- Know the witness’s limited role. Establish whether the witness is merely the custodian, records officer, bank officer, or authorized representative—not the author or eyewitness to the underlying transaction.
- Establish the witness’s competence to authenticate. Ask about the witness’s position, duties, access to the records, and responsibility for maintaining or producing them.
- Lay the foundation for the document. Establish what the document is, where it came from, how it is kept, and whether the copy presented is a true or certified copy of the original record.
- Distinguish authenticity from truth. Authentication establishes that a document is what it purports to be. It does not automatically establish the truth of every assertion contained in it, particularly when hearsay or other evidentiary issues arise.
- Determine the source of the information. Ask whether the witness personally created the record, personally observed the underlying event, or merely received information entered by someone else.
- Identify the person who actually made the entry. If material, determine who generated the entry, when it was made, and whether it was made in the regular course of business or official duty.
- Test the chain of custody or record integrity. Ask who had custody, how the record was stored, whether alterations are possible, and whether the copy accurately reflects the original.
- Explore completeness. Ask whether the production contains the entire relevant record or merely selected pages, transactions, accounts, dates, or entries.
- Look for missing records. A custodian can sometimes establish that certain records do not exist, were not produced, were unavailable, or were outside the witness's custody.
- Separate fact from inference. Ask: “What does the record actually show?” Then ask whether the witness is merely assuming what caused the transaction or what it means.
- Do not ask the custodian to give the court's ultimate conclusion. A bank officer ordinarily should not be asked to decide whether money constitutes ill-gotten wealth, just as an AMLC officer should not be asked to decide whether the respondent is guilty of an impeachable offense.
- But test the witness's factual knowledge. It is legitimate to ask what the records show, what the institution's systems recorded, what transactions occurred, when they occurred, and whether particular persons or accounts were involved.
- Attack reliability where appropriate. Authentication does not make a document immune from challenges concerning accuracy, completeness, hearsay, relevance, materiality, or weight.
- Use the witness's own records against assumptions. If the witness says, “I don't know why the money was transferred,” the follow-up should ordinarily be: “But your records show that ₱X was transferred from Account A to Account B on [date], correct?”
- Lock in uncontested facts. Once the witness confirms a material entry, date, amount, account, transaction, or certified record, move on. Do not allow unnecessary explanations to dilute the admission.
- Know when to stop. If the document speaks for itself and the witness has authenticated it, prolonged questioning about matters outside the witness's personal knowledge may simply give the witness an opportunity to repeat that he or she does not know.
- Remember the ultimate distinction: the custodian authenticates the record; the court evaluates its evidentiary value; and the party offering the evidence must still establish the legal significance it claims from that record.
