Notes for 02-21-21 EVIDENCE authenticated by person as the very thing

involved in the litigation. Better still, he must

RULE 130 have actual and personal knowledge of the
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY exhibit he is presenting for admission. This is
because "a witness can only testify to those
a. Object or real evidence facts which he knows of his personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his own
Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as perception..."
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 5. The object evidence must not be taken in
viewed by the court. (1) isolation - It is weighed in relation to the
testimony of a witness. Also, in giving credence
to a testimony, the court takes into consideration
Object or real evidence are evidences that are
the physical evidence. If the testimony bears a
addressed to the senses of the court. It consists of a
striking similarity with the physical evidence, the
tangible thing. It appeals directly to the senses of the
testimony becomes worthy of belief.
court. It enables the court to have a first-hand perception
of the evidence.
Requisites for admissibility:
Object evidence covers all human senses; sight, smell, 1. The evidence must be relevant
touch, hearing, etc. 2. The evidence must be authenticated
3. The authentication must be made by a
“Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation competent witness
of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy 4. The object must be formally offered in
evidence — where the physical evidence runs counter to evidence.
the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should
prevail” à The authentication requirement is to satisfy the
element of competence as an essential ingredient of
Can a human being form a real evidence? admissibility.
à Yes. Where the racial characteristics of a party is at à the evidence must be formally offered in court since it
issue, the court may, at its discretion, view the person is a vital act before the admission of evidence because
concerned. In a criminal case where the complaining the court "shall consider no evidence which has not been
witness avers that he was stabbed in the arm by the formally offered"
accused, the court may inspect his arm.
Laying the foundation for the evidence - The problem
Requisites for admissibility of object evidence: commonly lies in showing that the object sought to be
1. It must be both relevant and competent - To be admitted is in fact the real thing and not a mere
relevant the evidence must have a relationship substitute or representation of the real thing. For
to the fact in issue. To be competent it must not example, an attorney must lay a foundation in order to
be excluded by the rules or by law. The legal admit an expert witness' testimony or a company's
basis of this requirement is Sec. 3 of Rule 128: business records into evidence. Laying a foundation
"Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the establishes the qualifications of a witness or the
issue and is not excluded by the law or these authenticity of evidence.
rules."
Object evidence in relation to the Right against Self-
2. The object must pass the test of authentication - incrimination
The threshold foundation for real evidence is its à The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked
being authenticated. Is it the real thing? In other against object evidence.
words, is it the actual object it is claimed to be?
To authenticate the object, it must be shown that à the right against self-incrimination guaranteed under
the object is the very thing that is either the our fundamental law finds no application in this case
subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one because no testimonial compulsion was involved. The
involved to prove an issue in the case right involves a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from him. " It is
3. There must be someone who should identify the simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from
object to be the actual thing involved in ligitation the accused's own lips, against his will, admission of his
– someone must be presented as witness to guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the
prove that the object is the actual thing in issue. evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating
statement but an object evidence.
4. The evidence must be sponsored by a witness – Categories of Object Evidence
this means that the evidence must be
 a. Unique objects – objects that have readily uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case
identifiable marks the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
b. Objects made unique – objects that are made contamination and even substitution and exchange. In
readily available other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to
c. Non-unique objects – objects with no identifying fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to
marks and cannot be marked. whether the same is advertent or otherwise not —
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the
Unique objects à If the object has a unique chain of custody rule.
characteristic, like the serial number of a caliber 45
pistol, it becomes readily identifiable. So long as the The chain of custody rule with regard to narcotic
witness testifies that the object has a unique substances à "A unique characteristic of narcotic
characteristic, he saw the object on the relevant date, substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in
remembers its characteristics, asserts that the object fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine
shown to him in court is the same or substantially in the their composition and nature. Hence, in authenticating
same condition as when he first saw it and alleges that the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to
those characteristics are those of the object he is cases involving objects which are readily identifiable
identifying in court, the authentication requirement is must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a
satisfied. chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness
if only to render it improbable that the original item has
Objects made unique à If the object does not have a either been exchanged with another or been
unique characteristic, like the typical kitchen knife that contaminated or tampered with.
has no serial number, is commonplace, and is identical
with a lot of knives of the same kind and quality, the à If the object is not readily identifiable, a chain of
witness may be able to identify the same in court if he custody must be shown. To avoid gaps in the chain of
claims that he made the thing acquire a unique custody and prevent further evidentiary objections,
characteristic like placing identifying marks on it. All he ideally all the persons who handled the object should be
has to do in court is to testify as to what he did to make called to the stand although courts no longer require this
the object identifiable and that the object presented to rigid process. Unless a specific provision of law or rule
him for identification in court has the characteristics he provides otherwise, the investigator need not testify that
made on the object. the process of sealing the evidence and the submission
to the chemist were done in the presence of the accused
Non-unique objects à The third category refers to those or his representative. This is because of the presumption
objects which are not readily identifiable, were not made that official duty has been regularly performed.
identifiable or cannot be made identifiable like drops of
blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand Chain of custody in drugs cases under Section 21 of RA
and similar objects. 9165:

