The Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) are the rules applicable whenever an electronic document is offered or used in evidence. The REE took effect on 1 August 2001. Section 2, Rule 1 of the REE provided that “[t]hese Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.”
Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued a resolution dated 24 September 2002 which extended the coverage of the REE to criminal actions and proceedings by amending Section 2 of Rule 1 as follows: “These Rules shall apply to all criminal and civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.”[1] The resolution took effect on 14 October 2002.
Strangely, though, the 24 September 2002 resolution seems to have vanished into thin air. I even read the resolution being called a “phantom resolution.” If you read the printed versions of the REE in current code editions as well as in many annotated works and bar reviewers, what you will see is Section 2 of Rule 1 prior to its amendment on 14 October 2002. That is why up to now, many law students, and even members of the bench and the bar, think that the REE does not apply to criminal actions and proceedings.[2] I had clipped the newspaper publication of the 24 September 2002 resolution but could no longer find it. After a long search, I finally found in my digital files a blurred photo of the published resolution (see image below) which I had retrieved from the internet.[3] At last, I have proof of the existence of this resolution which I can use to support my statement that the REE applies to criminal actions and proceedings.
[1] Italics supplied.
[2] In fact, in Ang v. People, 618 SCRA 592, 604 (2010), the Court in an obiter stated that the Rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to criminal actions, invoking the original Section 2 of Rule 1. The Court later corrected itself in People v. Enojas, 718 SCRA 313, 319 (2014).
[3] Regrettably, I also lost the source or citation of this photo, which prevented me from making the proper attribution. My apologies.
