Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF…

- - - - A. MEANING OF THE RULE
        
        B. WHEN NOT APPLICABLE
        
        C. MEANING OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND DUPLICATE
        
        D. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
        
        a. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS UNAVAILABLE
        Section 5. When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a)
        
        CORRECT ORDER OF PROOF (EELC)
        
        EXISTENCE
        
        EXECUTION
        
        LOSS
        
        CONTENTS
        The correct order of proof is: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
        (Citibank NA Mastercard v. Efren Teodoro)
        
        3 more items...
        
        b. WHEN ORIGINAL IS IN ADVERSE PARTY'S CUSTODY OR CONTROL (Rule 130, Sec. 6)
        Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. – If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (6a)
        
        3 more items...
        
        PAROL EVIDENCE RULE AND INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
        
        A. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
        
        3 more items...
        
        ORIGINAL(DI)
        
        DOC ITSELF
        
        INTENDED TO HAVE SAME EFFECT BY ISSUER/EXECUTING PERSON
        Section 4. Original of document. –
        (a) An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it.
        
        DUPLICATE
        PRODUCED BY (IMPReCO):
        
        SAME IMPRESSION
        
        SAME MATRIX
        
        PHOTOGRAPHY
        
        RE-RECORDING
        
        CHEMICAL REPRODUCTION
        
        OTHER EQUIVALENT TECHNIQUES
        (b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
        
        DUPLICATE IS ADMISSIBLE
        (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
        
        2 more items...
        
        CARBON COPIES ARE DUPLICATES
        Carbon copies are deemed duplicate (originals). (People v Tan; Skunac v. Sylianteng)
        
        PHOTO'S NEGATIVE OR ANY PRINT = ORIG
        An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom.
        
        DATA PRINTED OUT = ORIG (RA)
        
        READABLE BY SIGHT or OTHER MEANS; &
        
        ACCURATE
        If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.”
        
        BER DOES NOT APPLY IF CONTENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT OF INQUIRY
        Best evidence rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or the circumstances surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
        (Sison v. People; Arceo v. People)
        
        ISSUE OF EXECUTION OR EXISTENCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT
        “Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.”
        (S v. P)
        
        IF EXISTENCE OF MONEY, BER/ODR DOES NOT APPLY AND ITS COPY IS ADMISSIBLE
        “Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.” 2
        (Flores v. People)
        
        IF EVIDENCE CONCERNS EXTERNAL FACTS, BER DOES NOT APPLY
        Accordingly, when the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts (e.g. existence, execution, or delivery of the writing, w/o reference to its terms), the BER cannot be invoked.
        (H o P v. H o A)
        
        IF CONTENTS OF DOC NOT DISPUTED,
        BER DOES NOT APPLY
        In the instant case, there is no room for the application of the Best Evidence Rule because there is no dispute regarding the contents of the documents.
        (Marquez v. Espejo)
        
        WHETHER CONTENT OF DOCUMENTS ADEQUATELY AND CORRECTLY EXPRESS TRUE INTENTION OF PARTIES
        
        The parties do not dispute the fact that the Deed of Sale referred to the TCT of the Murong property as its subject, while the VLT referred to the TCT of the Lantap property as its subject with the additional description that it is located in Barangay Murong. The issue is whether or not the content of these documents adequately and correctly express the true intention of the parties
        (M v. E)
        
        IF BER DOES NOT APPLY, SECONDARY EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED
        In such case, secondary evidence may be admitted even w/o accounting for the original.
        (H o P v. H o A)
        
        BER DOES NOT APPLY TO (CCEI)
        
        COLLATERAL ISSUES
        
        CONDITION OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS
        
        EVIDENCE RELATING TO MATTER NOT COMING FROM COA OR DEFENSE
        
        INDEPENDENT FACT TO WHICH WRITING IS MERELY COLLATED OR INCIDENTAL
        Proof of facts collateral to the issues such as the nature, appearance or condition of physical objects or to evidence relating to a matter which does not come from the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
        When a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent fact, as to which the writing is merely collated or incidental
        (Lee v. People)
        
        BEST EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE
        TO PROVE A DISPUTED FACT
        Best Evidence Rule, defined: that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
        (Sison v. People)
      - ONLY ORIG DOC IS ADMISSIBLE
        Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. –
        When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
        
