Flashcards Studio

A police officer seizes a laptop from a suspect during a raid, which allegedly contains incriminating chat logs and emails. The laptop is placed in a tamper‑evident bag and sealed by the officer, who initials the bag. The seal’s unique number and the exact time of sealing are not recorded in the custody log. The laptop is then entrusted to a civilian courier who delivers it to the city crime laboratory. At the laboratory, forensic examiners create a forensic image of the hard drive, generate a transcript of the contents, and copy the image to a new drive, which is then resealed and logged by a laboratory analyst. The original laptop remains in the police property room. At trial, the People seek to admit the laptop and its forensic image 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 civilian courier was used; and (iii) there was no hash verification of the copied image to attest to data integrity. Analyze whether the laptop and the forensic image are 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 laptop admissible? what steps could cure any gaps?