by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
RULES ON THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN THE EXECUTION OF WARRANTS
Last 29 June 2021, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, otherwise known as the Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants (hereinafter as “Bodycam Rules” for brevity and for this article only). The Bodycam Rules will apply to applications, issuances and executions of arrest and search warrants under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the implementation of a Warrant of Arrest or a Search Warrant, it is now required for law enforcement personnel to use at least one body-worn camera and one alternative recording device. In case of unavailability of a body-worn camera, at least two (2) alternative recording devices shall be used.
In implementing a Warrant of Arrest or Search Warrant, which should already contain the provision that the Bodycam Rules shall be complied with, the officers wearing the body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices shall, as early as practicable, notify the person to be arrested or searched and the other subjects of the recording that the execution of the Warrant of Arrest or a Search Warrant is being recorded and that they are making an arrest or search pursuant to a warrant issued by a court. Section 6, Rule 4 of the Bodycam Rules provides that consent of the person arrested or those affected by searches and seizures to the use of the recordings resulting from the use of body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices in a court proceeding shall only be asked in the presence of counsel. If the person consents or remains silent, the recordings may be used by or against him or her in a court proceeding. If he or she declines, the recordings may not be used by or against him or her.
With respect to the effect of non-compliance, intentionally interfering with the body-worn cameras’ ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings, or tampering or manipulating of the recordings, it exposes the law enforcement personnel to contempt of court in addition to any administrative, civil, or criminal case which may be instituted against him or her for the same acts or omissions.
Parenthetically, in case of a Warrant of Arrest, Section 5, Rule 2 of the Bodycam Rules provides that “failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained inadmissible.” The particular section provides that “facts surrounding the arrest may be proved by the testimonies of the attesting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to the arrest.”
Strikingly, in case of a Search Warrant, Section 7, Rule 3 of the Bodycam Rules provides that “failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.”
Thus, it is clear that it is more stringent with respect to the implementation of a Search Warrant as it renders the evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible as evidence in court. By failure to comply with the use of bodycam or alternative recording devices, the law already presumes that the evidence obtained from such search is a “fruit of a poisonous tree”. Additionally, Section 8, Rule 3 of the Bodycam Rules provides for the remedies from search conducted in violation of the rules:
“SECTION. 8. Remedies from Search Conducted in Violation of These Rules. – In addition to the grounds allowed under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion to suppress evidence may be filed by a person searched if the search was done without the use of body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices and the failure to use such cameras is without any reasonable ground. This remedy shall likewise be available to persons searched incidental to an arrest by virtue of a warrant, when such arrest was without the use of body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices without reasonable ground.”
Finally, with respect to confidentiality, Section 2 of Rule 4 of the Bodycam Rules provides the “chain of custody” over the recordings and Section 3 of Rule 4 of the Bodycam Rules mandates that the custodian shall ensure “security, confidentiality, and integrity” of the recordings. As a general rule, the recordings shall not constitute public record. Exceptions to the general rule are when death resulted from the implementation of a Warrant of Arrest or Search Warrant, or an assault was made against law enforcement officers in the process. The rationale of these exceptions is when death results from the execution of a Warrant of Arrest or when law enforcement officers are assaulted, it would be easy for the recordings to be admitted in evidence to ferret out the truth in the resultant cases arising from such arrest or search.