1

Evidence Lecture 5

Object Evidence
Object evidence is a highly reliable source of information. Because object evidence
observes care and caution in handling the objects. Law enforcers must preserve the objects
and follow the pertinent rules so that the objects may eventually be properly presented for
the court's inspection and appreciation.

Object evidence, which can be observed through the use of our five senses, is a neutral
source of information. They do not intrinsically favor any party, as their existence and
condition are results of actual occurrences. It is a superior form of evidence in this regard,
and as such, can be helpful to law enforcers who aim to accurately establish the facts.

Object evidence and its purpose

Object evidence (formerly referred as demonstrative evidence) is evidence

addressed to the senses of the court: sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch.

Coverage:

The definition covers any material that may be seen, heard, smelled, felt, or touched.
They are the “sensual evidence”. If a thing, whether real or personal, can be seen,
smelled, heard, tasted, and felt, and it is offered for a purpose other than proving its
contents, then it is an object evidence.

However, if the evidence is offered for the purpose of its contents, then it becomes
documentary instead of object evidence.

For example, if a victim's ring is offered as evidence that the ring was stolen, then it
is object evidence.

On the other hand, if the victim's ring is offered as evidence of the romantic
relationship between the victim and the accused because the ring is inscribed with
the victim's and the accused's names, then it is documentary evidence.

In sum, the purpose of evidence determines whether an object or a thing is an object

or documentary evidence.

Weight of object evidence

In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty
if found guilty, [the Supreme Court] has, in many occasions relied principally upon
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical evidence on record
ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that
the physical evidence should prevail.

Physical or object evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more

eloquently than a hundred witnesses. Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.

In a rape case, DNA evidence of the accused's semen collected from the victim's
genitals demonstrates to the courts the high likelihood or even certainty of
intercourse between the two and can be deemed more reliable than a witness's
testimony. Because object evidence is mute and its collection does not require the
expression of human intelligence, its admissibility cannot be opposed based on the
right against self incrimination. The right against self-incrimination guaranteed
under the Constitution only protects against compulsions upon the accused to
provide testimonial evidence of guilt. In other words, this right covers incriminating
 2

statements but excludes object evidence. Thus, courts may order the collection of
samples from the accused, such as fingerprints and saliva. Fingerprints, saliva, and
other biological specimen are examples of object evidence.

Categories of object evidence

For purposes of authentication of an object or for laying the foundation for the
exhibit, object evidence may be classified into the following:

1. Unique objects - objects that have readily identifiable marks

In a case for carnapping, the identification of the stolen vehicle is critical to
prove the offense. The motor and chassis, which have readily identifiable
marks (i.e., the motor and chassis numbers), must be presented in court to
identify the vehicle. The motor and chassis numbers of the vehicle only appear
on the particular motor and chassis of the stolen vehicle, and they are what
make the stolen vehicle a unique object.

2. Objects made unique - objects that are made readily identifiable

In a case for drug trafficking, the seized packets of shabu, by themselves, are
not unique. Shabu in one drug case can look identical or similar to the shabu in
another drug case. However, once the packets of shabu are seized and placed
in a container with markings like the case number, the date and place when
they were seized, and the persons they were seized from, the substances are
made readily identifiable with the distinguishing marks. Marked substances
are therefore objects made unique.

3. Non-unique objects - objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked.

Non-unique objects are objects that are generic and have no distinguishing marks
and features.
For instance, in a murder case, the murder weapons could be a commercially
manufactured kitchen knife or an icepick with a common design. In their
unaltered states, there would be no way to distinguish the murder weapons
from another kitchen knife or icepick from the same manufacturer.

Specific examples of object evidence

1. Paraffin Cast

When a person discharges a firearm, the explosive action scatters particles from the
firearm in the air, and these particles may attach themselves to nearby objects.
Paraffin or dermal nitrate test determines the presence of gunshot residue on the
hands of an accused who is alleged to have discharged a firearm. Paraffin wax is
applied to the back of the accused's hands, and the cooled wax is peeled off. The
cooled wax is what is called the paraffin cast

Courts and scientific experts do not place great reliance upon paraffin tests.
Although paraffin tests tell us whether there are nitrates or nitrites on the hand, they
do not explain where the nitrates or nitrates came from. Nitrates or nitrites, for
instance, are also used in fertilizers, and the accused may have simply been planting
in the backyard. paraffin tests do not explain the absence of nitrates or nitrites.

