What is a public record?

Public record is any information, minutes, files, accounts or other

records which a governmental body is required to maintain, and
which must be accessible to scrutiny by the public 1. It may also
refer to a record or classes of records, in any form, in whole or in
part, created or received, by a government agency in the conduct of
its affairs, and have been retained by that government agency or its
successors as evidence or because of the information contained
therein2.
Under the Freedom of Information Executive Order 3, public record
includes information required by laws to be entered, kept and made
publicly available by a government office.
(c) “Public record/records” shall include information required
by laws, executive orders, rules, or regulations to be entered,
kept and made publicly available by a government office.
Accordingly, information relating to security interest or lien in
personal property is required by the Personal Property Security Act
to be kept and made publicly available in a government database
known as the Registry. The Registry is centralized and nationwide
notice registry that provides for electronic means for registration
and searching of notices 4. These electronic records are considered
as public records.

Jurisprudence of Public Records

Right to Information
“The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research
1
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+record
2
Republic Act No. 9470, May 21, 2007.
3
Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016.
4
Section 1.05 (ff)
 data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded
the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.” (Art. 3, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution)
Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is
not absolute. As stated in Legaspi, the people's right to information
is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law." Similarly, the State's
policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public
interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
law."5
In a Memorandum Circular dated November 24, 2016, an
inventory of exceptions to the right of access to information were
listed as follows:
1. Information covered by Executive privilege;
2. Privileged information relating to national security, defense
or international relations;
3. Information concerning law enforcement and protection of
public and personal safety;
4. Information deemed confidential for the protection of the
privacy of persons and certain individuals such as minors,
victims of crimes, or the accused;
5. Information, documents or records known by reason of
official capacity and are deemed as confidential, including
those submitted or disclosed by entities to government
agencies, tribunals, boards, or officers, in relation to the
performance of their functions, or to inquiries or investigation
conducted by them in the exercise of their administrative,
regulatory, or quasi-judicial powers;
6. Prejudicial premature disclosure;

5
 Valmonte vs Belmonte Jr., G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989.
 7. Records of proceedings or information from proceedings
which, pursuant to law or relevant rules and regulations, are
treated as confidential or privileged;
8. Matters considered confidential under banking and finance
laws, and their amendatory laws; and
9. Other exceptions to the right to information under laws,
jurisprudence, and IRR.
Original Evidence Rule
If the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document there can be
no evidence of the contents other than the original of the
document.6
However, Sec. 3 (d), Rule 130 of the 2020 Revised Rules on
Evidence provides an exception to the Original Document Rule
(formerly known as the Best Evidence Rule), that is, when the
original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. Thus:
“1. Original Document Rule

SECTION 3. Original Document Must be Produced; Exceptions.

— When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the following cases:

(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) 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 by local judicial processes or procedures;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole;
6
Sec. 3, Rule 130, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC.
 (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling
issue.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The reason behind the exception is the principle found in in Sec 26,
Rule 132 which states:

“SECTION 26. Irremovability of Public Record. —Any public

record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence,
must not be removed from the office in which it is kept,
except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record
is essential to the just determination of a pending case.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

Even if a party is not able to present an original copy of a public

record, a certified copy thereof is sufficient to prove its contents.
Section 8, Rule 130 of the 2020 Revised Rules on Evidence provides
that the contents of a document that is in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof:
“SECTION 8. Evidence admissible when original document is a
public record. — When the original of a document is in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof.”

Hence, in Engr. Ernesto T. Matugas vs Commission on Elections

and Robert Lyndon S. Barbers 7, the Supreme Court did not admit
a letter-inquiry which was a public record, for being a mere
photocopy:
“Furthermore, Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states
that when the original of a document is in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office, as in this case,

7
G.R. No. 151944, January 20, 2004.
 the contents of said document may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. The
subject letter-inquiry, which contains the notation,
appears to be a mere photocopy, not a certified copy.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
Likewise, Sec. 27 Rule 132 states that an authorized public record
of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a
copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.

