the testimonies of the barangay officials
who signed the inventory report.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rule on the chain of custody of the seized shabu
had been substantially complied with.
HELD:
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the
following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object,
and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court
of the substance seized as evidence.
The Court further finds that the arresting officers had substantially complied
with the rule on the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs as provided under
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Jurisprudence has decreed that, in dangerous
drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to
photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of
arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically
impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
The SC affirmed the decision of the CA.
FACTS:
The charges against the accused-appellants stemmed from the
following Informations dated April 15, 2002:
(a) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-108834 against Betty, Monico, Marcelo, Robert,
Ricky, Roger and nine other John Does for the kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of Pinky allegedly lasting for six days.
(b) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-108835 against Jose, Lowhen, Betty, Monico,
Morey, Jubert, Marcelo, Robert, Ricky, Roger and nine other John Does for the
kidnapping of and demanding from Albert USD 1,000,000.00 as ransom
money.
The RTC rendered a Decision on September 27, 2007. In Criminal Case No. Q02-108834, the accused-appellants were acquitted from the charges of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention of Pinky. The accused-appellants were, however,
convicted of conspiring the kidnapping of, and demanding of ransom from Albert in
Criminal Case No. Q-02-108835.
The CA rendered the herein assailed Decision denying the appeal of the
accused-appellants and affirming the RTCs decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom despite the
prosecutions failure to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in
their favor.
HELD:
In affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants, we are guided by
four-settled doctrines enunciated in People v. Martinez, viz:
We find that the RTC and the CA did not overlook essential facts or
circumstances which may otherwise justify the acquittal of Marcelo, Ricky, Jubert,
Robert, Morey, Lowhen, Jose and Roger for having conspired in kidnapping Albert for
the purpose of extorting ransom. That no ransom was actually paid does not negate
the fact of the commission of the crime, it being sufficient that a demand for it was
made.
FACTS:
A vehicular collision took place along the stretch of the Dofia Remedios
Trinidad Highway in Brgy. Taal, Pulilan, Bulacan involving a Mitsubishi Lancer
registered under the name of, and at that time driven by the late Eduardo Tuazon
Angeles, husband of respondent Celerina Rivera-Angeles and father of respondents
Edward and Celine, and a Nissan Patrol registered under the name of petitioner
Robert Da Jose and at that time driven by petitioner Francisco Ocampo y Angeles.
Eduardo was rushed by unidentified persons to the F.M. Cruz Orthopedic and
General Hospital in Pulilan, Bulacan. Despite treatment at said hospital, Eduardo
died on the same day due to Hemorrhagic Shock as a result of Blunt Traumatic
Injury.
The RTC rendered the assailed Decision holding that "it was recklessness or
lack of due care on the part of defendant Ocampo while operating the Nissan Patrol
that was the proximate cause of the vehicular collision which directly resulted in the
death of Eduardo T. Angeles very soon thereafter." Thus, the defendants were held
solidarily liable to pay the plaintiffs for damages and other costs and expenses of
the suit.
The CA agreed with the RTCs findings that Francisco was clearly negligent in
driving the Nissan Patrol and that such negligence caused the vehicular collision
which resulted in the death of Eduardo. The CA awarded the amount of P2, 316,000
for loss of earning capacity in favor of respondents.
Petitioners claim that the CA erred in admitting the Glennis Laundry Haus
cash vouchers as evidence to prove loss of earnings as the said vouchers are purely
hearsay evidence, hence, inadmissible and of no probative value.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Joint Affidavit and purported Cash Vouchers of
Glennis Laundry Haus are hearsay evidence and as such, they are inadmissible and
have no probative value to establish the lost earnings of the deceased.
HELD:
While it is true that respondents submitted cash vouchers to prove
Eduardos income, it is lamentable as duly observed by the RTC that the officers
and/or employees who prepared, checked or approved the same were not presented
on the witness stand. The CA itself in its assailed Decision disregarded the cash
vouchers from Classic Personnel, Inc. and the Jhamec Construction Corp. due to lack
of proper identification and authentication. We find that the same infirmity besets
the cash vouchers from Glennis Laundry Haus upon which the award for loss of
earning capacity was based.
It bears stressing that the cash vouchers from Glennis Laundry Haus were not
identified by Celerina contrary to the findings of the CA but by Celine in her
testimony before the RTC on November 13, 2002 and Celine, under crossexamination, admitted by way of stipulation that she had no participation in the
preparation thereof.
We thus agree with the RTCs ruling that said cash vouchers though admitted
in evidence, whether objected to or not, have no probative value for being hearsay.
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to be
produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is anchored on three reasons: (1)
absence of cross-examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence; and (3) absence
of oath. Basic under the rules of evidence is that a witness can only testify on facts
within his or her personal knowledge. This personal knowledge is a substantive
prerequisite in accepting testimonial evidence establishing the truth of a disputed
fact. Corollarily, a document offered as proof of its contents has to be authenticated
in the manner provided in the rules, that is, by the person with personal knowledge
of the facts stated in the document.