        EXCEPTIONS TO ODR
        LCVPO
        
        LOST, DESTROYED, CANNOT BE PRODUCED IN COURT
        (a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
        
        CONTROL/CUSTODY OF ADVERSE PARTY OR
        CANNOT BE PRODUCED BY LJP/P
        (b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or procedures;
        
        VOLUMINOUS + GR OF WHOLE
        (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
        
        PUBLIC RECORD IN PO'S CUSTODY OR RECORDED IN PUBLIC OFFICE
        (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
        
        ORIG IS NOT CLOSELY-RELATED TO CONTROLLING ISSUE
        (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (3a)
        
        BEST EVIDENCE RULE DEFINED:
        BEST EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE
        TO PROVE A DISPUTED FACT
        Best Evidence Rule, defined: that rule which requires the highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a disputed fact.
        (Sison v. People)
        
        RATIONALE: TO PREVENT FRAUD, PERJURY, & UNCERTAINTIES
        Purpose: To prevent fraud, perjury, and To exclude uncertainties in the contents of a document
        (S v. P)
        
        RATIONALE: ORIG PREFERRED TO REDUCE CHANCES OF UNDETECTED TAMPERING
        The original is preferred because it reduces the chance of undetected tampering
        with the document.
        
        AFFIDAVITS DEPOSITIONS NOT BEST EVIDENCE WHEN THEIR CONTENTS ARE NOT ISSUES IN THE CASE
        
        It is not best evidence ONLY when the contents of the affidavits or depositions are NOT the issues in the case BUT are merely used to establish the issues in controversy
        (S v. P)
        
        AFFIDAVITS ARE REGULATED BY
        HEARSAY EVIDENCE
        Affidavits are regulated by the hearsay evidence rule (Rule 130 Sec 26) to safeguard the right of cross examination.
        o Depositions are regulated by Rule 23 Sec 4
        (S v. P)
        
        BER APPLIES WHERE CONTENT OF DOC IS SUBJECT OF INQUIRY
        Best evidence rule applies only where the content of the document is the subject of the inquiry.
        
        BER APPLICABLE WHEN ISSUE RELATES TO TERMS OF WRITING
        However, the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing. Thus, the BER applies only when the terms of a writing are in issue.
        (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez)
        
        Rule 132, Sections 16 and 18;
        
        Civil Code, Articles 265-267;
        
        Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (R.A. No. 8792), Sections 5, 6-15;
        
        Rules on
        Electronic Evidence,
        
        Rule 2, Section 1;
        Rule 2
        DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
        Section 1. Definition of terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
        (a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature.
        (b) "Business records" include records of any business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
        (c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair.
        (d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text, graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions.
        (e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately determine:
        i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and
        ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made.
        (f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
        (g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
        (h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data message".
        (i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic key.
        (j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
        (k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
        (l) "Information and communication system" refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any p
        
        1 more item...
        
        Section 6. Legal Recognition of Electronic Data Messages - Information shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message.
        
        Section 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents - Electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and -
        (a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in that -
        i. The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and
        ii. The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances.
        (b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained in its original from.
        (c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic document if -
        i. There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first generated in its final form; and
        ii. That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented: Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity.
        For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws.
        This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to admissibility of electronic data massages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Article 265. The filiation of legitimate children is proved by the record of birth appearing in the Civil Register, or by an authentic document or a final judgment. (115)
        
        Article 266. In the absence of the titles indicated in the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child. (116)
        
        Article 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (117a)
        
        Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. – A witness may be allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a fact by anything written or recorded by himself or herself, or under his or her direction[,] at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or her memory and he or she knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case[,] the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he or she chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. A witness may also testify from such a writing or record, though he or she retains no recollection of the particular facts, if he or she is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution. (16a)
        
        Section 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness. – Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party. (18)
    - - SIR: IF OFFERED NOT TO PROVE THEIR CONTENTS, THEY ARE OBJECT EVIDENCE
        If offered for some other purpose, they constitute object evidence
      - REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY (RAWO)
        
        The document must be relevant;
        
        The evidence must be authenticated;
        
        The document must be authenticated by a competent witness;
        
        The document must be formally offered in evidence
        [Riano 132, 2016 Ed.]
      - ENTIRE DOCUMENT OR ONLY A SPECIFIC PROVISION MAY CONCERN THE MATTER AT ISSUE
        The purpose of introducing documentary evidence is to ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue, which can cover the entire document or only a specific provision.
      - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE > ORAL
        Between a documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weight.
        (Yap v. Inopiquez)
        
