1. Object or Real Evidence

NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

Objects as evidence 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. (Rule 130, Sec. 1)

It refers to the real thing itself and it consists of tangible things, not merely perceptions of the witness and a recollection of those perceptions.

Object evidence is not visual alone. It covers the entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell, and touch. (Riano, p. 116)

Limitations on the Use of Object Evidence

The court MAY refuse the introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if:

• The exhibition of such object is contrary to morals or decency; (Regalado, p. 716 citing 5 Moran, op. cit., p. 72)
• To require its being viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of such object; (Regalado, p. 716 citing People v. Moreno 83 Phil. 286)
• Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading, as when the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in said condition (Regalado, p. 716 citing People v. Saavedra [CA], 50 o.g. 5407;) or
• The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary (Regalado, p. 716, citing Sec. 7, Rule 133).

Even if the object is repulsive or indecent, if a view of the same is necessary in the interest of justice, such evidence may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from such view.

AUTHENTICATION

To be admissible in evidence, the object sought to be offered must be shown to have been the very thing that is the subject matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case.

Authentication by a competent witness is essential to the admissibility of the object evidence. After authentication, the object needs to be formally offered in evidence.

The authentication of the object by a competent witness is to comply with the element of competence as an essential ingredient of admissibility. (Riano, p. 119)

Testimonial evidence provides the foundation for all types of evidence. (Riano, p. 118)

Nothing in the Rules on Evidence deals with the authentication of object evidence during trial. Apart from the requirement of formal offer, however, such practice is part and parcel of having an object evidence admitted, because authenticity is an inherent attribute of relevance – a component of admissibility. (People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019)

The obvious reason is that an object offered in court as evidence but without having any part in the fact or event sought to be proven by the proponent is irrelevant because it has no “relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence. (People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019)

NOTE: Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, object evidence now requires authentication or testimonial sponsorship before it may be admitted or considered by the court. (People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019; please see Secs. 2 and 8 (c) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule )

Admissibility of Photographs

Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts, or transactions shall be admissible in evidence, provided that it shall be presented, displayed, and shown to the court, and it shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either: the person who made the recording; or some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof (REE, Rule 11, Sec. 1)

Some courts insist on requiring the photographer to testify but this view has been eroded by the tendency of modern courts to admit as a witness one who has familiarity with the scene portrayed. (Sison v. People, G.R. No. 108280-83, 1995)

The correctness of a photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, 1995)

The rule is well-settled that a photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to the issue and if verified by the taker. Its verification depends on the competency of the verifying witness and the trial judge must in the first instance decide, subject to reversal for substantial error. (Adamczuk v. Halloway, 13 A.2d 2, 1940)

Trial court ruled that the photographs are inadmissible. The Court held that the photographs are inadmissible because the map or photograph, to be admissible, must first be made a part of some qualified person's testimony. Someone must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor; in other words, it must be verified. (Adamczuk v. Halloway, 13 A.2d 2, 1940)

On appeal, Tatum questioned the film’s admission into evidence. The Court held that for a photograph to be admissible in evidence, the authentication required by courts is that some witness (not necessarily the photographer) be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and that the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated. (State v. Tatum, 360 P.2d 754, 1961)

Object Evidence and the Right Against Self-incrimination

The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence. Thus, an accused may be compelled to submit himself to bodily inspection and whatever object is retrieved on his person would be admissible even though it would incriminate such accused. Also, on crossexamination, an accused may be compelled to write so his handwriting may be used as object evidence to compare with the one in question.

The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under the fundamental law had no application in this case because no testimonial compulsion was involved. (People v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775, 1996)

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

A mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and it ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence – where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail. (BPI v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, 2008)

VIEW OF AN OBJECT OR SCENE

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)

A place or scene can fall under the classification of object evidence. The court has to go to the object if the object cannot be produced in court due to its immovability or the difficulty or inconvenience in removing it and producing it in court.

When Changes to the Object or Scene Have Taken Place

A court may refuse to make the inspection where changes have taken place since the time to which the action relates or where it is not shown that the conditions are the same.

However, view may be granted If:

• The change is not material.
• The character and extent of the change are properly brought out in evidence.