This document discusses object evidence under Philippine rules of evidence. It defines object evidence as real objects addressed to the senses of the court that are relevant to facts at issue in a case. Object evidence includes things that appeal to sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. For admission, object evidence must be relevant, authenticated by a competent witness, and formally offered. It discusses requirements for establishing chain of custody of unidentifiable objects and limitations on admitting object evidence. Categories of object evidence include actual physical evidence and demonstrative evidence like photographs.

1. RULE 130
OBJECT
EVIDENCE

2. WHAT IS OBJECT EVIDENCE?
Sec. 1 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
states that Objects as evidences 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.

3. NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• An evidence that is addressed to the senses of the court.
• It is the real thing itself.
• It appeals directly to the senses of the court.
• It could have a very persuasive effect on the part of the court.
• Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire range of human
senses: hearing, taste, smell and touch.

4. SCOPE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• Sense of vision
• Sense of hearing
• Sense of touch
• Sense of taste
• Sense of Smell

5. IF THE OBJECT IS RELEVANT TO THE
ISSUE
It may be:
➢Exhibited
➢Examined
➢Viewed by the court

6. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• It must be relevant;
• It must be authenticated
• It must be identified by a competent witness
• It must be formally offered

7. IT MUST BE RELEVANT
• General Rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court
• 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;
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

8. IT 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.

9. IDENTIFIED 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].

10. IT MUST BE FORMALLY OFFERED
Courts cannot consider evidence which has not been formally
offered because parties are required to inform the courts of the
purpose of introducing their respective exhibits to assist the latter in
ruling on their admissibility in case an objection thereto is made.
Without a formal offer of evidence, courts are constrained to take
no notice of the evidence even if it has been marked and
identified.

11. LIMITATIONS ON THE ADMISSION
OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• Object evidence may be refused admittance by the court when:
a) Object evidence is contrary to public policy, morals, or sense of
decency;
b) It would result in delays, inconvenience, or would entail unnecessary
expenses;
c) It is confusing or misleading; and
d) There is a testimonial or documentary evidence already presented which
already described the object.

12. EXCEPTIONS
a) Object is necessary in the interest of justice
b) Immoral object is the very basis of the prosecution of the civil or criminal
case

13. OBJECT EVIDENCE AND THE RIGHT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence.
*will be discussed in the cases

14. CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR AUTOPIC EVIDENCE
• DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

15. 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
Unique Objects: Obejcts that have readily identifiable marks; or Exhibit
identifiable visual or physical peculiarities
E.g., gun with a serial number or Car with a dent on its left bumper
Objects Made Unique: 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

16. Nonunique objects -objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
marked. Under this situation, the proponent of the evidence must establish a
chain of custody.
E.g., narcotic substances, bodily fluids

17. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
• Those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in case of
pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to aid in
comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness
Ex: Audio, photographic and video evidence, map, diagram, model
Note: reenactments are object evidence because they are exhibited, examined
and viewed by the court. E.g. a person who hears a man cat-call a woman, and
mimics the cat-call in court is reenacting the event. He is not testifying because he
was not declaring anything nor making a statement.

18. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
• NOTE: Proponent of the object evidence which are not readily identifiable,
were not made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable MUST ESTABLISH A
CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
• Chain of custody is “ 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 recipe in the laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.” ( People of the Philippines vs. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30,
2011)
• It is intended to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of
the evidence are removed.

19. CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG
CASES
• The confiscation and seizure of drugs require a stringent specific procedure to
establish the chain of custody. The required procedure is embodied in Sec.
21, paragraph 1, Art. 2 of R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 10640.
• will be discussed in PEOPLE vs. KAMAD

20. LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
First link, the seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from the
accused;
Second link, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigation officer;
Third link, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth link, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the
forensic chemist to the court ( People v. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308 and
cited in People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015)

21. LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Thus, failure to establish through convincing proof, that the integrity of the
seized items has been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of
custody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of
an accused. Simply stated, a broken link in this chain warrants the acquittal of
the accused no
matter how guilty he appears to be.

22. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 21 OF R.A. 9165, AS AMENDED
1. 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.
As long as the above are met, the non-compliance of Sec. 21 shall
not render the seizure and custody of the seized items void and invalid.

23. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 21 OF R.A. 9165, AS AMENDED
2. Failure to comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrest of the
accused illegal or render inadmissible the items confiscated from him. (People
v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015)

24. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY TO APPLY
(1) Testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence;
(2) Witnesses should describe the precautions taken to ensure that here had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the item. (Malilin vs People cited in
People of the Philippines vs Mads Saludin Mantawil, et al, G.R. No. 1888319,
June 8, 2011)

25. MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF THE
“MARKING” ON THE SEIZED EVIDENCE
• Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items after they have been seized.
• It is the starting point in the custodial link.
• It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding
handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. (People of the Philippines
vs. Myrna Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017)

26. MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF THE
“MARKING” ON THE SEIZED EVIDENCE
It is important that the seized illegal drug be immediately marked since marking
is the start of the custodial link. Such marking will be used as a reference of the
succeeding handlers of the seized contraband. It will also serve to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end
of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, “planting,” or
contamination of evidence.
(People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April
21, 2014)

27. WHO MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE
TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
SEIZED ITEMS?
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that the seized items be
photographed in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
each from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public
official.

28. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MARKING
OF SEIZED DRUGS
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of
the seized items should be done in the presence of
the apprehended violator and immediately upon
confiscation to ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones
offered in evidence.

29. WHEN TO ESTABLISH A CHAIN OF
CUSTODY?
The chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs
were confiscated and eventually marked until the same is presented during
trial. (People of the Philippines vs. Roselle Santiago, G.R. No. 191061, February 9,
2011)

30. DNA EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO
OBJECT 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).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).

31. AGUSTIN VS. CA
G.R. NO. 162571 JUNE 15, 2005
Summary:
This case discussed that DNA testing is admissible evidence as a means
of determining paternity. Petitioner Agustin opposed the DNA paternity testing
invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination and moving to dismiss
the complaint for lack of cause of action. He also posits that DNA is not
recognized by this Court as a conclusive means of proving paternity.
COURT’S RULING:
The court ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid
principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Under
Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. DNA Evidence is relevant and
reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human
genetics and molecular biology.

32. • With respect to right against self-incrimination which the Petitioner
posits, the court ruled that the right is not against all compulsion, but
against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is
simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence
sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence.

33. PEOPLE vs. MALIMIT
G.R. No. 109775
November 14, 1996
Summary:
Accused-appellant Malimit was convicted by the trial court of special complex
crime of robbery with homicide with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In his
appeal, appellant asks for his acquittal alleging, among others, that the
admission as evidence of the victim's wallet together with its contents, violates
his right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court held that the right against
self-incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law cannot be invoked
against object evidence.

34. Court’s Ruling:
The production and admission of the appellant wallet together with its contents
as evidence does not violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Right against self-incrimination is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from a person. It is simply a prohibition
against the legal process to extract from the accused's own lips, against his will,
admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence
sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object
evidence.

35. PEOPLE VS. KAMAD
G.R. NO. 238174 FEBRUARY 5,2020
Summary:
The case is about the arrest of Gaida Kamad who was charged with illegal sale
of dangerous drugs and was arrested through a buy-bust operation
conducted by the Taguig City police. The accused maintained that no buy-
bust operation was held and that she should be acquitted for failure of the
prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized
dangerous drugs and its failure to comply with the procedure under Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165.

36. COURT’S RULING:
The court ruled that in prosecution of drug cases, the procedural safeguards
that are embodied in Section 21 are material as their compliance affects the
corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself and warrants the identity and
integrity of the substances and other evidences that are seized by the
apprehending officer. Under the law, a physical inventory and photograph of
the items that were seized from the accused should have been made at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable. The entire procedure must likewise, be
made in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel and 3
witnesses, namely:
1) an elected public official
2) a representative from the DOJ
3) and a representative from the media