The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted guidelines in the handling by law enforcers of firearms and ammunition confiscated during implementation of arrest warrants or those seized during warrantless arrests to safeguard against substitution or planting of evidence.

Under the guidelines, the SC said that where firearms or ammunition are seized through a search warrant or during a buy-bust operation, law enforcers must conduct immediate marking of the firearm and ammunition, inventory of the items seized, and taking of photographs at the place of seizure in the presence of witnesses required under the Rules of Court.

It also said that the same guidelines must be complied with by law enforcers when firearms and ammunition are seized during warrantless arrests.

The SC pointed out that “these guidelines seek to strike a judicious balance between safeguarding the constitutional rights of the accused and preserving the viability of legitimate prosecutions for illegal possession of firearms.”

The guidelines were contained in a decision that acquitted Tony A. Baclig II of Tayug, Pangasinan of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition which were reportedly confiscated from him by the police on Oct. 2, 2016.

The decision, written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last June 18, adopted the recommendation of the guidelines proposed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa to standardize the treatment of firearms involved in prosecutions under Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

RA 10591 involves the ownership, possession, carrying, and manufacture of firearms and ammunition in the Philippines; and sets strict licensing and registration standards to ensure public safety and deter crime.

The guidelines adopted by the SC in firearms and ammunition seizure are similar to those mandated under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

Under Section 1 (1), Article II, of RA No. 9165 provides that “the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”

The SC said that “while the nature of firearms as physical evidence permits a less rigid application of the chain of custody rule, reasonable and justifiable adherence to fundamental evidentiary safeguards remains indispensable.”

It pointed out that an accused in illegal possession of firearm and ammunition “cannot be convicted on the basis of compromised or unexplained evidence, even in the face of otherwise persuasive testimonial proof.”

“The Court, thus, reinforces the doctrinal principle that, although firearms cases are not governed by the strict evidentiary standards applicable to dangerous drugs, they must, nonetheless, conform to the constitutional mandate that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt,” it stressed.

The SC explained that unlike RA 9165, RA 10591 does not prescribe the manner, place, or required witnesses for the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of seized firearms and ammunition.

“Nevertheless, Rule 126, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that a search of a house, room, or premises be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof, or any member of their family, or, in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is echoed in Rule 2, Section 2.7(h) of the 2021 Philippine National Police (PNP) Manual,” it said.

It also said: “It is not unreasonable to require that the seizure, marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of seized firearms and ammunition be conducted at the place of seizure and in the presence of the required witnesses, unless the police officers are able to provide sufficient justification for documenting the seized items elsewhere.

“By contrast, the surrounding circumstances in warrantless seizures, including those arising from plain view, stop-and-frisk, or checkpoint operations, are often spontaneous and unpredictable. In such instances, it would be impractical and legally unsound to demand the same degree of procedural rigidity applicable to warrant-based searches.

“Nonetheless, consistent with jurisprudence in drugs cases, while the presence of insulating witnesses may be excused, the warrantless nature of the seizure does not dispense with the requirement of immediate marking of the seized items, the conduct of an inventory, and the taking of photographs at the place of arrest, unless the police officers are able to offer sufficient justification for noncompliance.

“The foregoing approaches ensure substantial compliance with the evidentiary objectives of the chain of custody rule against planting of evidence without unduly hampering legitimate police operations.”

Baclig was convicted by the trial court. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). He elevated the case to the SC.

He was involved in a vehicular accident in Tayug in the evening of Oct. 2, 2026. When asked for his driver license, the police said that Baclig opened his sling bag where the law enforcers sighted a firearm tucked inside the bag.

The police confiscated the firearm, a .45 caliber Taurus pistol which was loaded with seven rounds of live ammunition.

The police said that when Baclig, a retired member of the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU), failed to show his license to possess and carry the firearm, he was arrested. Further search on Baclig unearthed another firearm magazine loaded with six bullets.

Thereafter, the police officers brought Baclig to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital for medical treatment, and later brought him to the Tayug Police Station along with the confiscated items. He was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

In his defense, Baclig told the trial court that at about 11 p.m. on Oct. 2, 2016 while he was riding his motorcycle he accidently fell and became unconscious.

He said that when he regained consciousness, he saw the police officers assisting him. When asked for his driver’s license, he was about to take his wallet from his sling bag but he noticed that his bag was open. He added that when the police asked him to show the other contents of his bag, he was surprised to find a gun inside his bag.

He also told the trial court that he did not know how a gun ended up in his bag as being a heavy equipment operator, his work did not require him to use any firearm.

On May 25, 2018, the regional trial court (RTC) convicted him of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. He was sentenced to a prison term ranging from 10 years and one day to 10 years and eight months.

In his appeal before the CA, Baclig said that the evidence presented against him were inadmissible for being “fruits of the poisonous tree” because the police officers took active steps to look for them.

At the same time, he told the appellate court that the items purportedly confiscated from him were not preserved considering the prosecution's failure to comply with Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 67 and the Revised PNP Operational Procedures.

In a decision on Sept. 27, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. The CA said that the police officers validly arrested Baclig when he failed to produce his license to possess and carry the firearm.

In his SC appeal, Baclig said the firearm and ammunition allegedly obtained from his bag are inadmissible in evidence and that the identity of the seized items was not preserved by the arresting police officers.

The SC ruled that while the firearm and ammunition were validly seized and are admissible in evidence, “there exists reasonable doubt on whether the items presented in court were the same items seized from petitioner” (Baclig).

It said: “the arresting officers’ failure to immediately mark the firearm at the place of seizure -- an omission left wholly unexplained by the prosecution -- constitutes an unresolved break in the evidentiary chain.”

“While a less stringent standard governs firearms cases, the complete absence of any justification for dispensing with this basic safeguard necessarily engenders doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized item.

“However, where the prosecution's case hinges on the alleged existence and identity of the subject firearm or ammunition, and where the procedural safeguards essential in establishing such identity and integrity are neither observed nor explained, acquittal becomes the inevitable legal consequence. The burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt-whether in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs or firearms and ammunition-rests solely on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

“In fine, the Court acquits Baclig, solely on the ground that there is reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the firearm and ammunition, arising from the unjustified failure to mark them at the place of seizure.”