The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, ruling that police officers failed to properly preserve the identity and integrity of the seized weapon.

In a 19-page decision dated 10 June 2026 and penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC En Banc reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals and cleared Tony Baclig II of violations of Republic Act No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The Court emphasized that while firearm cases are not subject to the same strict chain-of-custody requirements imposed on illegal drug cases under Republic Act No. 9165, authorities must still take reasonable steps to ensure the integrity of seized firearms and ammunition.

According to the ruling, firearms are generally distinguishable through serial numbers and are less susceptible to alteration or substitution than illegal drugs. However, the Court stressed that police officers are still required to properly mark and preserve seized weapons to remove doubts about the evidence presented in court.

The case stemmed from a motorcycle accident on 2 October 2016 involving Baclig.

Responding police officers reportedly saw a caliber .45 Taurus pistol loaded with seven rounds of ammunition inside Baclig's sling bag when he opened it to present his driver's license. Unable to produce a permit to carry the firearm, Baclig was arrested. A subsequent search yielded another magazine containing six rounds of ammunition.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Baclig guilty, ruling that the prosecution had sufficiently established his unauthorized possession of the firearm.

However, the Supreme Court found that the police failed to explain why the firearm and ammunition were not immediately marked at the place where they were seized.

While the Court upheld the legality of the firearm's discovery under the plain-view doctrine and the subsequent search incident to a lawful arrest, it ruled that the unexplained delay in marking the evidence created reasonable doubt as to whether the firearm presented in court was the same weapon allegedly recovered from Baclig.

As a result, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ordered Baclig's acquittal.

The ruling clarified that although firearm cases do not require the stringent chain-of-custody procedures applicable to illegal drugs, law enforcement officers must still take reasonable measures to preserve and identify seized firearms and ammunition to ensure the integrity of evidence presented in court.