A man was acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) over illegal possession of firearms and ammunition after it ruled that the police failed to immediately mark the seized weapon at the place of seizure, creating reasonable doubt over the identity and integrity of the evidence.

In a 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, dated 10 June 2026, the SC En Banc reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling and cleared Tony Baclig II of violations of Republic Act 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

It ruled that while prosecutions for illegal possession of firearms do not require the same strict chain-of-custody procedures applied in illegal drug cases under Republic Act 9165, authorities must still take reasonable measures to preserve the identity of seized firearms and ammunition.

The high bench said that, unlike illegal drugs, firearms are uniquely identifiable through serial numbers and are generally resistant to alteration or replacement. Because of this, strict compliance with drug-related chain-of-custody rules is not required in firearm cases.

But the SC said the police must still properly mark and preserve seized weapons to prevent doubts about whether the item presented in court was the same firearm allegedly recovered during the arrest.

Motorbike accident

The case stemmed from a motorcycle accident on 2 October 2016, involving Baclig. Police officers conducting a mobile patrol responded to the incident and, while assisting him, asked him to present his driver’s license.

The record showed that when Baclig opened his sling bag, officers saw a caliber .45 Taurus pistol inside, loaded with seven rounds of ammunition. Baclig failed to present a license to carry the weapon, prompting his arrest.

A search incident to the lawful arrest later yielded another magazine containing six additional bullets.

The Regional Trial Court and the CA both convicted Baclig of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, ruling that the prosecution sufficiently established that he had no authority to possess the weapon.

The case was elevated by Baclig to the SC, arguing that the police failed to immediately mark the firearm and ammunition at the scene of the seizure, thereby creating a break in the chain of evidence.