Philippine College of Criminology

CRIMINAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 4 [ CLJ 4]

EVIDENCE
HAND OUT NO. 3

ATTY. STELLA P. AGUSTIN

1st Semester, AY 2018-2019

RULE ON ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE

1. Requisites for the admissibility of illegal drugs.

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven
with moral certainty:
(a) That the accused is in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug;
(b) That such possession is not authorized by law; and
(c) That the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

2. Authentication of evidence: Chain of Custody Rule

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter
in question is what the proponent claims 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 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 witnesses’ possession, the
condition 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. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always a
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
is indispensable and essential when: (1) the item of real evidence is not distinctive and
is not readily identifiable, or ; (2) when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
critical, or; (3) when a witness failed to observe its uniqueness.

The same standard likewise obtains in the case the evidence is susceptible to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.

3. Functions of Chain of Custody Requirement.

The function of the Chain of Custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much that unnecessary doubts as to
the identity of the evidence are removed.

4. Purpose of Chain of Custody Evidence.

The Chain of Custody is essential in establishing the link between the article confiscated from
the accused to evidence that is ultimately presented to the court for its appreciation.

5. Rule on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which should be preserved.
Failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure on the chain
of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, will not render an arrest
illegal or the items seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence.

ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

1. Acts punished under Anti-Wire Tapping Law ( R.A 4200).

It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word:

Acts by direct participation:

(a) To tap any wire or cable; or by using any other device or arrangement;
(b) To secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as Dictaphone or dictagraph or Dictaphone or walkie talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described:

Acts of possession and use:

(a) To knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the
effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or
(b) To replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing; or
(c) To furnish transcripts thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other persons: Provided
 that the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by the
prohibition.

2. Penalties to be imposed for commission of the prohibited acts

(a) Imprisonment for not less than six months; or
(b) More than 6 years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the
time of the commission of the offense; and
(c) If the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.

3. Instances of Allowed Overhearing of Conversation and its admissibility.

Sec. 3 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law (RA 4200) provides for the rule on instances when
overhearing of conversation is allowed.

Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared
to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of:

a. Treason;
b. Espinonage;
c. Provoking war;
d. Disloyalty in case of war;
e. Piracy;
f. Mutiny in high seas;
g. Rebellion;
h. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion;
i. Inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting sedition;
j. Kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code; and
k. Violations of Commonwealth Act no. 616, punishing espionage and other
offenses against national security.

 Requirements for the issuance of the Order

The written order shall only be issued or granted upon:

a. Written application;
b. Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and witnesses he
may produce and a showing: (1) That there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes enumerated has been committed or is
being committed or is about to be committed; (2) That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition and inciting
to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a
rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case maybe have actually been or are
being committed; (3) That there are reasonable grounds to believe that
evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or
to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (4)
That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.

 Period of effectivity of the authorization.

The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended
or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is
in the public interest.

4. Admissibility of the Evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law

Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect,
or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative hearing or
investigation.

HUMAN SECURITIES ACT

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

5. Rule on Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and recording of Communications.

 When can listening, intercepting, and recording of communication allowed under the
Human Securities Act.

The provisions of RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a

police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written
order of the Court of Appeals , listen to, intercept, and record, any or written words
between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization
association, or group of persons or any person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by:
 a. With the use of any mode, form, kind, or type of electronic or other
surveillance equiptment or intercepting and tracking devices, or
b. With the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose.

 When it is not allowed

The surveillance, interception and recording of communications shall not be
authorized in the following between:
a. Lawyers and clients;
b. Doctors and patients;
c. Journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence.

6. Requirements of Judicial Authorization.

The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen
to, intercept, and record communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or
written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals:

a. Upon ex-parte written application of a police or of law enforcement official who has
been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Sec. 53 of
this act to file such ex parte application, and
b. Upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce to establish:

 That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of

facts or circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to committed.

 That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of

facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any
charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such
crimes, will be obtained; and

 That there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such
evidence.

7. Rule on Admissibility of Evidence in violation of law

Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part of parts thereof, or any information or
fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall
absolutely not be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative, investigation, inquiry, proceeding or
hearing.

RELEVANCY AND COLLATERAL MATTERS.

8. Sec. 4 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides for the rules on the relevancy of evidence
and collateral matters. It states that:

“ Sec. 4 Relevancy; Collateral Matters.- Evidence must have such

relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except
when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue.”

9. When is an evidence relevant.

a. Have such a relation to the fact in issue; and
b. It will induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

10. Rule on admissibility on collateral matters.

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

11. Distinction between relevancy and competency of evidence.

In relevancy the evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief as to its
existence or non-existence, while in competency the evidence must not be excluded by law or
by the rules.

FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS DOCTRINE

12. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in
everything." At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about
one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.

13. In our jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in
 fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that
the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon
the corroborative evidence and probabilities and improbabilities of the case.

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE: RULES ON ALIBI AND DENIAL.

14. Defense of Alibi Weakest Defense: Alibi is the weakest of all defense, for it is easy to
fabricate and difficult to prove; It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused
by the witnesses. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing
evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was
committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime when it was committed.

15. Requisites for Alibi to prosper

a. The accused was at different place at the time the crime was committed.
b. It was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its
commission.

16. Meaning of Physical Impossibility.

“ Physical Impossibility” refers to the distance between the place where the appellant ws
when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of
access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present
at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

RULE ON RECANTATION OF TESTIMONY

17. Courts do not generally look with favour on any retraction or recanted testimony, for it could
have been secured by considerations other than to tell the truth and would make solemn
trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses. A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration, but like any other
testimony the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution.

RULES ON THE DEFENSE OF FRAME UP

18. The defense of frame up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavour, for
it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. In order to prosper, the defense of frame-up
must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.

RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO AND EPHEMERAL

EVIDENCE.

19. Sec. 1, Rule 11 of the Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) provides for the
rule on the admissibility of audio, photographic, video, and ephemeral evidence.

20. Requirements for the admissibility of audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence.
a. Shown, presented, or displayed to the Court; and
b. It shall be identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

21. Rules on Admissibility of Ephemeral Electronic Communication: Sec. 2 Rule 11 of the

Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) provides for the rule on the admissibility of
ephemeral electronic communications.

22. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages,

chat room sessions, streaming audio, streaming video and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.

23. How to prove ephemeral electronic communication.

Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by:
a. The testimony of a person who was a party to the same;
b. Persons who has personal knowledge thereof;
c. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be
admitted.

DOCTRINE OF RELAXED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN WRIT OF AMPARO.

24. In Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of
evidence to enable Amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the
State’s direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair and proper
rule in Amparo cases “To consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality”
and “to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be
admissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is inconsistent with the
admissible evidence adduced.” Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it
is inadmissible under the rules as long as it satisfies “ the most basic test of reason.”