Aside from the certified copy, the contents of the public record may
also be proved by an official publication 8.
Hearsay Rule
As to the hearsay rule, Section 46 of Rule 130 of the 2020 Revised
Rules on Evidence provides that entries in official records are an
exception to such rule. It provides that entries in official records
made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Thus:
“SECTION 46. Entries in Official Records. — Entries in official
records made in the performance of his or her duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of
a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.”
There are three requisites for admissibility of entries in official
records9:
1) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;

8
Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. 5 (1999) p. 203.
9
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 (1957) p. 398.
 2) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of
his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law; and
3) that the public officer or other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been
acquired by him personally or through official information.
In Miro vs Mendoza10, citing Africa vs Caltex (G.R. No. L-12986,
March 31, 1966), the Supreme Court affirmed that it is not
essential that the officer making the official statement to have a
personal knowledge of the facts stated by him, it being sufficient
that the “official information was acquired by the officers who
prepared the reports.” Thus:
“Of the three requisites just stated, only the last need be
considered here. Obviously the material facts recited in the
reports as to the cause and circumstances of the fire were not
within the personal knowledge of the officers who conducted
the investigation. Was knowledge of such facts, however,
acquired by them through official information? xxx.
The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the
hearsay rule; the facts stated therein were not acquired by the
reporting officers through official information, not having been
given by the informants pursuant to any duty to do so.

The certifications issued by the local civil registrar and the clerk of
court regarding details of petitioner’s adoption which are entered in
the records kept under their official custody, are prima facie
evidence of the facts contained therein. 11 Official entries are
admissible in evidence regardless of whether the officer or person
who made them was presented and testified in court, since these
entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. Other recognized reasons for this exception are necessity
and trustworthiness. The necessity consists in the inconvenience
and difficulty of requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to
10
G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013.
11
Reyes vs Sotero, G.R. No. 167405, February 16, 2006.
testify to innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. This
will also unduly hamper public business. 12

The document's trustworthiness consists in the presumption of

regularity of performance of official duty. 13 The trustworthiness of
public documents and the value given to the entries made therein
could be grounded on 1) the sense of official duty in the preparation
of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually affixed to a
breach of that duty, 3) the routine and disinterested origin of most
such statements, and 4) the publicity of record which makes more
likely the prior exposure of such errors as might have occurred. 14

If requested, the Registry shall issue a certified report of the results

of a search. Certified reports of search results shall be treated as
official records of the Registry, which shall be admissible into
evidence in judicial proceedings without extrinsic evidence of its
authenticity.

Public Record as Public Document

Section 19 Rule 132 of the 2019 Rules states that public records,
kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein are public documents. Thus:
“SECTION 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of
their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except
last wills and testaments;

12
Fullero vs People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007.
13
Dimaguila vs. Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011, January 27, 2014.
14
Tecson vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
 (c) Documents that are considered public documents under
treaties and conventions which are in force between the
Philippines and the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.” (Emphasis supplied.)
A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or
because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a
notarial will) or a competent public official with the formalities
required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing
authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.15
SECTION 23. Public Documents as Evidence. — Documents
consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
latter.
As a public document issued in the performance of a duty by a
public officer, the subject USAID Certification is prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And, there being no clear
and sufficient evidence presented by G & S to overcome these
presumptions, the RTC is correct when it admitted in evidence the
said document.16  The books making up the civil register and all
documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents
and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. As
public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without
further proof of their due execution and genuineness. 17

15
Arreza vs Toyo, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and The Administrator and Civil
Registrar, G.R. No. 213198, July 1, 2019.
16
Heirs of Ochoa vs G&S Transport, G.R. No. 170071 : July 16, 2012.
17
Iwasawa vs Gangan, G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013.
Information in the Land Registration Authority as Public
Record
Under Sec.27 of the PPSA, information contained in a registered
notice shall be considered as a public record. Any person may
search notices registered in the Registry. The electronic records of
the Registry shall be the official records.
Section 35(b) provides that the Registry shall, if requested, issue a
certified report of the results of a search that is an official record of
the Registry. The certified report is admissible into evidence in
judicial proceedings without extrinsic evidence of its authenticity.
This means that the certified report is self-authenticating and
requires no further authentication in order to be presented as
evidence in court18.

