This contention finds support since there was a doubt as to the chain of custody of the said USB flash
drive which contained the video recording/footage and pictures since there was no mentioned as to
how the USB flash drive had landed into the hands of the prosecution. There was no mentioned in the
affidavit of Marlou P. Quijano as to whom he had given the said USB flash drive or even the existence of
the said USB flash drive neither there was a statement mentioned in the police report dated August 9,
2023 of the presence of an alleged USB flash drive. Worthy to note that when Marlou P. Quijano had
went to the police station to report the said incident, there was no mentioned of the said USB flash
drive, Video footage, nor pictures. Same is true as to the Police Report dated October 18, 2023. More
importantly there was no positive identification of the USB flash drive during the presentation of
Witness Marlou P. Quijano.- Note double edge ni kay naay positive identification sa video na atong gi
alleged na wala ug I mentioned nato ang page.
Above is the precise reason why the defense had not stipulated the authenticity and due execution of
the video recording/footage, and picture during pre-trial since there was a doubt as to its contents being
original. As stated in People v. Velasco1:
“While it is beyond serious dispute that accused-appellant Velasco had no license or permit to
possess a fragmentation hand grenade, thus satisfying the second requisite stated above, a
close examination of the evidence on record reveals that the evidence presented by the
prosecution failed to establish that the MK-2 fragmentation hand grenade identified and
admitted into evidence during the trial was the same object allegedly retrieved from the person
of accused-appellant Velasco.
Simply stated, the prosecution was clearly unsuccessful in establishing an unbroken chain of
custody of the allegedly confiscated fragmentation hand grenade, creating serious doubt as to
the corpus delicti of the crime charged.
Jurisprudence explains that 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. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same.
1
G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019
Applying the foregoing in the instant case, the prosecution's witness, PO1 Bacani testified that
after the apprehension of accused-appellant Velasco, the fragmentation hand grenade was
turned over to the investigator. However, the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and
the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution are completely silent as to how the
investigator handled and stored the evidence, and the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item.”
In connection to the foregoing, the said video recording/footage and pictures as contained in the USB
flash drive Marked as Ëxhibit “A” should be considered not original hence inadmissible.
