23/06/2026
SUPREME COURT: UNMARKED SEIZED FIREARM LEADS TO ACQUITTAL IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION CASE
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that prosecutions for illegal possession of fi****ms under Republic Act No. 10591 do not require the same strict chain-of-custody requirements imposed in illegal drug cases under Republic Act No. 9165, noting that fi****ms are uniquely identifiable through serial numbers and are generally resistant to alteration.
In a 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC En Banc reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Tony Baclig II of illegal possession of fi****ms and ammunition on grounds of reasonable doubt due to failure of the officers to properly mark the seized weapon at the place of seizure.
On October 2, 2016, police officers performing mobile patrol responded to a motorcycle accident involving petitioner Tony Baclig II.
While assisting him, officers asked for his driver's license. When Baclig opened his sling bag, the officers noticed a caliber .45 Ta**us pistol inside in plain view, which was loaded with seven rounds of ammunition.
Baclig could not produce a license to carry the firearm and was immediately arrested. A subsequent search incident to the arrest yielded an extra magazine containing six more bullets.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both convicted Baclig of illegal possession of fi****ms and ammunition under Republic Act No. 10591. Baclig appealed, arguing that the police failed to immediately mark the evidence at the place of seizure.
In acquitting the accused, the high court held that doubts arose regarding the identity and integrity of the firearm because the officers failed to properly mark the seized weapon at the place of seizure, creating a break in the evidentiary chain. As a result, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
While the Court ruled that the firearm and ammunition were legally discovered and seized under the "plain view" doctrine and via a valid search incident to a lawful arrest, the prosecution’s unexplained failure to immediately mark the items at the scene of the arrest created a fatal break in the evidentiary chain.
It noted that unlike drugs, fi****ms are uniquely identifiable through their serial numbers and are relatively resistant to change. As such, strict compliance with chain-of-custody requirements is not mandatory, but authorities must still take reasonable steps to preserve the identity and integrity of seized weapons. This includes marking the seized item immediately after apprehension.
This failure generated reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the evidence presented in court.
