The public was reminded not to photocopy or reprint banknotes following a discussion during the impeachment trial about photocopies being treated as original documents.
On the second day of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, the defense objected to the use of printouts to authenticate a crucial video featuring the vice president.
National Bureau of Investigation Senior Agent John Mark Calilung detailed the process he used to preserve and verify the video of Duterte’s November 2024 Zoom press conference, during which she allegedly said she had hired an assassin to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the first lady and the former House Speaker.
Calilung explained that his digital forensic process involved filing a preservation request with Meta, the parent company of Facebook, capturing a screen recording and generating a unique hash value to ensure the file remained untampered with before it was presented in court.
To establish the video’s authenticity, House prosecution lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan presented a certified true copy of Calilung’s affidavit along with printed screenshots of the Meta request.
However, defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa objected to the submission, arguing that the prosecution was using photocopies instead of the original electronic data.
The impeachment court overruled the objection and allowed the preliminary marking of the documents, clarifying that accurate printouts of digital files are legally admissible as originals.
Despite the ruling, some supporters of the vice president poked fun at the decision by sharing posts of themselves photocopying or reprinting banknotes.
Screenshots of some of the posts were later shared by other social media users, who used them to remind the public that photocopying banknotes is prohibited and punishable by law.
“IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE,” a Facebook page said.
“Heto na naman ang mga DDS na kulang sa reading comprehension, pilit na tinu-twist ‘yung sinabi ni Atty. Ligutan na ang photocopy daw ay considered ‘original’ na ngayon. Fact-check muna tayo: totoo naman ’yun, pero strictly para lang sa Rules on Evidence sa loob ng korte!” it added.
“May actual Supreme Court ruling na dinala na pwedeng tanggaping ebidensya ang photocopy kapag walang duda sa authenticity nito,” the page added.
A Supreme Court ruling promulgated in February 2025 states that a photocopy, or a “duplicate,” defined as a counterpart produced by photography or other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduce the original, is admissible to the same extent as the original.
However, a duplicate is not admissible if “a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original” or “under the circumstances, it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.”
Meanwhile, Circular No. 829 of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas states that reproducing banknotes without the authority of the BSP governor or an authorized representative is prohibited. It states:
“No person or entity, public or private, shall design, engrave, print, make or execute in any other manner, or utter, issue, distribute, circulate, or use any handbill, advertisement, placard, circular, card, or any other object whatsoever bearing the facsimile, likeness or similitude of any legal tender Philippine currency note, or any part thereof, whether in black and white or any color or combination of colors, without prior authority therefor having been secured from the Governor, BSP, or his duly authorized representative.”
The circular also states that any person who violates its provisions “shall subject the offender to imprisonment of not less than five (5) years, but not more than ten (10) years. In case the Revised Penal Code provides for a greater penalty, then that penalty shall be imposed.” — with reports from Philstar.com/Ian Laqui