The absence of nitrates or nitrites in the accused's hands despite discharging a

firearm maybe caused by the following: wearing of gloves, perspiration of the hands,
wind direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the length of the barrel of
the firearm, or the open or closed trigger guard of the firearm. Hence, the results of
paraffin tests are hardly conclusive and are at best corroborative evidence.
 3

2. Finger Prints

Good police work necessitates checking the crime scene for all telltale signs left by
the perpetrators. These signs include the fingerprints of the perpetrators. The courts
do not automatically acquit the accused when a negative finding for fingerprints
(i.e., the crime scene is clear for any fingerprint of the accused) is presented as
conclusive evidence that the accused was nowhere near the crime scene. However,
the reliability of fingerprints as evidence has faced challenges. The absence of latent
fingerprints of the accused on the crime scene does not immediately eliminate the
possibility that the accused could have been at the crime scene like the accused
wearing gloves, or the wiping off or removal of the prints.

3. Marked money

In entrapment operations, law enforcers may use marked money or boodle money
with fluorescent powder. The hands of the accused are then tested for the presence
of the fluorescent powder to prove that they received the marked money.

Although the application of fluorescent powder is commonly done, it is not required

under any rule. The failure of the police operatives to use fluorescent powder on the
boodle money is not an indication that the entrapment operation did not take place.

Marked money recovered in a buy bust operation ….

When marked money is to be used as object evidence, it must be presented in
court to be addressed to the senses of the court. However, when the existence
of the marked money is not disputed by the parties, and the parties agree
that from the comparison of the marked money to photocopies of it, the latter
appear to be faithful reproductions of the former, then the photocopies may
be presented.

4. Polygraph test

Despite the frequent depiction in movies of suspects undergoing lie detector tests
during an investigation, results of these tests are frequently rejected by the courts as
evidence of guilt. Polygraph testing has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a
reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.

Other Examples of Objects as Evidence

1. Gasoline or any fire instrument used in setting fire for the crime of Arson.
2. Scalpels, abortive pills, medical equipment, and facilities used for the crime of
abortion
3. Pistol used in shooting the victim and knife or any pointed object used in stabbing
for the crime of murder, parricide, or homicide
4. In theft or robbery, fencing, carnapping, or piracy, the picklocks, false keys, and
similar tools and the stolen object if recovered
5. The subject dangerous or illegal drug recovered for violation of Republic Act No. 9165
6. The playing cards and other gambling paraphernalia in violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1602
7. The bloodstains found on the body of the victim
8. Any physical equipment used in the crime of falsification of public documents
9. The clothing used by the offender in committing the crime.
10. The desktop computer and the internet broadband connector used in human
trafficking.
 4

DNA EVIDENCE

DNA evidence is object evidence that can be used in judicial proceedings. Notably,
DNA evidence has impacted the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
Because DNA information is unique (except in twins), it has led to the identification
of persons involved in criminal activity, or to the exoneration of those who are
innocent.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is a molecule found inside all living cells which carries
the genetic information that is responsible for all cellular processes. Except for
identical twins, each person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.

a. DNA TYPING- the process of extracting and analyzing the DNA of a biological
sample taken from an individual or found in a crime scene.
b. Evidence Sample- material collected from the scene of the crime, from the
victim’s body or that of the suspect/subject
c. Reference Sample- material taken from the victim or subject
d. DNA PROFILE: the result of the process which is unique in every individual
except as to identical twins
e. DNA MATCHING- the process of matching or comparing the DNA profiles of
the Evidence Sample and the Reference Sample. The purpose is to ascertain
whether an association exists between the two samples.
f. DNA TEST RESULTS:
1. Exclusion: the samples are different and must have originated from
different sources. This conclusion is absolute and requires no further
analysis or discussion.
2. Inconclusive: it is not possible to be sure, whether the samples have
similar DNA types. This might be due to various 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
different samples to attain a more conclusive result.
3. Inclusion: the samples are similar and could have originated from the
same source. In such case the analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the similarity.

Process of introducing DNA as evidence

The process of introducing DNA evidence begins with the collection of biological
samples. Blood, saliva, hair, fingernails, and skin are some biological samples that
may be collected for DNA testing. These evidence and reference samples are
collected from crime scenes, accused persons, and parties in a civil case.

In a criminal case, the blood collected from the scene is the evidence sample,
and blood collected from the accused is the reference sample.

In a civil case for paternity, the saliva collected from the party claiming to be
the child is the evidence sample, and the saliva collected from the person
claimed to be the father is the reference sample.

