Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of
Warrants
(Position Paper)
This is a position paper concurring with proposition on the Rules on
the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants that
apply to all applications, issuances, and executions of arrest and
search warrants including warrantless arrests under the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC).1
The use of Body-Worn Cameras (BWC) will enforce Section I, Article
III of the Constitution2 as footages can be used as evidence for any
unlawful seizures. The evidence gathered from cameras will both
benefit the victims and the policemen in a way that would allow
justice to prevail. Victims can use the footages to prove their
innocence and may be a factor for policemen to lawfully exercise
their call of duty. Footages will also protect policemen from unfair
allegations and from malicious and baseless charges. A BWCequipped force will also ensure that no violations of police operating
procedures or human rights violations occur.3
While the existence of Data Privacy Act4 is known to me, I strongly
believe that the attainment of justice is greater than protecting one’s
privacy more so when the privacy being protected is the key to
unfold the truth. Denying the admissibility of evidence obtained
from the BWC or refusing to allow it to be presented in a proceeding
is clearly a remedy sought by an evil mind. Provided, however, that
such evidence be presented shall the execution of warrants result to
heinous crimes and not in cases similar to Zulueta vs. Court of
Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants, A.M.
No. 21-06-08-SC, June 29, 2021, (Phil.).
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19803/
2 Const. (1987), Art. III, §3(1) (Phil.).
https://mirror.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-therepublic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-thephilippines-article-iii/
3 Use of body cameras for transparency in police ops
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1142582
4 An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information In Information And
Communications Systems In The Government And The Private Sector, Creating
For This Purpose A National Privacy Commission, And For Other Purposes, Rep.
Act No. 10173, (August 15, 2012) (Phil.).
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
1
1
Appeals5 where it was held that the documents and papers obtained
by the petitioner-wife against her respondent-husband are
inadmissible evidences for the Constitution declares that the privacy
of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable.
To further my stand, it was held in Gumabon vs Philippine National
Bank6 that to be admissible, evidence must meet two criteria: (a)
relevance and (b) competence. Evidence is relevant if it is related to
the fact in question in such a way that it induces belief in its existence
or nonexistence. Evidence, on the other hand, is competent if it is not
barred by the law or the Rules of Court. The best evidence rule is one
of the grounds under the Rules of Court that establishes evidentiary
competence. The original copy of the document must be presented if
the content of the document is under inquiry, according to Section 3,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.7
Applying the foregoing criteria to the use of BWC, evidence gathered
will clearly be relevant as its footages will cover the whereabouts of
policemen and the acts of person subject to seizure. Its competence
however will be in question because of the Anti-Wiretapping Act8
which prohibits unauthorized recording of communications. This
Act also does not exempt seizures resulting from violation of
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act9 and BWCs will be best used
in such case, for instance, the death of Kian De Los Santos who died
defenseless during the Drug War in August 201710 and whose life
may have been spared if only the convicted police officers wore body
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html
6 Gumabon v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016julydecisions.php?id=628
7 Sec. 3 Rule 130, Rules of Admissibility, (July 01, 1989) (Phil.).
https://www.set.gov.ph/resources/revised-rules-of-court/1989-revised-ruleson-evidence/
8 An Act To Prohibit And Penalize Wire Tapping And Other Related Violations
Of The Privacy Of Communication, And For Other Purposes, Rep. Act No. 4200,
(June 19, 1965) (Phil.).
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1965/ra_4200_1965.html
9 An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002,
Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous Drugs
Act Of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefore, And For Other Purposes,
Rep. Act No. 9165, (June 7, 2002) (Phil.).
https://mirror.officialgazette.gov.ph/2002/06/07/republic-act-no-9165/
10 Statement of CHR Spokesperson, Atty. Jacqueline Ann de Guia
https://chr.gov.ph/statement-of-chr-spokesperson-atty-jacqueline-ann-de-guiaon-the-4th-death-anniversary-of-kian-delos-santos/
5
2
cameras in the performance of their duties or justice could have been
served fast should there be compelling evidence like that of BWC
footages.
Thus, it is timely for Congress to revisit the Anti-Wire Tapping Act
and include in its provision the violation of Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act as one of the exemptions. Otherwise, the rule
on the use of BWC will just be a rule of no force and effect when
Anti-Wire Tapping Act counters it.
3