| How can a private document be considered as electronic evidence? When its authenticity and due execution is sufficiently established. This is done by someone who saw the document executed or written, or one who can prove the genuineness the signature or handwriting of the maker. To authenticate means that a person witnessed the execution or writing of a document. |
The case involves Emmanuel B. Aznar, a businessman who made an advance deposit with Citibank to increase his credit limit on his Master Credit Card. However, when he attempted to use the card in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, it was dishonored.
| Aznar | Citibank |
| Aznar claims that his Mastercard was blacklisted by the bank, which caused the card to be dishonored in several establishments during his Asian tour. He alleges mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation, and social humiliation as a result. Aznar presented a computer printout, the ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, which shows that his card was declared over the limit (DECL OVERLIMIT)Aznar presents a computer printout issued by the Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency to support his claim. | However, Citibank denies the allegation and argues that it had no control over the actions of its merchant affiliates, and its liability is limited to PHP 1,000 or actual proven damages, whichever is less |
RTC: Aznar failed to prove with a preponderance of evidence that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard or placed the same on the “hot list.”
Issue: whether Aznar has established his claim against Citibank by presenting the online authorization foreign account activities report (OAFAAR). No.
Not admissible. The court stated that the ON-LINE AUTHORIZATION FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT (OAFAAR), a computer print-out handed to Aznar by Ingtan Travel and Tours Agency, cannot be considered admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not sufficiently established by Aznar.
Authenticity and due execution as a private document is not proved. Exhibit “G” is not considered electronic evidence because its authenticity and due execution were not sufficiently established . According to the prevailing rule at the time of the court’s decision (Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court ), the due execution and authenticity of a private document, like Exhibit “G,” must be proved either by someone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. As for Exhibit “G,” the person testifying on its authenticity, Mr. Aznar, did not witness its execution or writing, nor could he provide evidence regarding the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the person who handed him the document [7c]. Therefore, the court found that the authenticity and due execution of Exhibit “G” were not sufficiently established, rendering it inadmissible as electronic evidence
Signature of the giver cannot be authenticated. Neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said computer print-out.
In other words, no personal knowledge. The Court of Appeals ruled that Aznar had no personal knowledge of the blacklisting of his card and only presumed it when it was dishonored in certain establishments, which was not enough to prove that his card was blacklisted. No preponderance of evidence. Aznar failed to prove with a preponderance of evidence that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard or placed it on the “hot list”
English