Object Evidence, its Kinds and Requisites for Admissibility (6) Flashcards
6. Now You See Me
what is an object evidence?
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
admissibility of OE
Just as any other evidence, object evidence must comply with certain requisites for their admissibility.
requisites
- must be relevant
- must be authenticated
- authenticated by a competent witness
- formally offered
what is authentication?
The process of establishing in court that the thing presented is the very thing that the proponent claims it to be
Kinds of OE
real objective evidence
- addressed to the sense of the court
- tangible
demonstrative OE
- not the actual thing but represents/demonstrates the real thing
scientific OE
In a prosecution for murder, the knife there is the real object. But if it cannot be presented during the trial, the option is to use of what
the photograph of the knife and this time it will be offered as demonstrative evidence
In an action for damages for physical injury, the injury, if offered in court for viewing, is the subject of the case and is thus, the real object.
But trial takes time, it then becomes impossible and impracticable to produce the victim and exhibit his body before the court. What will only remain there is a scar and no longer the wound or the injury itself. Because of limitation of time, the real object may not be the advisable choice
In this case, you may resort to demonstrative evidence which could consist of a photograph of the injury taken immediately after the incident. As between the scar and the photograph
or testimony witnesses like the physician who attended the victim including the corresponding medical report. The medical report is part of the testimony.
what is chain of custody?
it requires that ALL CUSTODIANS/POSSESSORS of the (inherently unidentifiable) item be presented in court otherwise there will be a breach
if the proponent claims that the shabu being offered is the shabu recovered in the scene of the crime, then that is exactly the purpose of authentication, and that is what the proponent must establish. In the interim, the possession and custody of the shabu may have transferred from one custodian to another but the chain of custody should be duly accounted for
what is the effect should the chain of custody be breached?
- if there is a breach, there is a failure of authentication
This is fatal because this will result in the failure of the prosecution to prove the identity or corpus delicti of the drugs subject of the case.
If there is a serious doubt that the shabu presented in court is the shabu that the prosecution claims to have been recovered from the suspect. Presence of that doubt means acquittal
For purposes of authentication, REAL OBJECT EVIDENCE is also classified into 3 kinds
-
identifiable object - objects w/ peculiarities
- handgun serial number -
NON-identifiable but can be made identifiable - objects w/ similar attributes as the rest but was placed with distinguishing marks
- fan knife with initials -
inherently unidentifiable
- blood, poison, powder
insofar as chain of custody and the real object evidence is concerned, is there any important distinctions ?
chain of custody requirement is STRICTLY applied in inherently unidentifiable objects
the first two does not require that ALL the custodian/possessors be present in court
- IOW, first 2 ROE requires custodians to still be present in court but not all of them lang
Chain of Custody Requirement for purposes of Drug cases (Section 21, RA 9165)
- Immediately upon seizure, the seizing officer should mark the drugs
- Inventory and
- photograph-taking
Chain of Custody Requirement for purposes of Drug cases (Section 21, RA 9165) >
- Immediately upon seizure, the seizing officer should mark the drugs
The rules do not mention any specific time. Jurisprudence provides
that “immediate marking” is what?
done at the place of seizure
- Immediately upon seizure, the seizing officer should mark the drugs
Requirement during marking for sec. 21 to be achieved:
- The presence of the WITNESSES is required DURING the marking and
- WITNESSES required DURING the actual seizure or operation.
- Inventory and photograph-taking
[a]
all seized items after being marked should be listein in the inventory receipt, signed by:
[b]
a copy of the same shall be given to the
[c]
should the accuse refuse to sign, what is the appropriate action
[a]
1. accused
2. witnesses
3. officer who conducted inventory
[b]
1. witnesses
2. accused
[c]
officer conducting inventory should indicate in the receipt that the accused refused to sign
Section 21, RA 9165 IRR
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
what is the VENUE for purposes of inventory
GR
GR
1. if seizure was effected with warrant, conduct inventory at the place of seizure
- if seizure was effected w/o warrant, conduct inventory at the nearest police station [or] office of the seizing officer
what is the VENUE for purposes of inventory
GR:
- w/ warrant — venue at place of seizure
- w/o warrant — venue at nearest police station (or) office of seizing officer
XPN — substantial compliance
“Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.”
QUESTION: what are the ff. requisites that must be complied with to properly invoke the exception;
- There should be a recognition or admission on the part of the prosecution or the police that they failed to comply with Section 21.
- They must be able to offer a justification for non-compliance.
- They must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs are preserved.
