Photo from Pexels | Kaboompics.com
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Jurisprudence dictates that the corpus delicti in illegal possession of firearms is the lack of license to own or possess a firearm. However, for the Court to rule that there is no need to present the firearm as evidence would have dangerous consequences. It would be easy for anyone to plant a firearm as evidence, arrest the person, then charge them for illegal possession if their name does not appear in the database of the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police. Anyone could easily be convicted by the mere issuance of a certification that they do not have a license to own and possess a firearm. Thus, the preservation of the integrity of the confiscated firearm is crucial.
In the case of Togado v. People, G.R. No. 260973, August 6, 2024, the Supreme Court established guidelines for when a confiscated firearm must be presented as evidence in court.
- Where an accused is charged with violation of R.A. No 10591, the presentation of the exact firearm is required for the court to determine whether the accused should be convicted, and if so convicted, the proper penalty to be imposed.
- When a firearm is used in the commission of a crime which prescribes a lesser penalty, Section 29 of R.A. No. 10591 states that the penalty imposable shall be the penalty prescribed for illegal possession of firearms. In this situation, the use of a firearm is a qualifying circumstance and the penalty imposable depends on the classification of the firearm. Thus, the presentation of the exact same firearm is also required. The rule remains that “qualifying circumstances must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.”
- When the use of a firearm is an aggravating circumstance, or is inherent in or absorbed by the nature of the crime charges, the presentation of the exact same firearm is preferred, but the presentation of secondary evidence may be considered by the courts.
- In all situations where a firearm is confiscated or recovered from an accused, the confiscated firearm must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved. The failure to comply with foregoing requirements should not, however, automatically result in an acquittal, but may constitute reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused if not sufficiently justified.
For violations of R.A. No. 10591, courts should not simply disregard the nonpresentation of the firearm that was actually confiscated. To say that the presentation of the confiscated firearm is not required may cause the imposition of the wrong penalty, or worse, cause the conviction of an innocent person. The presentation of a certificate stating that the accused is not licensed to own and possess the confiscated firearm is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that would justify conviction for violation of R.A. No. 10591.
Related Articles:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
