EVIDENCE Best Evidence Rule People v. Tandoy, GR 80505, 4 December 1990

 People v. Tandoy, GR 80505, 4 December 1990

Doctrine: The best evidence rules applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.

Presentation of the "buy-bust money" is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant.

FACTS: On May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m. the Makati Police Station dispatched its officers to conduct a buy-bust operation at Barangay Singkamas, Makati. The target area was a store along the said street, and an officer was to pose as the buyer. He stood alone near the store waiting for any pusher to approach. The other members of the team strategically positioned themselves.

Soon, three men approached designated officer-buyer. One of them was the accused-appellant, who said without preamble: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?" Singayan said yes. The exchange was made then and there — two rolls/pieces of marijuana for one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU (Anti-Narcotics Unit).

The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy. The police conducted a body search of the accused-appellant and took from him the marked money, as well as eight more rolls/foils of marijuana and crushed leaves. The arresting officers brought Tandoy to the Office of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Makati Police Station, for investigation.

The accused-appellant chose to remain silent after having been informed of his constitutional rights. Microscopic, chemical and chromotographic examination was performed on the confiscated marijuana by the National Bureau of Investigation, who later testified that the findings were positive. The marijuana was offered as an exhibit.

The accused-appellant denied the allegations. The Trial Court held him guilty and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Accused-appelant raised in his petition that the Court a quo erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged despite lack of evidence to prove that he sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer, and that the Court a quo erred in admitting in evidence against the accused Exh. "E-2-A" which is merely a xerox copy of the P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLY TO THE MARKED BILLS?

HELD: NO. The best evidence rules applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.

Presentation of the "buy-bust money" is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant. The marked money is not an ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the 

Rules of Court which excludes the introduction of secondary evidence, except in five specified instances. In this case, the marked money was presented solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents.

Therefore, other substitutionary evidence, such as a Xerox copy, is admissible without need for the accounting of the original. Besides, the presentation at the trial of the buy-bust money was not indispensable to the conviction of Tandoy since the sale of the marijuana had been sufficiently proven by the testimony of the police officers involved in the operation, and the marijuana actually sold had been submitted as evidence.