        DOCUMENT DEFINED
        Document, defined: A deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth.
  - - - BASIC REQUISITIES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF OBJECT EVIDENCE (RAWO)
        
        RELEVANT
        
        AUTHENTICATED
        
        BY COMPETENT WITNESS
        
        FORMALLY OFFERED
        
        COMPETENT AND AUTHENTICATED
        
        TO AUTHENTICATE IS TO SHOW THAT THE OBJECT IS
        
        THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER; OR
        
        THE ONE TO PROVE AN ISSUE
        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.
        
        CAPACITY TO IDENTIFY OBJECT AS VERY THING INVOLVED IN LITIGATION
        The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation.
        
        PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
        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]
        
        TO ADMIT TAPE RECORDING, IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT (CCANIMV)
        
        CAPABLE OF TAKING TESTIMONY
        The recording was capable of taking testimony
        
        COMPETENT OPERATOR
        The operator of the recording device is competent
        
        AUTHENTICITY & CORRECTNESS
        The authenticity and correctness of recording
        
        NO CHANGES/DELETIONS/ADDITIONS
        No changes, deletions, or additions have been made on the recordings
        
        IDENTIFICATION OF SPEAKERS
        Identification of speakers
        
        MANNER OF PRESERVATION
        The manner of preservation of the recording
        
        VOLUNTARILY MADE, WITHOUT INDUCEMENT
        The testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement
        
        [Torralba v. People, G.R. No. 153699 (2005)]
      - 3. CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
        
        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 judge/magistrate
        
        DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
        Those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in case of pictures or videos) being offered
        
        OFFERED TO...(SA)
        
        SUPPORT/DRAW AN INFERENCE
        (1) to support or draw an inference or
        
        AID IN COMPREHENDING VERBAL TESTIMONY
        (2) to aid in comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness.
        
        REQS FOR AUDIO, PHOTO, VIDEO TO BE ADMISSIBLE (SI-PS)
        Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be:
        
        SHOWN, PRESENTED, OR DISPLAYED TO THE COURT
        Shown, Presented or Displayed to the court
        AND
        
        IDENTIFIED, EXPLAINED, OR AUTHENTICATED BY
        a. PERSON WHO MADE RECORDING
        Identified, explained or authenticated
        i. by the person who made the recording,
        OR
        b. SOME OTHER PERSON COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON ACCURACY
        ii. by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
        [Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
        
        REENACTMENTS ARE OBJECT EVIDENCE
        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. [Prof. Avena]
        
        PHOTOGRAPHS PRESENTED MUST BE (IT)
        
        IDENTIFIED BY PHOTOGRAPHER
        
        TESTIFIED AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED
        
        When presented in evidence, photographs must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced.
        (Sison v. People)
        
        WHO MAY TESTIFY TO CORRECTNESS
        
        MAKER
        
        OTHER COMPETENT WITNESSES
        The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie,
        a. either by the testimony of the person who made it or
        b. by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it
        (S v. P)
        
        2 more items...
        
        RATIONALE: CORRECT REPRESENTATION OR REPODUCTION OF ORIGINAL
        The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime.
        (S v. P)
        
        UNIQUE OBJECTS
        Objects that have readily identifiable marks;
        OR identifiable by visual or physical peculiarities
        
        Examples:
        
        Gun with a serial number
        
        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
        
        EXAMPLE
        sachet of shabu with initials of the police officer who retrieved it
        
        NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS
        Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked
        (Chain of Custody may apply)
        
        EXAMPLE
        
        Narcotic substances
        
        Bodily fluids
    - - WHEN RELEVANT TO FACT IN ISSUE,
        MAY BE EXHIBITED TO, EXAMINED, OR VIEWED BY COURT
        When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
        (Rule 130, Sec. 1)
        
        COURT MAY REFUSE OE AND RELY ON TE IF: (PDCU)
        Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if
        
        CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALS/DECENCY
        Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
        
        DELAYS & EXPENSES OUT OF PROPORTION
        It would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object;
        
        CONFUSING/MISLEADING
        Evidence would be confusing or misleading;
        
