DEVELOPMENTS in communications technology have paved the way for paperless transactions.

In the
Philippines, the enactment in June 2000 of the Electronic Commerce Act (E-Commerce Act) provided a clear legal
framework that addresses various concerns with respect to electronic documents and transactions. Although
hastily passed by the Philippine legislature due to the global pandemonium created by the infamous I Love You
virus at that time, the E-Commerce Act proved to be, in the long run, an important piece of legislation that sought
not only to combat cyber-crimes but also facilitate electronic transactions.

To complement the legal environment established by the E-Commerce Act, the Supreme Court promulgated in August
2001 the Rules on Electronic Evidence. However, more than a decade later, there appears to be a misappreciation of the
concept of electronic document as applied to actual cases that involve non-traditional forms of evidence. From the time
the E-Commerce Act and E-Evidence Rules took effect, the Supreme Court (SC) promulgated four significant decisions
that interpreted the relevant provisions of these legal measures.

SMS/TEXT MESSAGES AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

In the 2001 administrative case of Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, the SC admitted in evidence SMS or text messages sent by the
respondent to the complainant. The messages proved the respondents illegal solicitation of money for a favorable
decision in the appellate court. In admitting the text messages as evidence, the SC cited the E-Evidence Rules which
defined the term ephemeral electronic communication and classified text messages as such.

COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

In the 2007 case of Aznar v. Citibank, a computer print-out was used by a private individual to sue a credit card company
for damages, claiming that his credit line was maliciously cut (blacklisted) even though his credit standing was good. The
computer print-out bore the actual signature of a certain person, said to be the issuer of the document.

The SC declared that the document cannot be considered admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not
sufficiently established. The SC said that the E-Evidence Rules were not yet in existence at the time of the lower courts
decision. The Rules of Court provides that whenever any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
its execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence
of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

The SC upheld the lower courts ruling denying the admissibility of the computer print-out, stressing that it is unclear from
the document itself who encoded the information and who printed out the document. Apart from the manual signature,
there were other notations on the document that were also countersigned by another person.

FAX TRANSMISSIONS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

The SC, in the 2007 case of MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp., categorically ruled that print-outs of
facsimile transmissions and photocopies of facsimile transmissions are not electronic evidence.

In denying their admissibility, the SC initially resolved the question as to whether an original print-out of a facsimile
transmission is an electronic data message or electronic document. The SC noted the difference in the definitions of
what constitutes electronic data message or electronic document contained 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, a 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 UNCITRAL definition was noted by the SC as similar to the implementing rules definition of what electronic data
message is. The E-Evidence Rules defines electronic data message merely as information generated, sent, received
or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.

However, the SC pointed out that the intention of the legislature when it passed the E-Commerce Act is to exclude
facsimile transmissions from its definition of electronic data message. In assessing the legislative deliberations, the SC
ruled that the framers of the law intended to focus the thrust of the law on paperless communications and digital
transactions.

PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENTS AS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

In the 2007 case of National Power Corp. v. Codilla, the National Power Corp. (NPC) tried to present photocopies of
certain documents with manual handwriting and notations to support its complaint for damages against a shipping
company. Both the lower and appellate courts did not admit these as pieces of evidence, arguing that the NPC failed to
present the original copies.

On appeal, the NPC claimed that the photocopies constitute electronic evidence under the E-Evidence Rules. The NPC
argued that an electronic document, to be considered as functionally equivalent of an original, is not limited to information
that is received, recorded, retrieved or produced electronically. An electronic document can refer to other modes of written
expression that is produced electronically (such as photocopies), as included in the catch-all proviso -- any print-out or
output, readable by sight or by other means.

The SC pointed out that what differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner by which
the information it contains is processed. To be considered an electronic document, the information must be received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or produced electronically.

The SC then pointed out that not all the information contained in the photocopies presented by the NPC were recorded or
produced electronically, as there were handwritten signatures and notations.

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 theres 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.