VENUE for purposes of conducting inventory > XPN
when the operation was conducted, several neighboring residents gathered around the place that endangered the safety and security of the raiding team.
is this persuasive
No
- s easy to establish that there are several members of the raiding team. They don’t just conduct this type of police operation with just two or three of them and they are also in full battle gear
- not sufficiently establish that these people who allegedly gathered around the place committed overt acts that really endangered their security.
Q. What should be photographed in the photograph taking?
ANS: The Rules only require that the evidence (the seized illegal drugs) should be photographed. It does not require that the suspect, the witnesses, or the police who participated in the operation should also be photographed.
Q. How do you authenticate each and every link of the chain?
ANS: Jurisprudence has it that those who have taken possession of the
seized items should TESTIFY on the following matters:
condition received—how handled—condition turning over
- The CONDITION of the item at the time the possessor received it from the first possessor or in case of the first possessor, the condition of the item at the time he recovered it.
- HOW HE HANDLED the evidence or the seized illegal drugs while the item was in his possession, the objective being to ensure that during the time the seized illegal drugs were in his possession, tampering of the seized illegal drugs was impossible.
- The CONDITION of the seized illegal drugs at the time he TURNED OVER to the succeeding possessor.
Q. What is the effect if the chain of custody requirement is not duly established for one reason or another?
GR
XPN
[The Chain of Custody requirement as prescribed in Section 21] is a whole process of authentication. Normally, failure to comply with the authentication requirement in so far as object evidence is concerned results in the evidence being INadmissible.
XPN:
But not in the case of ILLEGAL DRUGS.
- failure to comply with the Chain of Custody Requirement which results in the failure to comply with the authentication requirement, does NOT render the seizure illegal, neither does it render the evidence inadmissible.
on illegal drugs if there is failure to authenticate but does not make the same inadmissible or illegal, so is sec. 21 an exclusionary rule?
No, it is not a rule of exclusion. The effect of noncompliance of sec. 21 insofar as illegal drug cases is there will be DOUBT as to the identity of the illegal drugs if they are the very same illegal drugs that prosecution claims to be.
[a]
As defense counsel, you noticed that there was failure to authenticate in your client’s drug case, can you raise a timely objection that the illegal drugs are inadmissible?
[b]
can you move to suppress the evidence on the ground of non compliance?
[a]
No, even if there is failure to comply with Sec. 21 & prosecution offers in evidence the seized illegal drugs, you canNOT object because it is not a grounds in objecting admissibility
[b]
No, because it is NOT an exclusionary rule unlike in other object evidence where suppression is a remedy
FIREARMS were recovered in your residence without the search warrant. These are object evidence but if these are recovered without a search warrant and the situation does not also fall under the valid warrantless search, these evidence are inadmissible pursuant to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
what is your remedy?
move for the suppression of these evidences so they would not be considered in the preparation of the complaint against the accused.
ILLEGAL DRUGS were recovered in your residence without the search warrant. These are object evidence but if these are recovered without a search warrant and the situation does not also fall under the valid warrantless search, these evidence are inadmissible pursuant to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
can you move to suppress evidence?
No
if it is not in compliance with Section 21, the remedy is not available especially under the provisions of RA 9165
So if it is an object evidence other than the illegal drugs and it does not comply with the authenticity, then you can raise the defense of inadmissibility. But for illegal drugs, you cannot question the inadmissibility?
Yes. The evidence undergoes two stages – the admissibility stage and the weight and sufficiency stage. Before an evidence can be considered by the court, it has to pass the test of admissibility. If the evidence fails to comply with the authentication, normally, it cannot even pass the test of admissibility. But in illegal drugs cases, even if it fails to comply with authentication, that piece of evidence still is admissible but it will certainly not pass the test of weight and sufficiency because it will not establish the elements of the crime which is the corpus delicti. So, the practical effect there is that you just have to go forward with the trial.
You are the defense counsel for Luis, who was arrested for alleged possession of illegal drugs during a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented a sachet of shabu as evidence, but you noticed that the chain of custody was poorly documented—the police failed to properly mark and inventory the evidence at the scene. Despite this, the court admitted the sachet as evidence.
During trial, the prosecution rested its case, and you now have to decide on your next move. Given the issues with the handling of evidence, what legal strategy should you use to secure an acquittal for Luis?
Wait until case is filed in court and forget about getting dismissal on the prosecutor’s level because it cannot be done.
when trial proceeds, we have two options
[1] - demurrer to evidence
[2] - proceed with trial attacking the weak evidence of the prosecution
Authentication of DEMONSTRATIVE Object Evidence
Facts: The case involved photographs which captured a mauling incident. During the trial for murder, these photographs were introduced but they were authenticated by a witness who was not the photographer.
