THE Supreme Court has acquitted a man charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, ruling that the failure of police to immediately mark the seized weapon at the place of seizure created reasonable doubt over the identity and integrity of the evidence.
In a 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the Court en banc reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and cleared Tony Baclig II of violations of the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (Republic Act 10591).
The high court said that while firearm cases do not require the same strict chain-of-custody rules as drug cases under Republic Act 9165, law enforcers must still see to it that the identity of the weapons in question must be preserved.
It stressed that the failure to immediately mark the firearm at the scene of arrest created doubt that the item presented in court was the same weapon recovered from Baclig.
The case stemmed from an Oct. 2, 2016 motorcycle accident involving Baclig, where police officers responding to the incident saw a caliber.45 Taurus pistol inside his sling bag while assisting him.
The firearm was loaded with seven rounds of ammunition, and Baclig failed to present a license to carry. He was arrested, and a search incident to arrest yielded another magazine containing six bullets.
The RTC and the CA both convicted Baclig, but he appealed the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the gun was not properly marked at the place of seizure.
The Court agreed, ruling that although the firearm was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine and the arrest was valid, the unexplained failure to mark the items at the scene weakened the prosecution’s evidence.
The Court said this gap in handling the evidence cast reasonable doubt on its identity and integrity, warranting Baclig’s acquittal.
