The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified how confiscated firearms and ammunition should be handled and documented in criminal cases, requiring police officers to immediately mark, inventory, and photograph them to preserve their identity and integrity and help establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, promulgated on April 8, 2026 and published on the SC website on June 18, 2026, the Court laid down prospective guidelines after acquitting a man convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, finding that unexplained lapses in handling the seized firearm and ammunition created reasonable doubt.

“Procedural irregularities, such as delayed marking or incomplete documentation, do not automatically result in acquittal. However, if such lapses remain unexplained, and if identity and integrity cannot be otherwise established, reasonable doubt may arise,” the Court said.

The Court ruled that the firearm or ammunition subject of the charge must be presented in court as the best evidence of its existence and classification.

It clarified that, unlike in dangerous drugs cases, a detailed chain of custody is not mandatory in firearms prosecutions because firearms are unique and readily identifiable.

However, law enforcers must still take reasonable measures to preserve the identity and integrity of confiscated firearms and ammunition.

For firearms seized through a search warrant or during a buy-bust operation, police officers must immediately mark the firearm, conduct an inventory, and take photographs at the place of seizure in the presence of the witnesses required under the Rules of Court.

For firearms recovered following a warrantless arrest, officers must likewise immediately mark the firearm, conduct an inventory, and take photographs at the place of arrest.

The Court said procedural irregularities alone do not automatically warrant acquittal, but unexplained lapses that cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence may give rise to reasonable doubt.

“The Court, thus, reinforces the doctrinal principle that, although firearms cases are not governed by the strict evidentiary standards applicable to dangerous drugs, they must, nonetheless, conform to the constitutional mandate that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt,” the decision stated.

The guidelines stemmed from the case of Tony Baclig II y Arciaga, who was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition after police discovered a handgun in his sling bag while responding to a motorcycle accident in Pangasinan.

The SC upheld the legality of the warrantless seizure and arrest but acquitted Baclig after finding that the prosecution failed to justify why the firearm and ammunition were marked only at the police station instead of at the place of seizure, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the evidence presented in court.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.