Breach of custody chain acquittal
The circumstances in the present case unmistakably fall within the category of a spontaneous in flagrante delicto apprehension.
Daily TribuneThe circumstances in the present case unmistakably fall within the category of a spontaneous in flagrante delicto apprehension.
Here is a good read on the importance of preserving evidence in arrests made when a perpetrator is caught red-handed.
A motorcyclist met an accident on a highway. Police officers rushed to help him. In the course of doing so, they noticed a firearm inside his bag when the motorcyclist opened it to retrieve his identification papers.
He was asked to present his license and permit to carry the firearm. Unable to produce either, he was arrested, and the firearm, together with an extra magazine, was confiscated as evidence. The police later marked the seized items as evidence.
During trial, he was convicted of illegal possession of firearms. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling, citing a breach of the chain of custody rule.
The High Court ruled: “Where firearms are seized by virtue of a lawful search warrant, the operation is generally premeditated and conducted under judicial authority. Unlike Republic Act 9165, Republic Act 10591 does not prescribe the manner, place, or required witnesses for the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of seized firearms and ammunition.
“Nevertheless, Rule 126, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that a search of a house, room, or premises be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof, or any member of their family, or, in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is echoed in Rule 2, Section 2.7(h) of the 2021 PNP Manual.
“Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to require that the seizure, marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of seized firearms and ammunition be conducted at the place of seizure and in the presence of the required witnesses, unless the police officers are able to provide sufficient justification for documenting the seized items elsewhere.
“By contrast, the surrounding circumstances in warrantless seizures, including those arising from plain view, stop-and-frisk, or checkpoint operations, are often spontaneous and unpredictable. In such instances, it would be impractical and legally unsound to demand the same degree of procedural rigidity applicable to warrant-based searches.
“Nonetheless, consistent with jurisprudence in drugs cases, while the presence of insulating witnesses may be excused, the warrantless nature of the seizure does not dispense with the requirement of immediate marking of the seized items, the conduct of an inventory, and the taking of photographs at the place of arrest, unless the police officers are able to offer sufficient justification for noncompliance.
“The foregoing approaches ensure substantial compliance with the evidentiary objectives of the chain of custody rule against the planting of evidence without unduly hampering legitimate police operations. The circumstances in the present case unmistakably fall within the category of a spontaneous in flagrante delicto apprehension. The police officers approached Baclig only after a vehicular accident.
“When Baclig opened his bag to retrieve his identification, the firearm became plainly visible, thereby justifying his immediate arrest and the seizure of the firearm under the plain view doctrine. The seized firearm bore a distinct serial number, was subjected to ballistics examination, and was eventually presented in court.
“Nonetheless, the arresting officers’ failure to immediately mark the firearm at the place of seizure — an omission left wholly unexplained by the prosecution — constitutes an unresolved break in the evidentiary chain. While a less stringent standard governs firearms cases, the complete absence of any justification for dispensing with this basic safeguard necessarily engenders doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized item.
“Consistent with Togado, such an evidentiary lapse does not per se warrant acquittal. However, where the prosecution’s case hinges on the alleged existence and identity of the subject firearm or ammunition, and where the procedural safeguards essential in establishing such identity and integrity are neither observed nor explained, acquittal becomes the inevitable legal consequence.
“The burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt — whether in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs or firearms and ammunition — rests solely on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
“In fine, the Court acquits Baclig solely on the ground that there is reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the firearm and ammunition, arising from the unjustified failure to mark them at the place of seizure.”
The facts and quoted portions of the decision are from Supreme Court GR 252644 dated 8 April 2026.