1. Requisites of Object Evidence Flashcards
Requisites for Admissibility (ReCo-A-C-O)
- It must be Relevant and Competent;
- It must be Authenticated;
NOTE: To authenticate the object, it must be shown that the object is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case.
- The authentication must be made by a Competent witness who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved; and
- The Object must be formally offered in evidence. (Riano, 2019)
Q: Ron was charged with murder for shooting Carlo. After trial, Ron was found guilty as charged. On appeal, Ron argued that the trial court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin test conducted on him 2 days after he was arrested yielded a negative result. Hence, he could not have shot Carlo. Is Ron correct?
A: NO. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso facto prove that Ron is innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands afterwards. Here, since Ron submitted himself for paraffin testing only two days after the shooting, it was likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates therefrom. (People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, 17 Mar. 2004)
Q: In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence, photographs showing the accused mauling the victim with several of the latter’s companions. The person who took the photograph was not presented as a witness. Be that as it may, the prosecution presented the companions of the victim who testified that they were the ones in the photographs. The defense objected to the admissibility of the photographs because the person who took the photographs was not presented as witness. Is the contention of the defense tenable?
A: NO. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence in as much as the correctness thereof was testified to by the companions of the victim. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 16 Nov. 1995)
Q: Thor was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide by the trial court. On his appeal, he asseverates that the admission as evidence of victim’s wallet together with its contents, violates his right against self-incrimination. Likewise, Thor sought for their exclusion because during the custodial investigation, wherein he pointed to the investigating policemen the place where he hid the victim’s wallet, he was not informed of his constitutional rights (Miranda rights). Decide the case
A: The Right Against Self-Incrimination does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an Object Evidence. Infractions on the so-called “Miranda rights” render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation. Concededly, Thor was not informed of his rights during the custodial investigation. Neither did he execute a written waiver of these rights in accordance with the constitutional prescriptions. Nevertheless, these constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of the victim’s wallet and its contents. (People v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775, 14 Nov. 1996)