Under the category falls the chain of custody rule. The "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
purpose of which is to is to guaranty the integrity of the movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
physical evidence and to prevent the introduction of chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
evidence which is not authentic. So, when the exhibit is laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
positively identified the chain of custody of physical seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
evidence is irrelevant. safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall
Not all the chains or persons to whom the evidence has include the identity and signature of the person who held
passed thru need to elicit a testimony as to how the temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
evidence was handled as long as one of the "chains" when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
testifies and his testimony negates the possibility of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
tampering and that the integrity of the evidence is disposition
preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove the
chain of custody. "The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
Remember that what is important is to negate the idea of confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
tampering. in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
à While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the representative or counsel, a representative from the media
standard because it is almost always impossible to and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
obtain an unbroken chain of custody, it becomes public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
indispensable and essential when the item of real inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable,
or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
 integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are expressly authorized by Sec. 1 of Rule 130 and even
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall without this express provision, it is well-recognized that
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody the court has an inherent power to order a view when
over said items." there is a need to do so.

DNA Evidence à People v. Vallejo (2002) considered by

Failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers the Court to be the "first real breakthrough of DN A as
conducted the required physical inventory and admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said jurisprudence." From a mere recognition of the existence
guidelines à Not fatal and does not automatically render of DN A testing, Vallejo moved towards an open use of
accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items DN A evidence in deciding cases. Vallejo adopted the
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the following guidelines to be used by courts in assessing
implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso the probative value of DNA evidence:
added that 'non-compliance with these requirements (a) How the samples were collected;
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and (b) How they were handled;
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly (c) The possibility of contamination of the samples;
preserved by the apprehending officer I team, shall (d) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
not render void and invalid such seizures of and (e) Whether the proper standards and procedure were
custody over said items.' The same provision clearly followed in conducting the tests; and
states as well, that it must still be shown that there exists (f) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the
justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and test.
evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.
People vs. Yatar à Yatar significantly upheld the
à What is of utmost importance is the preservation of constitutionality of compulsory DN A and rejected the
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized contention that compulsory testing would infringe on the
items, as the same would be utilized in the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The case
determination of the guilt or innocence of the significantly and clearly recognized.
accused.
Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC and in
à Non-compliance with the procedure shall not accordance with Sec. 14 thereof, took effect on
render void and invalid the seizure of and custody of October 15, 2007)
the drugs only when:
(1) such non-compliance was under justifiable
grounds; and Paraffin test – considered by courts as inconclusive
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the because scientific experts concur in the view that it is
seized items are properly preserved by the unreliable. The tests can only establish the presence or
apprehending team. absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand but the tests
alone cannot determine whether the source of the
REMEMBER: Non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, particularly the making of the inventory nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The
and their photographing of the drugs confiscated presence of nitrates should be taken only as an
and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible indication of a possibility or even a probability but not of
in evidence. The issue if there is non-compliance infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates
with the law is not admissibility, but of weight — are also admittedly found in substances other than
evidentiary merit or probative value.
gunpowder such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,
pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE à is not the actual thing
but it is referred to as "demonstrative" because it Thus, the argument that the negative result of
represents or demonstrates the real thing. It is not strictly gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test conducted
"real" evidence because it is not the very thing involved shows an absence of physical evidence that one fired a
in the case. A map, a diagram, a photograph and a
gun, is untenable as it is possible for one to fire a gun
model, fall under this category. This category of
evidence is not separately defined in the Rules of Court and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when
and appears to have been incorporated under the the hands are washed before the test.
general term "object" evidence.
It is merely a corroborative evidence, neither proving
2ND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 “when an object is nor disproving that a person did indeed fire a gun.
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.”
à Going out of the courtroom to observe places and Polygraphy test or Lie detector test - courts accordingly
objects is commonly termed a "view." The "view" is uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when
offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the
guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime because it
has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable
and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception

Section 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as

evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs
or any material containing letters, words, sounds,
numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of
their contents. Photographs include still pictures,
drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures
or videos. (2a)

Take note of the underlined words since they are the

amendments to the rule.