Robin Padilla explains 'raw file' query; ex-justice says online recordings valid

Senator Robin Padilla explained his query about the "raw file" of the video of Vice President Sara Duterte, which drew online criticism, stating he was referring to the Zoom meeting recording. In a Facebook post, Padilla referred to "paid hacks" who were out to confuse the public, asserting that copies from live internet feeds are duplicates that could have been manipulated. "The host can do a livestream and record it! Zoom has a built-in recording feature. That is what is called the original copy, which was recorded by whoever conducted the Zoom meeting or interview," Padilla said. "Anything copied from the live feed, whatever it is from the internet, is a duplicate. Anything recorded as a duplicate can be manipulated." Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, meanwhile, pointed out that recordings of materials available online are admissible as evidence, provided they have not been tampered with. "Any recording based on the transmission online would be admissible as long as it is not tampered," Azcuna said. "A video is different from a physical document. The rules of authenticity are different, so I don't think the objection requiring the presentation of the original is valid, because every transmission is an original." On the third day of Duterte’s impeachment trial on July 8, the video of Duterte uttering threats against the President, the First Lady, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez was presented. In the trial, Padilla asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent who certified the authenticity of the video: "Were you able to get the original? The real original—not the one from the internet." NBI Senior Agent John Mark Calilung said he recorded Duterte's Zoom video conference via OBS, a video recording and live streaming software, using a video uploaded by Atty. Harry Roque online. However, Padilla insisted on asking whether Calilung has acquired an affidavit from a participant of the Zoom conference who directly recorded the meeting. Calilung answered, "No, sir." Padilla’s line of questioning in the trial went viral online, with netizens asking if he really knows legal concepts. The senator addressed the issue in a Facebook post, taking a swipe at what he called paid hacks who deliberately mislead the public despite knowing the truth. The senator explained that the press conference held by Duterte via the video conferencing app Zoom was recorded and broadcast live over the internet, adding that the host and other participants in the online conference could have recorded it. For Padilla, the copy recorded by those participants is what he considers the "original." Meanwhile, Roque—after learning that Calilung had sourced the copy from his post—stated on social media that he, alongside Vice President Sara Duterte and others present at the press conference, can vouch for the video's authenticity. Azcuna said, "The statement of Harry Roque is correct… but as I said in the case of digital transmission, the rules are different. You don't have to present the one who originally recorded it, because the recording is presumed to be the same as the first transmission unless you can show tampering."