Practice question
A video’s maker is unavailable, but another competent witness can identify it and testify accurately about its contents and faithful depiction. Does Rule 11 section 1 invariably require exclusion solely because the maker is absent?
- Yes, only the camera operator can ever authenticate.
- Yes, all video is hearsay for every use.
- No; the Rule permits identification, explanation or authentication by another competent person able to testify to accuracy.
- No; any stranger’s guess is enough.
- Yes, unless the video is a government advertisement.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_01-7-01_sc_2001.html — Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rules 3–7 and 11: admissibility, authentication, accurate outputs, signatures and ephemeral communications.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204894_2014.html — People v. Enojas, G.R. 204894, March 10, 2014, main opinion and notes 15–16: September 24, 2002 expansion to criminal cases and ephemeral communications.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html — Rule 130 section 4: accurate readable computer outputs and duplicates.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.