Short answer. Yes, if it is shown to reflect the data accurately. Rule 130, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that when data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original document for purposes of evidence.
What the law says
If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original."
Rule 130, Section 4 — Original of document. Read the full provision →
The rule that modernized the meaning of original
The traditional worry was real: if the "document" lives as data on a hard drive or a server, no one can hand the judge the electrons themselves. Rule 130, Section 4 of the Rules of Court solves this by definition: "If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an 'original.'" A printed email, an exported ledger, a printout of an electronic record — each can be an original in the legal sense, not a mere copy. The same section defines an original generally as the document itself or any counterpart intended by the person executing or issuing it to have the same effect.
The condition: shown to reflect the data accurately
The definition has a built-in condition that does the real work in court: the printout must be shown to reflect the data accurately. It is not enough to wave paper at the judge; someone has to establish that what was printed faithfully mirrors what is stored — typically a witness who can testify to how the record was kept, retrieved, and printed. This is where printouts get attacked in practice: opposing counsel will probe whether the data could have been altered, whether the export was complete, and whether the person presenting it actually knows the system. Accuracy of the output is the bridge between the stored data and the paper, and the party offering the printout carries the burden of laying that foundation.
Originals, duplicates, and when the difference matters
The same section also defines a duplicate: a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix, by photography, by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by other techniques that accurately reproduce the original — think photocopies and scans. The rule then flattens most of the old fights: a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless a genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original, or admitting the duplicate in place of the original would be unjust or inequitable in the circumstances. So the practical hierarchy is forgiving, but not unconditional — once authenticity is genuinely disputed, producing the best available version of the record becomes important again.
Practical pointers before you rely on a printout
If your case will stand on electronic records, prepare for the accuracy showing early. Preserve the source: keep the device, account, or system where the data lives, and avoid edits after the fact. Print or export in a way you can explain — who did it, when, from what system — and keep the electronic file that matches the printout. Identify the witness who can speak to the record-keeping, since a printout nobody can vouch for invites an authenticity objection. Remember, too, that being an "original" only answers one evidentiary question; the document must still be relevant and properly authenticated, and electronic evidence has its own additional rules. When a dispute is likely, getting advice on how to preserve and present the records can decide whether they are ever considered at all.