So the authentication was questioned and the admission of the photographs was objected to under the contention that there was no proper authentication given that the witness was not the actual photographer.
Issue: Whether there is proper authentication of the photographs
presented as demonstrative evidence.
Yes
LB: PP v. Sison
Yes. The SC said for purposes of authenticating demonstrative evidence like photographs, it is not required that the photographer should be the one to authenticate, although it is ideal.
Any witness who is familiar with the person, thing or event captured in the photograph or the person, thing or event that the demonstrative evidence seeks to represent can be a competent witness. So, the witness who is present during the incident necessarily is familiar with the incident being depicted now in the photograph.
Facts: The photograph in this case is captured with a so-called “regiscope” machine. The accused was photographed from his waist up at that time when he encashed the check that he stole from the complainant. The photographs were presented and authenticated by the saleslady who dealt with the accused at the time of the encashment.
This was objected to on the ground that there was no competent witness who authenticated the photographs
Is the objection proper?
No
LB: Missouri v. Tatum
No. The saleslady was a competent witness. Although the photographer is an ideal witness, anyone who is familiar with the person, thing or event depicted in the photograph can be a competent witness like the saleslady being the one who personally dealt with the suspect when the encashment transpired.
to authenticate a photograph for its admissibility [and] the correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by
(1) the testimony of the person who made it or
(2) by other competent witnesses,
after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.”
what is Scientific Evidence & examples
These are evidence which depend on skill, experience and special training of WITNESSES who are responsible for these types of scientific evidence.
The common types of scientific evidence in this jurisdiction may include:
- Lie detector or polygraph test
- Paraffin test (gunpowder test)
- DNA test
[a] what kind of evidence is a paraffin test
[b]
in a paraffin test, what are the possible implications of a positive and negative result?
[a] Corroborative meant to be considered in light of other evidences
[positive]
- not sufficient to support a conclusion as it can be attributed to other factors such as fertilizer, pharmaceutical products, fireworks, peanuts, and beans
[negative]
- not conclusive evidence accuse did not fire a gun due to several factors such as (washing, perspiration, direction of wind & climate)
how is DNA test applicable? cite a scenario
PP v. Vallejo (vagina)
SCC of Rape w/ Homicide of 9 y/o. Vaginal swabs yied positive for presence of human DNA and showed that it was the profile of the appellant thus confirming the conviction of the accused.
Q. When can DNA testing be resorted to?
- BEFORE filing of the case
- DNA testing can be done w/o court order even law enforcement agencies - DURING case
- only allowed with leave of court resorted by any person interested in the case or by the court motu proprio
when to DAN > during the case > During the pendency of the case, the person who seeks to resort to DNA testing must comply with the conditions under Sec 4, Rules on DNA evidence. These are:
note: compliance with conditions is SUFFICIENT in cases involving identity other than paternity suits
a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case.
b) The biological sample:
(i) was NOT previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons.
c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique.
d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.
Requirements in establishing paternity
pg. 6
probative value of DNA test insofar as paternity is concerned
Post conviction insofar as DNA test is concerned
rules:
(a) It can only be availed of if the decision is for conviction [and] cannot be availed of if the accused is acquitted.
(b) Judgment must be final. His case can no longer be appealed [but] he has not yet duly served his sentence
(c) Can be resorted w/o LoC either by the accused [or] the prosecution.
(d) If post-conviction DNA is FAVORABLE to the accused, the remedy is writ of habeas corpus. It can be filed in RTC, CA or SC. It should order the release of the convict.
Rules on DNA Preservation
Under the DNA rules, the court is legally mandated to preserve the DNA sample within the given period.
- crim cases
- other cases
A. In criminal cases – from the time of trial up to the time the sentence has been fully served.
B. In all other cases – from the time of trial up to the time the decision shall have become final and executory.
Effect if court failed to preserve DNA Samples
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (current JP)
People v. Hubert Webb but not here
Taking cue from the case of Hubert Webb when the accused was convicted by RTC, affirmed by CA but acquitted by the SC. One of the issues was the failure of the government to make accessible to the defense DNA samples taken from the vaginal swabs of Carmela Vizconde.
In the case of Webb, the Supreme Court justified its ruling that there
was no violation of due process:
Important: With the current rules in DNA, the ruling in Webb no longer applies. The rules in DNA now explicitly mandates the court to preserve DNA samples. Failure to comply with the requirement would result in violation of due process.
