Object or Real Evidence

Nature of Object Evidence

 Object or Real Evidence

Section 1. Object as evidence. – Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.

 A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the same being
addressed to the senses of the court (People v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, 2003)
 An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. (Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No.
16444, 1920)
 The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence. (People v.
Malimit, G.R. No. 109775)
 Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence, where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial
evidence, the physical evidence should prevail. (BPI vs Reyes, 544 SCRA 206)

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed to the
court.

 The inspection may be made inside or outside the courtroom.

 The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of the parties or
at least with previous notice to them in order that they may show the object to be viewed. Such
inspection or view is a part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received, which is
expressly authorized by law.

Personal Appearance as Object Evidence

 To determine whether a person is an alien or not, his personal appearance, ethnological and
racial characteristics, language, customs, dress and manners, may be taken into consideration.
(De la Cruz v Insular Collector of Customs, GR No. 8120, December 12, 1913)
 The age of a person may also be determined by his personal appearance (Braca v Insular
Collector of Customs, GR. No. 13122, September 27, 1917)
 The resemblance between a minor and his alleged father is competent and material evidence to
establish parentage. However, the absence of such resemblance would not be sufficient to show
that parentage does not exist. (Chua Yeng vs Insular Collector of Customs, GR. No. 9853,
December 4, 1914)

Requisites for Admissibility

a) Evidence must be relevant;

b) Evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness;
c) Object must be formally offered

Relevant

General rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed
by the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if—

a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;

b. It would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the

evidentiary value of such object; [People v. Tavera, G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)

c. Evidence would be confusing or misleading;

d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in
question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.

Evidence must be authenticated

To authenticate the object is to show 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. Authentication must
be made by a competent witness. The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as
the very thing involved in the litigation.

A witness can testify only to those facts which he/she knows of his/her personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his/her own perception. Sec. 22, Rule 130

Actual physical or “autopic” evidence –those which have a direct relation or part in the fact or incident
sought to be proven and those brought to the court for personal examination by the presiding
magistrate.

Demonstrative Evidence - those which represent the actual or physical object being offered to support
or draw an inference or to aid in comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness. People v. Olarte,
G.R. No. 233209 (2019)

Categories of Objective Evidence

For purposes of authentication of an object or for laying the foundation for the exhibit, object
evidence may be classified into the following:

a. Unique objects or objects that have readily identifiable marks; or exhibit identifiable visual or
physical peculiarities (E.g., gun with a serial number; Car with a dent on its left bumper)

b. Objects made unique or Objects with no unique characteristic but are made readily
identifiable by law enforcers upon retrieval or confiscation (E.g., sachet of shabu with initials of
the police officer who retrieved it)

c. Non-unique objects or Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked (E.g., narcotic
substances, bodily fluids)

Under the third category, the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of custody. The
links of the chain are the people who handled or had custody of the objective. Each of them
must show how he received the object, how he handled it to prevent substitution and how it
transferred to another.

Chain of Custody in Relation To Sec 21 Of The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002
 Chain of Custody” 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 seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping
to presentation in court for destruction. Sec. 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1
(2002)

“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 testimony about every link in the chain,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, 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. These
witnesses would then 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.” (Mallilin vs People)

Links in the Chain of Custody

As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be established:

1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
2. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
3. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
4. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590 (2017)

Effect of non-compliance

In case there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the law in handling of confiscated drugs, the
law, as amended by RA 10640, clearly requires the authorities to show the following:

a) the non-compliance must be because of justifiable grounds; and

b) the apprehending officer/team must have properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items.

DNA Evidence

“DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated
cell of the body. The totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical
twins. “DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.

“DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of
DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the
information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of
 determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more
distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the
biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis). Sec. 3, AM No. 06-11-5-SC
or Rule on DNA Evidence

Application for DNA testing order

The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and
notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:

1. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

2. The biological sample:

(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or

(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, butthe results may require confirmation for good reasons;

3. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

4. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and

5. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the
accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.

Exception:

DNA testing may be done without a prior court order, at the behest of any party (including law
enforcement agencies), before a suit or proceeding is commenced. Sec. 4, Rule on DNA Evidence

The death of the petitioner (putative father) does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing
for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. The term “biological sample” means
any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 1717113 (2007)

Post-conviction DNA testing remedy

Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that

(a) a biological sample exists,

(b) such sample is relevant to the case, and

(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction.

Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176864 (2010)

The medical evidence clearly established that

“Carmela was raped and, consistent with this, semen specimen was found in her. It is true that Alfaro
identified Webb in her testimony as Carmela's rapist and killer but serious questions had been raised
about her credibility. At the very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro had lied. xxx If, on
examination, the DNA of the subject specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela.”

Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict

The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the
results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict.

In case the court, after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the
judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a
lawful cause.

A similar petition may be filed either in theCourt of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member
of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and
issue the appropriate orders. Sec. 10, Rule on DNA Evidence

Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence

In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the following:

The chair of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were
handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;

The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid
standards in conducting the tests;

The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting

institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not
accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall
be properly established; and

The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

Rules on evaluation of reliability of the DNA testing methodology

In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:

1. The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA
evidence;

2. The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the
case; and

3. that DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the
DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.