Flashcards Studio

During a mall surveillance operation, investigators seize a USB drive containing video footage that allegedly captures a robbery. The drive is placed in a tamper-evident bag, sealed by Officer Alpha, and the seal is initialed on the bag. However, the log entry does not record the seal’s unique number or the time of sealing. The drive is entrusted to a private courier who delivers it to the city crime laboratory. At the laboratory, technicians extract the footage, create a transcript, and copy the footage to a new drive, which is then resealed and logged by Laboratory Tech Bravo. The original drive remains in the custody of the police property room. At trial, the People seek to admit the video recording as real evidence. The defense objects, arguing that the chain of custody is broken because (i) the seal number and sealing time were not recorded; (ii) a private courier was used; and (iii) the integrity of the data could be compromised during copying unless hash verification was performed. Analyze whether the video is admissible as real evidence and discuss what constitutes proper chain of custody for real evidence under Philippine law, including how gaps can be cured. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine. (b) Distinguish the elements required to establish chain of custody and assess whether the facts demonstrate a complete chain. (c) Apply to the facts: is the video admissible? what steps could cure any gaps?