Object Evidence, its Kinds and Requisites for Admissibility (6)

Question 1

what is an object evidence?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

admissibility of OE

Just as any other evidence, object evidence must comply with certain requisites for their admissibility.

requisites

Answer 2

1. must be relevant
2. must be authenticated
3. authenticated by a competent witness
4. formally offered

Question 3

what is authentication?

Answer 3

The process of establishing in court that the thing presented is the very thing that the proponent claims it to be

Question 4

Kinds of OE

Answer 4

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

Question 5

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

Answer 5

the photograph of the knife and this time it will be offered as demonstrative evidence

Question 6

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

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

what is chain of custody?

Answer 7

it requires that ALL CUSTODIANS/POSSESSORS of the (inherently unidentifiable) item be presented in court otherwise there will be a breach

Question 8

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?

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

For purposes of authentication, REAL OBJECT EVIDENCE is also classified into 3 kinds

Answer 9

1. identifiable object - objects w/ peculiarities
   - handgun serial number
2. NON-identifiable but can be made identifiable - objects w/ similar attributes as the rest but was placed with distinguishing marks
   - fan knife with initials
3. inherently unidentifiable
   - blood, poison, powder

Question 10

insofar as chain of custody and the real object evidence is concerned, is there any important distinctions ?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Chain of Custody Requirement for purposes of Drug cases (Section 21, RA 9165)

Answer 11

1. Immediately upon seizure, the seizing officer should mark the drugs
2. Inventory and
3. photograph-taking

Question 12

Chain of Custody Requirement for purposes of Drug cases (Section 21, RA 9165) >

1. 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?

Answer 12

done at the place of seizure

Question 13

1. Immediately upon seizure, the seizing officer should mark the drugs

Requirement during marking for sec. 21 to be achieved:

Answer 13

• The presence of the WITNESSES is required DURING the marking and
• WITNESSES required DURING the actual seizure or operation.

Question 14

2. 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

Answer 14

[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.

Question 15

what is the VENUE for purposes of inventory

GR

Answer 15

GR
1. if seizure was effected with warrant, conduct inventory at the place of seizure

2. if seizure was effected w/o warrant, conduct inventory at the nearest police station [or] office of the seizing officer

Question 16

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;

Answer 16

1. There should be a recognition or admission on the part of the prosecution or the police that they failed to comply with Section 21.
2. They must be able to offer a justification for non-compliance.
3. They must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs are preserved.

Question 17

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

Answer 17

No

1. 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
2. not sufficiently establish that these people who allegedly gathered around the place committed overt acts that really endangered their security.

Question 18

Q. What should be photographed in the photograph taking?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Q. How do you authenticate each and every link of the chain?

Answer 19

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The CONDITION of the seized illegal drugs at the time he TURNED OVER to the succeeding possessor.

Question 20

Q. What is the effect if the chain of custody requirement is not duly established for one reason or another?

GR
XPN

Answer 20

[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.

Question 21

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?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

[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?

Answer 22

[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

Question 23

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?

Answer 23

move for the suppression of these evidences so they would not be considered in the preparation of the complaint against the accused.

Question 24

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?

Answer 24

No

if it is not in compliance with Section 21, the remedy is not available especially under the provisions of RA 9165

Question 25

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?

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

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?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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.

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

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?

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

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

Answer 29

(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.”

Question 30

what is Scientific Evidence & examples

Answer 30

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: 1. Lie detector or polygraph test 2. Paraffin test (gunpowder test) 3. DNA test

Question 31

[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?

Answer 31

[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)

Question 32

how is DNA test applicable? cite a scenario

Answer 32

**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.

Question 33

Q. When can DNA testing be resorted to?

Answer 33

1. BEFORE filing of the case - DNA testing can be done w/o court order even law enforcement agencies 2. DURING case - only allowed **with leave of court** resorted by any person interested in the case or by the court *motu proprio*

Question 34

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:

Answer 34

*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.

Question 35

Requirements in establishing paternity pg. 6

Question 36

probative value of DNA test insofar as paternity is concerned

Question 37

Post conviction insofar as DNA test is concerned rules:

Answer 37

(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.

Question 38

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

Answer 38

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.**

Question 39

Effect if court failed to preserve DNA Samples

Answer 39

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.