In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the actual confiscated firearm must be presented in court as evidence, not just a certification that a person is not licensed to own or possess a firearm, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.
With the ruling, the SC granted the appeal of Benjamin P. Togado and reversed the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) which convicted him of violation of Republic Act 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.
The decision which granted Togado’s appeal was written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
The SC’s Public Information Office (SC-PIO), in a press briefer, said the High Court ruled that “in cases involving violations of RA 10591, the absence of the actual confiscated firearm cannot be overlooked.”
It said the SC emphasized that “a mere certificate stating that the accused lacks a license to own or possess the firearm is not enough to secure a conviction.”
The summary stated that the police confiscated a .45-caliber pistol from Togado's house following a search warrant. The firearm, along with its magazine and five rounds of live ammunition, was placed in marked plastic containers, it said.
The police photographed the items and prepared an inventory of the seized objects and the Philippine National Police's (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Office certified that Togado was not a registered firearm holder, it also said.
The regional trial court (RTC) convicted Togado of illegal possession of firearm. He challenged the trial court’s decision before the CA and argued it was not clear if the firearm presented in court was the same firearm seized by the police.
Affirming the trial court, the CA said that the seized firearm could be established through testimony, even without presenting the actual firearm. Togado appeared his case before the SC.
In granting Togado’s appeal and ordering his acquittal, the SC-PIO said the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the firearm’s integrity was preserved, i.e., that the confiscated firearm remained unchanged and untampered from the time it was seized until it was presented in court.
“The police officer did not comply with the PNP’s internal operations manual which directs a confiscating officer to keep a record of the handling, safekeeping, and preservation of the seized firearm,” it said.
The SC-PIO’s summary also stated:
“The police officer admitted he marked only the plastic where the gun was placed, and not the gun itself. Further, when the firearm was presented in court, it was in a plastic container with markings different from the markings recorded upon confiscation.
“The police officer said the original container was destroyed, and he could not ascertain whether it was the same firearm confiscated from Togado. The differences in the markings and the tampering of the plastic container created reasonable doubt about Togado’s guilt.”
The summary stated that “in previous cases, the SC had said that the actual firearm does not need to be presented as evidence.”
To prevent confusion that could lead to the imposition of incorrect penalties or, even worse, the conviction of an innocent person, the SC-PIO said the High Court established the following guidelines on when the confiscated firearm must be presented in court:
1. “Where an accused is charged with violation of RA 10591, the exact same firearm confiscated must be presented in court to determine whether the accused should be convicted and the proper penalty to be imposed;
2. “When the use of a firearm is a qualifying circumstance, i.e., when it changes the nature of the crime, and the penalty imposable depends on the classification of the firearm, the exact same firearm confiscated must be presented in court;
3. “When the use of a firearm is an aggravating circumstance, i.e., when it increases the penalty to the maximum period imposable, or is inherent in or absorbed by the nature of the crime charged, the exact same firearm confiscated is preferred, but the presentation of secondary evidence may also be considered;
4. “In all situations where a firearm is confiscated from an accused, the confiscated firearm must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved.”