Text Messages as Electronic Evidence

Electronic evidence is a relatively new concept. But the Supreme Court had the opportunity to assess the probative
value of electronic evidence even before the enactment of Republic Act No. 8792 or the E-Commerce Act of 2000 (ECA)
and AM No. 01-7-01-SC or the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE). In IBM Philippines Inc. v. NLRC (1999), the
petitioners submitted computer print-outs of its e-mails to one of its employees, admonishing him for his many infractions,
with repeated warnings that he would be terminated if he did not improve his work habits. The Court found that the e-
mails, which constituted the only evidence of the petitioners, were inadmissible in evidence because there was no
assurance of their authenticity, these not having been certified or authenticated by any company official who could
properly attest that these came from petitioners system, or that the data stored therein was not tampered with. But it did
not lay down specific guidelines on the admissibility of electronic documents.
The ECA and the REE now contain such guidelines. Sec. 5(f) of the ECA and Rule 2 of the REE define what electronic
documents are, and provide for their authentication and admissibility:
ECA Chapter II [Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages and Electronic Documents];
REE Rule 3, Sec. 1 [Electronic Documents as Functional Equivalent of Paper-Based Documents], Sec. 2
[Admissibility], and Sec. 3 [Privileged Communication;
REE Rule 4 [Best Evidence Rule];
REE Rule 5 [Authentication of Electronic Documents];
REE Rule 6 [Electronic Signatures];
REE Rule 7 [Evidentiary Weight of Electronic Documents];
REE Rule 9 [Method of Proof].
And Section 2 of the REE as amended defines the coverage of the law as being applicable to criminal and civil actions
and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. Prior to the amendment, the REE was not applicable
to criminal actions.
Nuez v. Cruz-Apao (2005), a case involving a Court of Appeals employee who sent short message service (SMS) or text
messages to a litigant demanding P1,000,000.00 in exchange for a favorable decision, was another occasion to assess
the probative value of electronic evidence, this time in the form of text messages.
The Court sustained the findings of the Court of Appeals investigating committee which admitted the text messages in
evidence, since these are considered as ephemeral electronic communication by Rule 2, Sec. 1 (k) of the REE, i.e.
telephone conversations, text messages and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained.
The Court found that the text messages corroborated the testimony of the complainant and his witness. The complainant
was considered to have personal knowledge of the incriminating text messages and could testify on their contents, since
Rule 11 Sec. 2 of the REE provides the ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof.
Nuez was quickly followed by Magtolis v. Salud [2005], involving another Court of Appeals employee, who was
suspended due to his inefficiency and gross misconduct, which were proven by his text messages. As in Nuez, the
respondent and his counsel also admitted his authorship over the text messages. And the Court, citing Nuez, ruled that
the use of text messages as evidence against the sender thereof do not violate his right to privacy.
While Nuez and Magtolis are landmark decisions, the Supreme Court, as stated above, did not have the opportunity to
test-drive, so to speak, the effectivity of the provisions of the ECA and the REE pertaining to the admissibility of
electronic documents. Since in both cases, the respondents (and their counsels) admitted that they sent the text
messages. Especially because both the ECA and the REE effectively amended the Best Evidence Rule:
ECA Sec. 10(1): Where the law requires information to be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is
met by an electronic data message or electronic document under certain instances;
ECA Sec. 7: This Act does not modify and statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or
electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence;
REE Rule 3, Sec. 1: Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum, or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as
defined in these Rules;
REE Rule 4, Sec. 1: 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. However, Rule 4 Sec. 2 of the REE enumerates the grounds when copies or duplicates shall not be
admissible to the same extent as the original.
And Rule 8 of the REE provides exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.
The Manila Times, in its January 19, 2006 issue, reported about a Quezon City court which convicted an accused for
murder because of a text message sent by the victim to his friend just before he was killed I am in trouble, if ever I dont
get home, pinpoint Ernest Sanchez perhaps as part of the res gestae. According to the report, the trial court admitted
the text message in evidence since it was authenticated by the victims cellular telephone provider. The decision is
interesting because the report says that only text messages appearing in a postpaid cellular phone line, which the victim
had, are accepted as evidence in court.
It must be emphasized, however, that in Nuez, Magtolis, and the Sanchez case, the liability of the respondents and
accused were proven not solely by the text messages, but also by traditional evidence, i.e. testimonial and object.
It therefore remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will appreciate the authenticity and admissibility of text messages
and other forms of electronic communications such as telephone conversations, e-mails, multimedia message service
(MMS or picture messaging), photocopies as evidence (are these originals [REE Rule 4 Sec. 1] or copies or duplicates
[REE Rule 4 Sec. 2]?, and even electronic notarization (ECA Sec. 11; REE, Rule 5, Sec. 3).
Furthermore, the compatibility of the REE with, among others, the Best Evidence Rule, the Hearsay Rule, the Anti-
Wiretapping Act, the Statute of Frauds, and the constitutional right to privacy is also worth watching. It would also be
interesting to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the admissibility of electronic documents in cases where the
alleged senders deny their authorship, and also these where the only evidence against the defendant or accused is
electronic in nature.

