3. Use of Body-Worn Cameras (AM 21-06-08-SC)

Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Search Warrants

Concept

The Rule on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants adds a recording safeguard to the execution of search warrants. The recording helps the court assess how the search was carried out and whether the items presented as evidence were the items actually seized. It does not replace the warrant requirements under Rule 126. (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) (Baclig v. People, G.R. No. 252644, 8 April 2026)¹

Governing provisions

A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC governs the use of body-worn cameras and alternative recording devices in the execution of warrants. Rule 126 continues to govern the issuance, execution, inventory, and return of search warrants. The issuing judge must also check the return and compliance with the inventory requirements. (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) (Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure) (Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City., A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, 5 September 2017)²

Requisites / Rules

• Officers executing a search warrant must comply with the Rule’s recording requirements, using body-worn cameras or permitted alternative recording devices as applicable. The recording requirement is an operational safeguard, not a substitute for a valid warrant. (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC)
• The search must still comply with the warrant’s terms and the safeguards governing its execution, including the required presence of witnesses and the preparation of the inventory and return. A camera does not cure an overbroad warrant or an unreasonable entry. (Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure) (People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 264473, 7 August 2024)³ (Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City.)²
• Noncompliance with the camera Rule must be assessed under that Rule, including its provisions on reasonable grounds and the consequences of unjustified failure to record. Do not assume that every technical recording lapse, by itself, settles the validity of the warrant or the identity of the seized property. (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) (Baclig v. People)¹

Key doctrines

In Baclig v. People, the firearm and ammunition were validly seized and admissible, but the accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the items presented at trial were the same items seized. The Court identified body-worn cameras, witnesses, immediate marking, inventory, and photographs as safeguards against evidence planting. The absence of safeguards matters particularly when the identity of the seized item is disputed. (Baclig v. People)¹

Distinctions

Separate two questions: whether the search and seizure were lawful, and whether the prosecution proved the identity and integrity of the evidence offered at trial. A valid seizure does not automatically establish the second proposition. Conversely, a recording cannot validate a warrant that is constitutionally defective. (Baclig v. People)¹ (People v. Enriquez)³

Bar tip

In a search-warrant problem, discuss camera compliance alongside—not instead of—warrant validity, manner of execution, inventory, return, and proof that the exhibit is the item seized. (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) (Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure) (Baclig v. People)¹