The samples are then tested. Testing includes the creation of the DNA profiles from
the biological samples and the comparison of the DNA profiles of the evidence and
reference samples. DNA testing is made to "ascertain whether an association exists
between the evidence sample and the reference sample”. If the allegation is that the
sample originates from the same person, then the comparison is for the purpose of
direct identification. This is the case if the goal is to verify the identity of the
accused. If the allegation is that the sample originates from related persons, then
the comparison is for the purpose of kinship analysis. Courts may take advantage of
the technology for kinship analysis in paternity and filiation cases.
 5

Application for DNA Testing Order

DNA testing may be done whether or not there is a pending case and in certain
circumstances, even after the trial of the case has already been concluded. Thus, law
enforcement authorities, in instances where there is no suit or proceeding, DNA
testing may be done without a prior court order. If there is a suit or proceeding, án
application for a DNA testing order may be filed by an interested party, or the court
may issue the DNA testing order on its own initiative.The court may issue a DNA
testing order when after due notice and hearing to the parties, it finds upon sound
discretion that:

a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case

b. The biological sample was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
testing now requested; or
c. was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
d. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique
e. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
f. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.

In a case for Parricide, the accused is alleged to be the estranged child of the
deceased. The court may order DNA testing if it is satisfied that the bloodstains from
the clothes of the deceased when he was shot, and the nasal swabs from the accused
(1) exist or can be acquired, (2) have not been previously subjected to DNA testing,
(3) can be subjected to DNA typing, and (4) have the scientific potential to produce
the new information on the deceased's paternity and that there are no other factors
that may affect the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.

Post-conviction DNA Testing

If the accused has already been convicted, then there is no need to apply for a court
order to conduct a DNA test. The prosecution or any person convicted by a final and
executory judgment may avail of DNA testing if (1) a biological sample exists, (2)
such sample is relevant to the case, and 3) the testing would probably result in the
reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.

The provisions for post-conviction DNA testing take into consideration the
possibilities that DNA testing technologies did not exist when the judgment became
final, and that DNA evidence may subsequently become available after the
conviction.

For instance, an accused convicted of rape may avail of DNA testing post-conviction
if vaginal smears from the deceased victim were collected within 72 hours from the
time of the assault and have been preserved since without contamination. The
vaginal smears may contain the perpetrator's DNA from his semen. If the DNA
profile of the perpetrator from the evidence sample does not match the DNA profile
from the reference sample of the person convicted, then the latter may use the DNA
testing results as evidence.

If the results of the DNA testing are favorable to the person convicted, the person
convicted may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin (i.e.,
the respective trial court), the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. The court,
after a hearing on the DNA evidence, may reverse the finding of guilt (i.e., acquit and
release), or modify the judgment (e.g., shorten the sentence based on mitigating
circumstances).
 6

Weight of DNA Evidence

As to the weight and probative value, it depends on the observance of certain

requirements known as the Vallejo Guidelines. To wit:

1. How the samples ( both evidence and reference) were collected

2. How they were handled
3. The possibility of contamination of the samples
4. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples
5. Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting
the test
6. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the test

Courts will not automatically admit or be convinced by DNA testing results. Like
other evidence, courts will still have to examine the DNA evidence to ascertain its
probative value.

DNA Testing and the Right against Self-Incrimination

The right is not against all compulsion but against testimonial compulsion. The right
against self-incrimination is simply against the legal processes 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. As for
instance: hair samples taken from an accused. Hence a person may be compelled to
submit to finger printing, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA as there is no
compulsion involved

SUMMARY

1. Objects offered not as proof of their contents are object evidence.

2. Object or physical evidence enjoys a high ranking in the hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence.
3. Unique objects are objects that have readily identifiable marks. Objects made unique
are objects that are made readily identifiable. Non-unique objects are objects with
no identifying marks and cannot be marked.
4. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in the
nucleus of cells. Except for identical twins, the totality of DNA is unique for every
person. A biological sample is any organic material originating from a person's body.
This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hair, and bones.
5. DNA testing refers to the 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.
6. Direct identification is the comparison of DNA profiles to determine whether the DNA
obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same
person.
7. Kinship analysis is the comparison of DNA profiles to determine whether the
biological samples originate from related persons.
8. A DNA testing order may be applied for by a party or issued by the court motu
proprio when the case is pending before it. If there is no case before the court, there
is no need for a DNA testing order.
9. DNA testing may be availed of even after conviction if a biological sample that is
relevant to the case exists, and there is a probability that the DNA testing results will
lead to the reversal or modification of the judgment.
10. In assessing DNA evidence, the courts must consider the chain of custody of the
biological samples, the testing methodology, the testing laboratory, and the
reliability of the testing result.
7