Here is part two of what I wrote about last week. Remember that in People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Togado (G.R. No. 260973, 6 August 2024), the Supreme Court acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt for possession of an unlicensed firearm. In this case, the Highest Tribunal laid down important guidelines. That part of the decision is worth quoting for everyone’s elucidation.

“In acquitting petitioner, we have discussed that there was reasonable doubt because the prosecution was unable to prove that the firearm presented in court was the exact same firearm confiscated from him. However, we recognize that in previous cases, this Court pronounced that ‘the firearm itself need not be presented as evidence for it may be established by testimony.” To avoid any iota of doubt and to protect an accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent, it is imperative that the exact same firearm recovered from an accused be presented in court. The non-presentation of firearms should be the exception rather than the rule. For clarity on whether the exact same firearm must be presented in court, we lay down the following guidelines:

1. Where an accused is charged with violation of Republic Act No. 10591, the presentation of the exact same firearm is required for the court to determine whether the accused should be convicted, and if so convicted, the proper penalty to be imposed.

2. When a firearm is used in the commission of a crime which prescribes a lesser penalty, Section 29 of RA 10591 states that the penalty imposable shall be the penalty prescribed for illegal possession of firearms. In this situation, the use of a firearm is a qualifying circumstance and the penalty imposable depends on the classification of the firearm. Thus, the presentation of the exact same firearm is also required. The rule remains that ‘qualifying circumstances must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.’

3. When the use of a firearm is an aggravating circumstance, or is inherent in or absorbed by the nature of the crime charged, the presentation of the exact same firearm is preferred, but the presentation of secondary evidence may be considered by the courts.

4. In all situations where a firearm is confiscated or recovered from an accused, the confiscated firearm must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved. The failure to comply with the foregoing requirements should not, however, automatically result in an acquittal, but may constitute reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused if not sufficiently justified. For violations of RA 10591, courts should not simply disregard the non-presentation of the firearm that was actually confiscated. To say that the presentation of the confiscated firearm is not required may cause the imposition of the wrong penalty, or worse, cause the conviction of an innocent person. The presentation of a certificate stating that the accused is not licensed to own and possess the confiscated firearm is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that would justify conviction for violation of RA 10591.

To avoid any iota of doubt and to protect an accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent, it is imperative that the exact same firearm recovered from an accused be presented in court. The non-presentation of firearms should be the exception rather than the rule.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court, while recognizing jurisprudence that the unlicensed firearm need not be presented in court for as long as it is established by testimony, still emphasized the necessity of its presentation in court. In fact, as it decreed in this case, it is the rule rather than the exception. This is more in accord with the protection of the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent.