Q: In what purposes may evidence of similar facts is admissible?
A:
1. Specific intent 2. Knowledge 3. Identity 4. Plan 5. System 6. Scheme 7. Habit 8. Custom
9. Usage and the like
NOTE: Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of person, his motive or intent, or they may uncover the scheme, design, or plan.
Q: Where will the admissibility of similar acts or previous conduct?
A: It would depend on the purposes for which such acts or conduct are offered.
NOTE: The past acts of the accused are inadmissible to prove that he acted in conformity with such previous acts.
Chapter III
OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I. Object Evidence
Rule 130
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
SECTION 1.Object as 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. (1a)
Q: What is object evidence?
A: It is the real thing itself consists of tangible things like gun, a broken glass, a piece of bloody clothing or the defective ladder that caused the fall of the plaintiff.
It does not refer to the perception of the witness and recollection of that perception. It is not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness on the stand. It is not a verbal description of something. It is not a replica or a mere representation of something.
NOTE: It appeals directly to the senses of the court. Instead of relying on the recollection of the witnesses, an object evidence will enable the court to have its own first-hand perception of the evidence.
Q: What is the effect of object evidence?
A: It could have a very persuasive effect on the part of the court.
Q: May a human being be a form of real evidence?
A: Yes. Where the racial characteristics of a party is at issue, the court may, at its discretion, view the person concerned.
The court may likewise allow the exhibition of the weapon allegedly used in attacking the victim, the bloody garment of the victim or the personal effect, like the glove, left by the supposed assailant in the scene of the crime.
Q: Is object evidence limited to visual alone?
A: No, it covers the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch. In a case where the issue is infringement of a musical composition, the court may listen to the composition involved. The court may not only look at but also touch the blade of knife to know whether or not it could have produced the incision characteristic of sharp blades.
Q: In case of conflict between testimonial and physical evidence, which should prevail?
A: Where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail (BPI v. Reyes, 2008). Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
Requisites for admissibility of object evidence
Q: What should be the requisites for admissibility of object evidence?
A:
1. The admissibility of object or real evidence like any other evidence requires that the object be both relevant and competent. To be relevant, the evidence must have a relationship to the fact in issue. To be competent, it must not be excluded by the rules or by law.
2. For the object not to be excluded by the Rules, the same must pass the test of authentication. The threshold foundation for real evidence is its being authenticated.
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. Also, there must be someone who should identify the object to be the actual thing involved in the litigation. This someone is the witness.
3. It must be emphasized that every evidence, whether it be a document or an object, needs a witness. Even object evidence requires statements from witness to make its way into the realm of admissible evidence. In short, testimonial evidence provides the foundation for all types of evidence. The witness should have actual and personal knowledge of the exhibit he is presenting for admission.
Sec. 36.Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules. (30a)
Thus, the following are the basic requisites for the admissibility of an object or real evidence:
a. The evidence must be relevant b. The evidence must be authenticated
c. The authentication must be made by a competent witness
d. The object must be formally offered in evidence.
NOTE: After its authentication, the object needs to be offered in evidence at the appropriate time. The formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital act before the admission of evidence because the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered (Sec. 34, Rule 132).
Sec. 34.Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
Q: What is the problem with regard the requirement of relevance and the competence of testimony of the witness?
A: The problem commonly lies in showing that the object sought to be admitted is in fact the real thing and not a mere
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
substitute or representation of the real thing. This problem is commonly called laying the foundation for the evidence.
Object evidence and the Right against Self-Incrimination
Q: May the right against self-incrimination be invoked against object evidence?
A: No. In People v. Malimit (264 SCRA 167), the court held that the right against self-incrimination finds no application in the case because no testimonial compulsion was involved.
Accordingly, such right is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communication from him. It is a prohibition against legal process to extract from the accused’s own lips, against his will, admission of guilt. It does not apply in this case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence.
Categories of Object Evidence
Q: What are the classifications of object evidence?
A:
a. Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects);
b. Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique); and
c. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked (non-unique marks).
If the object has a unique characteristic, it becomes readily identifiable (a serial number of a caliber 45 pistol). So long as the witness testifies that the object has a unique characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant date, remembers its characteristics, asserts that the object shown to him in court is the same or substantially in the same condition as when he first saw it and alleges that those characteristics are those of the object he is identifying in court, the authentication requirement is satisfied.
Otherwise, (like a typical kitchen knife without a serial number), the witness may be able to testify the same if he claims that he made the thing acquire a unique characteristic like placing identifying marks on it. All he has to do is to testify as to what he did to make the object identifiable and that the object presented to him for identification in court has the characteristics he made on the object.
Chain of custody
The third category includes drop of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar objects. In this case, the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of custody. The purpose is to guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to prevent the introduction o evidence which is not authentic but where the exhibit is positively
identified the chain of custody of physical evidence is irrelevant.
Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the chain. The links are the people who actually handled or had custody of the object. Each link must show how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution and how it was transferred to another. Each must testify to make the foundation complete. This is the ideal way (though this is not absolutely required.
There is a view that the prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian or from every person who had an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence sought to be admitted. As long as one of the chains testifies and his testimony negates the possibility of tampering and that the integrity of the evidence is preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the chain of custody.
