Short answer. Usually yes. Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, a duplicate — which includes copies produced by photography, photocopying and electronic re-recording — 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 would be unjust or inequitable.
What the law says
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.
Rule 130, Section 4 — Original of document. Read the full provision →
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 →
What counts as a duplicate
Rule 130, Section 4 defines a duplicate generously: a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix, by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, by mechanical or electronic re-recording, by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. An ordinary photocopy or scan sits comfortably inside that definition — the common thread is a technique that reproduces the original accurately by process rather than by human transcription. A copy typed out or written by hand from the original is not a duplicate in this sense.
The general rule of equal admissibility
The section then states the modern rule: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. It is equally excluded where, in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. So the working presumption favours the copy, and the burden of dislodging it lies on the objector — who needs a genuine question, not a reflexive objection. A real dispute over whether the original was forged or altered, or circumstances making reliance on a copy unfair, brings the original back into play.
Some copies are originals to begin with
Before reaching duplicates, check whether your document is already an original. The section counts as an original the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it — so each signed counterpart of a contract is an original in its own right. For photographs, the original includes the negative or any print therefrom. And for electronic material: 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 printout of a digital record, properly shown accurate, needs no duplicate analysis at all.
Keep the original anyway
The rule makes copies workable, not originals worthless. The exceptions are triggered precisely when the stakes rise — once the other side raises a genuine question about the original's authenticity, the original is the answer to it, and a party who cannot produce it must explain its absence under the rules on secondary evidence. The prudent course for anyone heading into litigation is unchanged: locate and preserve originals of the key documents, use clear copies for working files and filings, and be ready to present the original when the document is seriously contested.