The Supreme Court (SC) established guidelines in presenting confiscated firearms as evidence in court to prevent confusion that could lead to the imposition of incorrect penalties or conviction of an innocent person.
In the case of Togado vs. People penned by Senior Associate Justice (SAJ) Marvic Leonen, the SC En Banc acknowledged that it had stated previously that the actual firearm does not need to be presented as evidence.
The Court said that where an accused is charged with violation of Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (RA 10591), the exact same confiscated firearm must be presented in court to determine whether the accused should be convicted and the proper penalty to be imposed.
Likewise, when the use of a firearm is a qualifying circumstance such as when it changes the nature of the crime, and the penalty imposable depends on the classification of the firearm, the exact same firearm must be presented in court.
Meanwhile, in case when the use of a firearm is an aggravating circumstance such as when it increases the penalty to the maximum period imposable, or is inherent in or absorbed by the nature of the crime charged, the exact same firearm confiscated is only preferred, but the presentation of secondary evidence may also be considered.
The Court emphasized, however, that the confiscated firearm must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved in all situations where a firearm is confiscated from an accused.
The absence of the actual confiscated firearm cannot be overlooked, according to the Court.
A mere certificate stating that the accused lacks a license to own or possess the firearm is not enough to secure a conviction, it added.