FACTS:
Civil Case No. 0023 is an action for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages brought by the Republic against respondents
Luz Reyes-Bakunawa, Manuel Bakunawa, Jr., Manuel Bakunawa III, President Marcos
and First Lady Imelda R. Marcos.
Republic filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied hence,
an appeal to the SC.
The evidence of the Republic did not preponderantly establish the ill-gotten
nature of the Bakunawas wealth. The mere holding of a position in the Marcos
administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate within the
context of E.O. No.1. According to Republic v. Migri, the term subordinate as used in
E.O. No. 1and E.O. No. 2 referred to a person who enjoyed a close association with
President Marcos and/or his wife similar to that of an immediate family member,
relative, and close associate, or to that of a close relative, business associate,
dummy, agent, or nominee. Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show
that one unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of a close association or relation
with President Marcos and/or his wife. It would not suffice, then, that one served
during the administration of President Marcos as a government official or employee.
The Republic particularly insists that Luz Bakunawa served as the Social
Secretary or the Assistant Social Secretary of First Lady Marcos; and mentions
several other circumstances that indicated her close relationship with the Marcoses,
such as her assumption of office in the early part of the Marcos administration, the
accommodations extended to her during her various travels,the fact that her close
relationship with the Marcoses was of common knowledge among the Masbates,and
the negotiated contracts the Bakunawas entered into during the Marcos
administration.
However, Luz Bakunawa maintains that she was not First Lady Marcos Social
Secretary but a mere member of the staff of the Social Secretary; and that the
assets of the Bakunawas were honestly earned and acquired well within the
legitimate income of their businesses.
We hold that the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the evidence of the
Republic was able to establish, at best, that Luz Bakunawa had been an employee in
Malacang Palace during the Marcos administration, and did not establish her having
a close relationship with the Marcoses, or her having abused her position or
employment in order to amass the assets subject of this case. Consequently, Luz
Bakunawa could not be considered a close associate or subordinate of the Marcoses
within the context of E.O. No. 1 and E.O. No. 2.
Petition denied.
FACTS:
Nilo Ramos and Raul Obispo became best friends while they were
working in Saudi Arabia as contract workers. In August 1996, petitioners executed a
Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in favor of respondent Far East Bank and Trust
Company (FEBTC)-Fairview Branch, over their property and the notarized REM
secured credit accommodations extended to Obispo in the amount of P1,
159,096.00.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the REM was attended by fraudulent acts or
misrepresentations?
HELD:
In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the
burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must
rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense
offered by their opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant
had not been given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order.
The extent of the relief that may be granted can only be as much as has been
alleged and proved with preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule
133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Meaning of DNA
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the chain of molecules found in every
nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individuals DNA is unique for the
individual except for identical twins.
DNA evidence
-
Constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information
directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
DNA Analysis
-
DNA testing
-
It is a verified and credible scientific method which include the extraction of DNA
from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the
information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of
determining with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two
or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person or if the
biological samples originate from related persons.
Biological sample
-
Any organic material originating from a persons body, even if found in inanimate
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing which includes blood, saliva, and other
body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
I.
SCOPE: The rule shall apply whenever DNA evidence is offered, used, or
proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions
as well as special proceedings.
II.
III.
IV.
The convict or the prosecution may file a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus in the court of origin. If the court finds that the petition is
meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and
order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for
lawful cause.
PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE: The trial court shall preserve the DNA
evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and
results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing.
V.
I.
SCOPE OF THE RULE: it shall apply in all criminal proceedings and noncriminal proceedings involving child witnesses. Unless otherwise provided,
this rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims
of crime, accused of a crime and witnesses to a case, whether criminal,
civil or other proceedings.
II.
III.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such
child witness may, however, move the court to allow him to testify in the
manner provided in this rule.
IV.
LEADING QUESTIONS: The court may allow leading questions in all stages
of examination of a child witness if the same will further the interests of
justice.
V.
VI.
3. When application may be approved The court may order that the
testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a
substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying
in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or the prosecutor as the
case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the
completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
4. Preservation of childs testimony The testimony of the child shall be
preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which
shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a
protective order.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
criminal
to prove
and (2)
victim.
X.
PROTECTIVE ORDERS
Within 30 days from receipt, all copies and any transcripts thereof
shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the
period is extended by the court on motion of a party; and
g. The protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further
order of thye court.
XI.
Electronic document
It 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.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Electronic signature An electronic signature or a digital signature
authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in
evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a
written document.
Authentication of electronic signatures An electronic signature may be
authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic signature.
Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signature Upon the
authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention
of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is
related or to indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied
therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic
signature operated without error or fault.
Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures Upon the
authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to
those mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that:
METHOD OF PROOF
Audio, video and similar evidence Audio, photographic and video evidence of
events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
Ephemeral electronic communications Ephemeral electronic communications
shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses,
other competent evidence may be admitted.