Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (AM 01-7-01-SC, promulgated 17 July 2001, effective 1 August 2001) provides
These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
Copies of AM 01-7-01-SC (2001) are available at the Supreme Court e-Library, LawPhil, and ChanRobles websites, among others.
Supposedly, there was a Resolution, entitled “Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,” promulgated on 24 September 2002, effective 14 October 2002 following the publication of this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation. The resolution provided
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, the Court Resolved to AMEND Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence to read as follows:
“SEC. 2 Cases covered. – These Rules shall apply to the criminal and civil actions and proceeding, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.”
The amendment shall take effect on October 14, 2002 following the publication of this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation.
September 24, 2002.
A copy of this resolution is available at Disini & Disini and has been reported in the Philippine Star, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, through the 4 February 2003 “Point of Law” column of Francis Lim. Nevertheless, as of now, a copy cannot be found in the Supreme Court’s list relevant to amendments to the Rules of Court.
Whether the 24 September 2002 resolution “officially” exists is very relevant, inasmuch as the application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal cases is hinged on the existence of that resolution, especially considering the declaration of the Supreme Court in Ang vs. Court of Appeals, GR 182835, 20 April 2010; Second Division, Abad [J], to wit:
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. (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2)
Copies of the case text of Ang vs. Court of Appeals are available at the Supreme Court, LawPhil, and ChanRobles websites.
The impact of the declaration in Ang vs. Court of Appeals cannot be discounted, as such declaration affects the admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal cases, especially if the objection to the admissibility of such electronic evidence has been timely, contrary to the facts attendant in Ang vs. Court of Appeals. Whether the declaration in Ang vs. Court of Appeals is right or wrong depends whether the 24 September 2002 resolution exists or not. As often repeated in this short article, does it exist?
Nevertheless, personally, it is just not rational that the application of rules of electronic evidence has not been extended to criminal cases for the past ten (10) years, considering such lengthy period. For, if such would be the case, the absence of such extension negates any prosecution in pursuance of the penal provisions of the e-Commerce Law of 2000 (RA 8792), the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA 9775), the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995), among other special Philippine criminal laws which penalize infringing acts committed especially through electronic media. It would be absurd to think that the Court has been oblivious of these laws which require the application of the Rules of Electronic Evidence to criminal cases, and that it has not acted until now to enable the prosecution thereof through extending the application of the Rules to criminal cases.
Disclaimer: Written to promote discussion, not to provide legal advice to the public, nor to be affront to any institution one has taken an oath to serve.
Article specifically licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivative 3.0 Philippine license.