        UNNECESSARY
        The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.
    - - TESTIMONY COMPATIBLE WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS ESPECIALLY STRONG
        What makes Rusia’s testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with the physical evidence...the details he supplied to the trial court are of such nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes could furnish.
        (People v. Larranaga)
        
        LONE TESTIMONY THAT MAY BE UNWORTHY OF BELIEF MAY BE BELIEVABLE WHEN CONSIDERED WITH OTHER EVIDENCE
        Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the other evidence presented by the prosecution.
        (People v. Larranaga)
  - - - BODY OF ACCUSED
        An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. [Villaflor v. Summers, G.R., No. 16444 (1920)]
        
        DNA IDENTIFICATION
        
        DNA IDENTIFICATION IS A FERTILE SOURCE OF INCULPATORY & EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
        DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
        
        It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in
        every case.
        (People v. Yatar)
        
        CHAIN OF CUSTODY: (CHCPFQ)
        Court should consider the ff factors:
        
        COLLECTED HOW?
        
        how the samples were collected,
        
        HANDLED HOW?
        
        how they were handled,
        
        CONTAMINATION POSSIBILITIES
        
        the possibility of contamination of the samples,
        
        PROCEDURE OF ANALYZING
        
        the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
        
        FOLLOWED? WHETHER PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED
        
        whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
        
        QUALIFICATION OF ANALYST
        
        the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
        (P v. Y)
        
        RESULTS AND EFFECTS (NIM)
        
        NO MATCH = CONCLUSIVELY NOT THE ACCUSED
        a. Exclusion – The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion;
        
        INCONCLUSIVE = IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SURE; MAY BE CONTAMINATED; MAY BE REPEATED
        b. Inconclusive – It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples have similar DNA types. This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
        
        MATCH = ANALYST DETERMINES STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SIMILARITY
        c. Inclusion – The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source. In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the similarity [People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (2002)].
        
        DOES NOT VIOLATE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
        Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case will not violate the right against self-incrimination. [Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220 (2005)]
        
        RATIONALE: EVIDENCE IS BASED ON SCIENTIFICALLY VALID PRINCIPLES IF RELEVANT AND RELIABLE
        (US CASE) Daubert v. Merrell Dow:
        Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable.
        
        Judges were allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such novel procedure
        (P v. Y)
        
        CHAIN OF CUSTODY
        
        CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIRES THAT MATTER IN QUESTION IS WHAT THE PROPONENT CLAIMS IT TO BE
        
        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.
        (Malilin y Lopez v. People)
        
        EVERY LINK; FROM MOMENT PICKED UP TO OFFER
        a. This would include testimony about every link in the chain.
        b. This chain is from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence
        (M y L v. P)
        
        EVERY PERSON WHO TOUCHED THE EXHIBIT WOULD DESCRIBE
        THE LINK: (HFWWRD)
        i. Every person who touched the exhibit would describe:
        
        How it was received
        
        From whom it was received
        
        Where it was
        
        What happened to it while in witness' possession,
        
        The condition in which it was Received and
        
        The condition in which it was Delivered to the next link in the chain.
        (M y L v. P)
        
        ALSO, THE PRECAUTIONS TAKEN(~CO)
        c. Then, the witnesses would describe precautions taken to ensure that there had been:
        
        NO CHANGE IN CONDITION
        i. No change in the condition of the item and
        
        NO OPPORTUNITY FOR POSSESSION BY SOMEONE NOT IN THE CHAIN
        ii. No opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
        (M y L v. P)
        
        1 more item...
        
        RATIONALE:
        REAL EVIDENCE MUST BE AUTHENTICATED
        The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence.
        
        TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
        
        VIEW OUTSIDE COURTROOM MUST BE
        
        IN PRESENCE OF PARTIES
        OR
        
        WITH PREVIOUS NOTICE
        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. [5 Moran 81, 1970 Ed., cited in In re Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J (1974)
        
        AUTHENTICATED HOW:
        VOICE RECOGNITION AND OTHER MEANS
        A telephone conversation must first be authenticated before it could be received in evidence. The person on the other line should first be satisfactorily identified by voice recognition or other means.
        
        VOICE RECOGNITION HOW? (FPC)
        
        FAMILIARITY WITH VOICE
        
        PECULARITIES CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE
        
        CALLER'S OWN IDENTIFICATION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUCH AS...
        ● For instance, an identification based on the familiarity with the voice of the caller, or because of clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed.
        
