CCTV footage as evidence

By: Francis Lim - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 08:30 AM October 17, 2014
Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras in public places are
now a worldwide fixture. We see them on the streets, train
stations, bus stations, restaurants, hotels and apartment
buildings. They have proven extremely helpful in tracking down
perpetrators of crimes.

A case in point is the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Using

CCTV footages in different positions in downtown Boston, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to focus its
investigation on the Dzhokhar and TamerlanTsarnaev brothers
as the possible perpetrators of the heinous crime. The FBI’s
release of the CCTV footages and the corroborating
photographs on its website led to the Tsarnaev brothers’
identification and eventual capture.

ADVERTISEMENT
We have other deadly incidents caught on CCTV cameras.
Examples are the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995; the London
underground train bombing in 2005, more popularly known as
the 7/7 terrorist bombing, and the 2013 bomb attacks outside
the Iranian Embassy in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.

Locally, we have the highly sensational case of Vhong Navarro,

who was mauled by businessman Cedric Lee and his friends for
allegedly raping 22-year-old Denise Cornejo at a plush
condominium in Bonifacio Global City. But the CCTV footage
released by the National Bureau of Investigation showed that
Navarro and Cornejo were not in the condo unit at the same
time. In fact, the footage showed Cornejo entering her
building’s elevator and then exiting the building shortly after
Navarro arrived. She did not appear like she had just escaped
from a rape attempt and, instead, casually examined herself in
the elevator mirror.

Quite recently, we have the frat mauling incident involving

Guillo Cesar Servando, a sophomore student of De La Salle-
College of St. Benilde, details of which were also caught on
CCTV. The release of the footage triggered the surrender of
some participants in the fraternity hazing and eventual
resolution of the crime by the Manila Police Department.

Undoubtedly, CCTV footages are great help to authorities in

investigating the commission of crimes. But are they admissible
in evidence; if so, how should they be presented in evidence
before our courts of law? How should they be authenticated as
to make them admissible in evidence?

First, what is meant by authentication? Authentication is the

process of convincing the court that a document is what it
purports to be; of proving the origin of the image and that it has
not subsequently been altered (or, where alteration has
occurred, proving the nature of the alteration). Such alteration
could include, for example, image enhancement or image
manipulation.

The rules of evidence contained in the Rules of Court do not

expressly deal with the authentication of video evidence such
as CCTV footages. This is understandable because video
evidence was unheard of, or at least not well known, when the
Supreme Court formulated the Rules of Court almost fifty years
ago.

Fortunately, following the enactment by Congress of the E-

Commerce Act (ECA) in early 2000, we were tasked to draft
what eventually became the Rules on Electronic Evidence
(REE).

Unlike the Rules of Court, the REE contains a provision

expressly dealing with video evidence. The REE provides that
“[a]udio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified,
explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof.” (Section 1, Rule 11)

The foregoing provision follows the jurisprudential rule that

authentication of photographs is not limited to the
photographer who took the picture but that these can also be
identified by another competent witness who can testify as to
their exactness or accuracy (Sison vs. People, 250 SCRA 58
[1995]; Republic vs Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199 [1998]). It
is what I call the “layman’s approach” to authenticating video
evidence.

But is this not too simplistic a way for authenticating CCTV

footages? The answer seems to be no. In the United Kingdom,
for example, studies were made on how digital evidence (which
includes CCTV footages) could be authenticated before the
courts of law. The studies included technical methods such as
encryption, watermarking, or digital signature. Best practices
were adopted in respect of digital evidence, including the
creation of audit trails to authenticate it and the technologies
used in connection with digital documents.

However, while these best practices were put in place and their
use recommended, the rule of evidence in the UK remains to be
that digital evidence should not be inadmissible solely because
it does not conform with specific technological requirements. In
other words, no particular authentication technology is
required before a digital image could be admitted as evidence in
court. The UK still considers the “layman’s approach” as a valid
mode of authentication. If at all, the rule in that jurisdiction is
that authentication technology merely increases the evidential
weight of a digital image; in local parlance, it goes into the
weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence.

Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/180469/cctv-
footage-as-evidence#ixzz6SdRtciyh 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on
Facebook