Body-worn camera rules for PNP now in effect – SC

The rules requiring the use of body-worn cameras or alternative video and audio recording devices by police authorities in the service of arrest or search warrants are now enforced, the Supreme Court said Monday.

This came after the rules issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2021 became effective following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on July 31.

SC spokesman Keith Hosaka confirmed the rules have taken effect after the publication.

Under the rules, pieces of evidence obtained by law enforcers who did not use body-worn cameras or alternative devices are “inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.”

The rules also provide that persons who are subjects of search or arrest warrants should be informed that the enforcement of the warrants are being recorded from the start of the operation until it is terminated.

In case death results in the implementation of the search warrant, the SC stressed that “an incident report detailing the implementation of the search, the reasons why such death occurred, the result of related inquest proceedings, if any – including possibly those against the officer or officers causing the death together with other relevant documents – shall likewise be submitted” to the court which issued the warrant.

Trial courts can only issue arrest or search warrants within their territorial jurisdiction.

The rules had revoked authority to executive judges of some trial courts, like those in Manila and Quezon City, to issue warrants that can be served anywhere in the country.

In the service of arrest warrant, “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 since the facts surrounding the arrest may be proved by the testimonies of the arresting officers, the person arrested, and other witnesses to the arrest.”

A law enforcement officer “who fails, without reasonable grounds, to use body- worn cameras or alternative recording devices, or intentionally interferes with the body-worn cameras’ ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings of the arrest, or otherwise manipulates such recording during or after the arrest may be liable for contempt of court.”

The SC said a law enforcer is also liable for contempt of court for not using body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices in the service of search warrants.

On top of fine or imprisonment for contempt of court, a law enforcer who violates the rule on the use of body-worn cameras may be subjected to administrative complaints.

Data recorded by body-worn cameras and alternative recording devices “are not public record subject to disclosure, unless the recordings involve an incident resulting in a loss of life or an assault made on law enforcement officers during the arrest or search.”

Recordings and copies of such recordings “that depict or record circumstances in which a person dies while being apprehended by or while in the custody of law enforcement officers, or when assault is made on law enforcement officers, are considered public record.”