        1 more item...
        
        UNBROKEN CHAIN IS ESSENTIAL WHEN: (NCcW)
        
        NON-DISTINCTIVE AND NOT READILY IDENTIFIABLE;
        OR
        
        CONDITION AT TIME OF TESTING/TRIAL IS CRITICAL;
        OR
        
        WITNESS FAILED TO OBSERVE UNIQUENESS
        Testimony of a perfect chain is not always the standard for it is almost always impossible to obtain.
        a. Nonetheless, unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when:
        i. The item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable; OR
        ii. Its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical; OR
        iii. When a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.
        (M y L v. P)
        
        RATIONALE: SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALTERATION, TAMPERING, CONTAMINATION, SUBSTITUTION & EXCHANGE
        b. The same standard likewise obtains in case:
        i. The evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.
        In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule, without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not.
        (M y L v. P)
        
        WHEN LIKELIHOOD OF TAMPERING, LOSS, MISTAKE IS GREATEST:
        The likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is
        
        SMALL
        a. Small
        
        FUNGIBLE
        b. Has physical characteristics fungible in nature
        
        SIMILAR WITH FAMILIAR SUBSTANCES IN DAILY LIFE
        c. Similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.
        (M y L v. P)
        
        RIGHT AGAINST SI,
        NOT INVOKED AGAINST OBJECT
        The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence. [People v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775 (1996)]
    - - REQS OF ORDER:
        
        MOTION
        
        GOOD CAUSE SHOWN
        
        NOTICE TO EXAMINEE
        
        NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES
        
        SPECIFIES
        a. TIME
        b. PLACE
        c. MANNER
        d. CONDITIONS
        e. SCOPE
        Section 2. Order for examination. – The order for examination may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
        
        DETAILED WRITTEN REPORT SHALL BE DELIVERED UPON REQUEST
        Section 3. Report of findings. – If requested by the party examined, the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him or her a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his or her findings and conclusions.
        
        AFTER REQUEST & DELIVERY, REQUESTING PARTY RECEIVES REPORT OF CONDITION
        After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition.
        
        IF EXAMINEE REFUSES TO DELIVER,
        COURT MAY ORDER DELIVERY IF
        
        MOTION
        
        NOTICE
        
        ON JUST TERMS
        If the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report[,] the court may exclude his or her testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
        
        REQUEST AND RECEIPT = WAIVER OF EXAMINEE'S PRIVILEGE ICOW TESTIMONY
        ON EXAMINATION
        Section 4. Waiver of privilege. – By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he or she may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him or her in respect of the same mental or physical examination. (4a)
- - - - He is being compelled to write and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which does not exist, and which may identify him as the falsifier.
        
        The right to refuse applies even to producing documents already existing.
        “For though the disclosure thus sought be not oral in form, and though the documents or chattels be already in existence and not desired to be first written and created by a testimonial act or utterance of the person in response to the process, still no line can be drawn short of any process which treats him as a witness; because in virtue of it he would be at any time liable to make oath to the identity of authenticity or origin of the articles produced.”
  - - - MECHANICAL ACTS DO NOT REQUIRE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
        Effect: In each case, the accused does not speak his guilt. Therefore, it is not necessary that he be provided with the guiding hand of counsel.
        
        EXAMPLES
        
        EXTRACT VIRUS FROM BODY
        
        COMPELLING HIM TO EXPEL MORPHINE FROM MOUTH
        
        SUBMIT TO A PREGNANCY TEST
        
        FOOTPRINTING TEST
        
        POLICE LINEUP
        This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test to extract virus from his body, or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his mouth, or making her submit to a pregnancy test or a footprinting test or requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases.
        
        RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION
        (DOCUMENTARY & OBJECT EVIDENCE)
        
        ESSENCE OF RIGHT
        AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS
        TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION
        The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion.
        
        BODY IS OBJECT EVIDENCE NOT WITHIN THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
        The right against self-incrimination does not proscribe the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.
        Since purely mechanical acts are not included in this prohibition, the assistance of a counsel is not required
        
        BUT COMPELLED OBJECT EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE IF NOT MATERIAL
        Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal that the pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest.
- - - - Section 4. Waiver of privilege. – By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he or she may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him or her in respect of the same mental or physical examination. (4a)