When presentation of unlicensed firearm necessary

When presentation of unlicensed firearm necessary | Daily Tribune

In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has held that in illegal possession of firearms cases, the presentation of the unlicensed firearm as evidence of the crime is not absolutely necessary. After all, possession per se of a firearm is not prohibited. What needs to be proven is the lack of a license from the authorities to possess it. Thus, for as long as other pieces of evidence are presented which prove the elements of the crime, even in the absence of the actual firearm itself, a conviction can still be had.

In this particular case I wish to discuss, however, the Supreme Court required the presentation of the unlicensed firearm. Finding merit in petitioner’s argument, the Highest Tribunal acquitted him based on the following discussion (portions of which were not included here for brevity).

“Nevertheless, we rule that petitioner should be acquitted on reasonable doubt. To reiterate, the elements of violation of Section 28 of Republic Act 10591 are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it.”

“The first element was not proven because of the prosecution’s failure to show that the integrity of the firearm was preserved. RA 10591 does not contain any provision on the chain of custody and the proper handling of seized firearms and ammunition. However, it should be stressed that the Philippine National Police has an operations manual to guide its members on various matters, including the handling and preservation of the integrity of confiscated firearms.”

“For confiscated firearms and ammunition, it is more prudent to place the marking on the confiscated item itself, not on the plastic bag. Law enforcers and courts should remember that the crucial piece of evidence is the confiscated item, not the plastic bag containing it. Once the confiscated item is marked and placed inside a plastic container, the container should be sealed in a manner that would indicate whether the plastic has been tampered with.”

‘For confiscated firearms and ammunition, it is more prudent to place the marking on the confiscated item itself, not on the plastic bag.’

“During trial, PO1 San Luis admitted that ‘he did not indicate any marking on the gun itself, its magazine and the live ammunition but only on the ziplock plastic bag where the gun was placed. PO1 Alcantara corroborated that PO1 San Luis marked the plastic bag, not the gun. He also testified that PO1 San Luis marked the plastic ‘MMS-01’ and the date ‘[5/29/14].’ Not only did the evidence produced in court bore [sic] a different marking, but it also appeared that the gun and the magazine itself bore the marking, not the plastic.”

“Petitioner highlights PO1 San Luis’s admission that when he retrieved the firearm from the evidence custodian, the plastic marked ‘MMS-01 5/29/14’ was destroyed. When the firearm was presented in court, it was in a different container and PO1 San Luis could not ascertain whether it was the very same firearm confiscated from petitioner. The discrepancy in the markings, the tampering of the plastic bag, and PO1 San Luis’s admissions in court lead us to conclude that there exists reasonable doubt as to the guilt of petitioner. Jurisprudence dictates that the corpus delicti in illegal possession of firearms is the lack of license to own or possess a firearm.”

“However, for us to rule, in this case, that there is no need to present the firearm as evidence would have dangerous consequences. It would be easy for anyone to plant a firearm as evidence, arrest the person, then charge them for illegal possession if their name does not appear in the database of the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police. Anyone could easily be convicted by the mere issuance of a certification that they do not have a license to own and possess a firearm. Thus, the preservation of the integrity of the confiscated firearm is crucial.”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Togado (G.R. No. 260973, 6 August 2024).