What do you mean by electronic records being official

records?

Official records refer to information produced or received by a

public officer or employee, or by a government office in an official
capacity or pursuant to a public function or duty. 19

On the other hand, electronic record is any combination of text,

graphics, data, audio, pictorial or other information representation
in digital form that is created, modified, maintained, archived,
retrieved or distributed by a computer system 20. In this regard, the
Rules Electronic Evidence (REE) 21 may be applied in a
supplementary character in so far as electronic document is
concerned. The REE defines an electronic document as
“information or the representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
18
Arreza vs Toyo, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and The Administrator and Civil
Registrar, Ibid.
19
Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016.
20
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/electronic+record
21
Section 1(h), Rule 2. A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC.
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any printout or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document.” (Emphasis supplied.)

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an

original document under the Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a
printout or output readable by sight or other means, showing to
reflect the data accurately22.

Similarly, Republic Act No. 8792 or The Electronic Commerce Act of

2000 provides for the legal recognition of electronic documents,
messages and signatures for commerce, transactions in government
and evidence in legal proceedings. Thus:

Section 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages -

Information shall not be denied legal effect, validity or
enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data
message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is
merely referred to in that electronic data message.

Under the PPSA, a Notice is a statement of information that is

registered in the Registry relating to a security interest or lien. The
term includes an initial notice, amendment notice, and termination
notice23. Section 5.01 of the IRR states that the Registry shall
provide electronic means for registration and searching of notices.
The LRA shall issue the necessary guidelines on the use and
management of the Registry. The Registry shall, furthermore,
provide a copy of the electronic record of the notice, including the
registration number and the date and time of registration to the
person who submitted it.24 There shall be no fee for electronic
searches of the Registry records or for the registration of
termination notices.25 The copy of the electronic record of the notice

22
Section 1 Rule 4, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC.
23
Section 3(e), RA 11057.
24
Section 5.04, IRR.
25
Section 5.03, IRR.
provided to the person who submitted it indicating the date and
time of effectivity shall be conclusive. 26

Being an electronic record, the entry of false or misleading

information in any notice or lien or record entered and made
publicly available in the Registry may result in a prosecution for
Data Interference, Computer-related Fraud or Computer-related
Forgery under Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012".27 This is consistent with
Section 2 of R.A. 10175 which states:
“The State also recognizes the importance of providing an
environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and
rational application and exploitation of information and
communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and
intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information;
and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of
computer, computer and communications systems, networks,
and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of information and data stored therein, from
all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making
punishable under the law such conduct or conducts.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

Finally, the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants 28 governs the application

and grant of court warrants and related orders involving the
preservation, disclosure, interception, search, seizure or
examination, as well as the custody and destruction of computer
data, as provided under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The processing of all information under these Rules shall be in

accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 10173, otherwise
known as the "Data Privacy Act of 2012".

SEC. 22. Responsibility of Heads of Agencies. – All sensitive

personal information maintained by the government, its agencies

26
Section 5.07 IRR.
27
Section 5.20 IRR.
28
Section 1.2, AM No. 17-11-03-SC.
and instrumentalities shall be secured, as far as practicable, with
the use of the most appropriate standard recognized by the
information and communications technology industry, and as
recommended by the Commission. The head of each government
agency or instrumentality shall be responsible for complying with
the security requirements mentioned herein while the Commission
shall monitor the compliance and may recommend the necessary
action in order to satisfy the minimum standards.

SEC. 23. Requirements Relating to Access by Agency Personnel to

Sensitive Personal Information. – (a) On-site and Online Access –
Except as may be allowed through guidelines to be issued by the
Commission, no employee of the government shall have access to
sensitive personal information on government property or through
online facilities unless the employee has received a security
clearance from the head of the source agency.
The personal information controller must implement reasonable
and appropriate organizational, physical and technical measures
intended for the protection of personal information against any
accidental or unlawful destruction, alteration and disclosure, as
well as against any other unlawful processing.

It penalizes unauthorized processing, access due to negligence,

improper disposal, processing for unauthorized purposes,
unauthorized access or intentional breach, concealment of security
breaches and malicious or unauthorized disclosure in connection
with personal information.