CCTV Footage Admissible Without Original Recorder - SC

-



The admissibility of CCTV footage as evidence is governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence, particularly Rule 11, Section 1 of the of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC. This provision states that audio, photographic, and video evidence is admissible if it is "shown, presented, or displayed to the court and identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the recording [o]r by some other person competent to testify on its accuracy.


The use of the conjunction "or" in this rule is significant. It indicates that authentication of such evidence is not limited to the individual who originally recorded it. Instead, any person who can competently testify to the accuracy and integrity of the footage may authenticate it. This flexibility is crucial in situations where the original recorder is unavailable or unknown.


For instance, in People v. Manansala (G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020), the Supreme Court clarified that individuals authorized to authenticate video or CCTV recordings are not limited to the person who made the recording but include other witnesses who can testify to its accuracy. 

RELATED:

2022 Bar, Remedial Law 1, Question No. 14:

Klaus was drinking in front of his rented apartment when he suddenly heard a gunshot which came from inside the apartment owned by Luther. Klaus then saw Igor, a neighbor, going down the stairs and leaving the scene holding a gun. Klaus also witnessed Luther fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his chest. Vanya, Luther’s daughter, also rushed to Luther when he fell.


During Igor’s trial for Murder, Vanya testified and presented a flash drive containing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages of the scene. Said footages showed a man appearing to be Igor, armed with a gun, proceeding up the stairs and entering Luther’s apartment. In the video, the same man was seen hastily leaving the premises. Vanya further testified that she was the one who transferred to the flash drive the video footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their apartment.


When the footages were played in court and an enlarged screenshot was presented, Vanya identified the shooter as Igor. The defense objected on the ground that Vanya was not the recorder of the video footages.


Are the CCTV footages admissible as electronic evidence? Explain briefly. (5 points) 
(2022 BAR EXAMINATIONS, REMEDIAL LAW I, Q. No. 14)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Yes, the CCTV footage is admissible as electronic evidence, provided it is properly authenticated in accordance with Rule 11, Section 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.


Rule 11, Section 1 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC provides that audio, photographic, and video evidence is admissible if it is shown, presented, or displayed to the court and identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the recording [o]r by another person competent to testify to its accuracy. The use of the conjunction "or" indicates that the person presenting the evidence does not have to be the original recorder as long as they can establish its reliability and authenticity.


In this case, Vanya is not the original recorder of the CCTV footage but is competent to authenticate it. She transferred the video from the barangay-owned CCTV system to a flash drive and testified in court about this process. As someone familiar with the transfer and the chain of custody, she can competently explain and verify the accuracy of the footage. The barangay-owned CCTV system adds to the reliability of the recording, provided evidence is presented to confirm that it was operational and functioning properly at the time of the incident. The defense’s objection based on Vanya’s lack of direct involvement in recording the footage is insufficient to bar its admissibility because Rule 11 explicitly allows authentication by a competent person other than the original recorder.


Hence, the CCTV footage is admissible as electronic evidence. Rule 11, Section 1 permits its authentication by a person who can competently testify to its accuracy, even if they were not the original recorder. Vanya’s testimony, supported by the proper chain of custody and reliability of the source, satisfies the requirements for admissibility.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

-
Image
  Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 2 | Political Law “Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district.   Will the petition prosper? Explain[.]” Suggested Answer: Republic Act No. 6645, December 28, 1987 , AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election ...
Read more

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more