MISLEADING: Prosecution panel bends the law after claiming that a photocopy is an ‘original copy’

Elijah Costes

Accusations have emerged after House Prosecution Panel member Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan claimed that photocopies are also original copies, that he has bent the law with his claim, and that his claim is false.

CLAIM:

The YouTube post quoted that Atty. Ligutan has stated his claim during a trial that is part of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment proceedings that a photocopy is considered an original copy, stating that he has bent the law with his claim whilst it was remarked on in a humorous tone by the post. 

RATING: MISLEADING

CONCLUSION:

While it remains true that Atty. Ligutan has actively stated his claim during impeachment proceedings; he has not broken any law. Moreover, the post author, took it on a general tone, rather than looking into the context of the situation.

THE FACTS:

• The post was fabricated and made to mislead its viewers
• The photocopy in question is considered an original copy by the Supreme Court under the case of People vs Lastimosa, promulgated in February 2025
• Photocopies may remain as credible sources of evidence as allowed by the Supreme Court, unless:
  • A genuine question is raised, questioning the authenticity of the document in question, and:
  • It would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate instead of the original.
• At a press briefing, the prosecution said evidentiary objections may still be raised at the proper time, but duplicates may be presented when they faithfully reproduce the original and authenticity is not genuinely disputed. 
• The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence state that under the original document rule, when the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph are at issue, the original document must generally be presented to prove those contents. Unless:
  •  When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.
  • When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained through local judicial processes or procedures. 
  • When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents that cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole. 
  • When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. 
  • When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue. 

THE BOTTOMLINE:

Contrary to accusations, Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan has not bent the law when he stated that photocopies are considered original copies. It is admissible by the Supreme Court for photocopies to appear under certain circumstances. The post author has taken the claim of Atty Ligutan in a general tone, rather than looking at the context of the court.