Research on CCTV Footages as Evidence

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 to 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.
As closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance becomes employed as a crime
control technique the footage generated by security cameras will in turn
become a progressively important source of evidence in criminal proceedings.
While evidence of this nature may be conveniently described as 'video' evidence this
description is likely to become increasingly inaccurate. The rapid development of digital
technology means that it is now increasingly the case that security camera footage is
recorded on computer disk rather than on video tape, this however is a gradual process
and the majority of CCTV systems are likely to rely on traditional video technology for a
number of years. By allowing the creation of more efficient automated CCTV systems the
merging of computer and surveillance technology has great potential for law enforcement
agencies. However digital technology also has potential pitfalls. Because all camera
footage is stored in computer memory the images stored may be copied without any loss
of quality and crucially may be altered in much the same way. Considering the
implications of digital technology for the law of evidence this article examines
the admissibility of evidence from CCTV cameras, tracing the development of
the law from the admissibility of photographs to audio-tape, video-tape and
digital images in terms of: evidential status (and the application of the hearsay
rule); relevance; the exercise of judicial discretion; and provenance and
authenticity.