Acting on the Memorandum dated 18 June 2001 of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court to
Draft the rules on E-Commerce Law [R.A. No. 8792] submitting the Rules on Electronic Evidence for this
Courts consideration and approval, the Court Resolved to APPROVED the same.
The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity. These Rules shall take
effect on the first day of August 2001 following their publication before the 20th of July in two newspapers
of general circulation in the Philippines.
17th July 2001.

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

RULE 1
COVERAGE
SECTION 1. Scope. - Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic
data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is offered or used in evidence.
SEC. 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
judicial and administrative cases.
SEC. 3. Application of the other rules on evidence. - In all matters not specifically covered by these Rules,
the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statues containing rules on evidence shall apply.

RULE 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as
follows:
(a) Asymmetric or public cryptosystem means a system capable of generating a secure
key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying
the digital signature. (b) Business records include records of any business, institution,
association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit,
or for legitimate purposes. (c) Certificate means an electronic document issued to support a
digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the
person who holds a particular key pair. (d) Computer refers to any single or interconnected
device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other
means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze,
project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or
other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions. (e) Digital Signature
refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an
electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the
initial untransformed electronic document and the signers public key can accurately determine:

(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to
the signers public key; and (ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered
after the transformation was made.
(f) Digitally signed refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a
digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. (g) Electronic data message
refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar
means. (h) 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. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight
or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term electronic document may be used interchangeably with
electronic data message. (i) Electronic key refers to a secret code which secures and defends
sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a
matching electronic key. (j) Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics
and/or sound in electronic form. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or
procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the
intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic
document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (k)
Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the
evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (l) Information and Communication System
refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic
 data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices
by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of
electronic data message or electronic document. (m) Key Pair in an asymmetric cryptosystem
refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify
the digital signature that the former creates. (n) Private Key refers to the key of a key pair
used to create a digital signature. (o) Public Key refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a
digital signature.
SEC. 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just,
expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases.
The Interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the international origin of Republic Act
No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act.

RULE 3
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

SECTION 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. Whenever a rule

of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form
of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
SEC. 2. Admissibility. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by these Rules.
SEC. 3. Privileged communication. The confidential character of a privileged communications is not
solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.

RULE 4
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. 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.
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or
duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the
original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or (b) in the
circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the original.
RULE 5
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in
any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the
same; (b) 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 (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge.
SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A document electronically notarized in accordance
with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as
a notarial document under the Rules of Court.

RULE 6
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES

SECTION 1. Electronic signature. An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticate din the
manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a
person on a written document.
SEC. 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. An electronic signature may be authenticate in any of
the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and
verity 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.
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions relation 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 persons consent to the transaction
embodied therein; and (c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic
signature operated without error or fault.
SEC. 4. 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:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct; (b) The digital signature was
created during the operational period of a certificate; (c) The message associated with a digital
signature has not been altered from the time it was signed; and (d) A certificate had been
issued by the certification authority indicated therein
RULE 7
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. - In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls, tests and checks
for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the
circumstances as well as any relevant agreement; (b) The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified; (c) The integrity of the information and communication system in
which it is recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors; (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person
who made the entry with the communication and information system; (e) The nature and quality
of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the
electronic data message or electronic document was based; or (f) Other factors which the court
may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data
message.
SEC. 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. In any dispute involving the integrity of
the information and communication system in which an electronic document or electronic data message is
recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was
operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no
other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system; (b)
Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with
interest adverse to that of the party using it; or (c) Whether the electronic document was
recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party tot
he proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using it.
RULE 8
BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of
acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or
near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and
kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice ot make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule or hearsay
evidence.
SEC. 2. Overcoming the presumption. The presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be
overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
RULE 9
METHOD OF PROOF
SECTION 1. Affidavit of evidence. All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an
electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant
to testify on the matters contained therein.
SEC. 2. Cross-examination of deponent. The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit
in open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the adverse party.

RULE 10
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules,
the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so
authorizing, the court shall determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the circumstance, including the protection of the rights of the
parties and witnesses concerned.
SEC. 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. When examination of a witness is done electronically, the
entire proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be transcribed by a stenographer,
stenotypes or other recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript done by
him. The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
SEC. 3. Storage of electronic evidence. The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the
stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. Such transcript and recording shall be
deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings.

RULE 11
AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC. VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts
or transactions shall be admissible provided is 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.
SEC. 2. Ephemeral electronic communication. 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.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the
immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions
of Rule 5 shall apply.

RULE 12
EFFECTIVITY

SECTION 1. Applicability to pending case. These Rules shall apply to cases pending after their
effectivity.
SEC. 2. Effectivity. These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2001 following their
publication before the 20th day of July 2001 in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.