Notary public personally knows affiant; no need for identity proof

The Supreme Court has already ruled that competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the notary public (Amora, Jr. v. COMELEC, et al., 655 Phil. 467, 479 [2011]).

Thus, in Jandoquile v. Revilla, Jr. (A.C. No. 9514, April 10, 2013), the High Court held that:
If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.[11]
Also, Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides as follows:
SEC. 2. Prohibitions -

(a) x x x

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Moreover, Rule II, Section 6 of the same Rules states that:

SEC 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;

(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;

(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and

(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
In legal hermeneutics, "or" is a disjunctive that expresses an alternative or gives a choice of one among two or more things (Guzman v. Commission on Elections, et al., 614 Phil. 143, 160 [2009]). The word signifies disassociation and independence of one thing from another thing in an enumeration.

Thus, as earlier stated, if the affiant is personally known to the notary public, the latter need not require the former to show evidence of identity as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended.

Popular Posts