Lopez v. People
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include the testimony about every link in the chain, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The witness would describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
The chain of custody rule is indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The rule also applies in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Such dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substance is that they are not readily identifiable hence a more stringent standard than that applied to readily identifiable object is necessary. This standard entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable for the original item to be exchanged with another, contaminated or tampered with.
Xxx More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance said to be illegally possessed is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit.
If the object is not readily identifiable, a chain of custody must be shown. To avoid gaps in the chain of custody and
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
prevent further evidentiary objections, ideally all the persons who handled the object should be called to the stand although courts no longer require this rigid process.
Unless a specific provision of law or rule provides otherwise, the investigator need not testify that the process of sealing the evidence and the submission to the chemist were done in the presence of the accused or his representative. This is because of the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed (Sec. 3 (m), Rule 131).
Sec. 3 (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
People v. Tan (348 SCRA 116)
The court should be extra vigilant in trying a drug cases so an innocent person is not made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offense. Accordingly, a police buy-but operation carries a built-in danger for abuse because by its very nature, anti-narcotics operation involves the need for entrapment procedures and the use of shady characters as informants and the secrecy that shrouds drug deals enables the planting of marijuana or heroin in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting persons.
Chain of custody in drug cases Q: What is chain of custody?
A: It means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of confiscation or seizure to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. It shall also include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition (People v. Obmiranis, G.R.
No. 181492).
Article II of R.A. No. 9165
The apprehending 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 which such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof (Sec. 1, par.1).
Note: A mere statement that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence is not enough. It must be accompanied by proof.
People v. Rivera
Failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or that the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Accordingly, non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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.
What is important is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same may be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This is to remove unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. The dangerous drugs itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.
Q: When will the non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the seizure of and custody of drugs?
A:
1. When such compliance was under justifiable grounds; and
2. Integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized are properly preserved by apprehending team.
People v. Del Monte (G.R. No. 179940)
The issue if there is non-compliance with the law is not admissibility, but weight—evidentiary merit or probative value.
Demonstrative Evidence Q: What is demonstrative evidence?
A: It is not the actual thing but it is referred to as demonstrative because it represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly real evidence because it is not the very thing involved in the case.
Examples: map, diagram, photograph, model
Kenneth & King Hizon (3A) _____________________________________________
(m)That official duty has been regularly performed;
NOTE: It is not separately defined in the Rules of Court and appears to have been incorporated under the general term
“object” evidence.
Q: Where does the admissibility of demonstrative evidence depend?
A: It depends on laying the proper foundation for the evidence. The rule boils down to one question: Does the evidence sufficiently and accurately represent the object it seeks to demonstrate or represent? If it does, the evidence would be admissible.
Q: For a photograph to be admissible, what is the rule?
A: The same must be relevant and competent. It is competent when it is properly authenticated by a witness who is familiar with the scene or person portrayed and who testifies that the photograph faithfully represents what it depicts.
Q: Should the photographer testify?
A: Some courts insist the photographer to testify but this view has been eroded by the tendency of modern courts to admit as witness one who has familiarity with the scene portrayed (Sison v. People, 250 SCRA 58).
Q: What are the requirements for photographic evidence of events, acts, or transactions shall be admissible?
A:
1. It shall be presented, displayed, and shown to the court 2. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by
either:
a. The person who made the recording,
b. Some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Electronic Rules of Evidence)
NOTE: The admissibility of photographic evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling in this respect will not be interfered with except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.
Q: What is the rule regarding motion pictures and recordings?
A: The rules that apply to motion pictures and recordings.
Because of the possibility of tampering and distortion, courts have traditionally required a stricter standard for laying the foundation for motion pictures and tape recordings. Courts then would require detailed testimony as to the qualifications of the operator, a detailed description of the equipment used, the conditions under which the photograph and the recordings were taken. Modern courts however have taken
judicial notice of how motion cameras and tape recorders work and their general reliability and their prevalent use.
NOTE: The person present when the activities of taking the pictures and recordings should testify that the motion picture accurately, faithfully, represents the place or person it purports to identify.
Q: Does the authentication process need to involve the person who actually made them?
A: No, it can be done by some other person as long as he is one who can testify as to its accuracy.
NOTE: There is also a requirement that the recording be shown, presented, or displayed to the court (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Q: What are the rules regarding diagrams, maps, and models?
A: These types of evidence are presented to indicate the relative locations, positions of objects and persons. Aside from the requirement of relevance, a diagram, map, and model must be identified by a witness who is familiar with what the evidence depicts, and that the same is an accurate representation of the scene it portrays.
NOTE: The question as to the sufficiency of the authentication is a matter of judicial discretion.
Q: What is the rule regarding x-ray pictures?
A: Also known as the skiagraphs or radiographs, x-ray pictures are admissible when shown to have been made under circumstances as to assure their accuracy and where relevant to a material issue in the case.
Authenticated x-rays are normally involved in personal injury cases to show the location and the extent of the unjury.
Q: Is the testimony of the person who took the x-ray
Q: Is the testimony of the person who took the x-ray