Dear PAO,

I was arrested for possessing a locally manufactured firearm without a corresponding license. I met Lando inside the prison cell, and he told me that he would soon be released because his case involving drugs was dismissed. Allegedly, the law enforcers who arrested him did not follow the rule on the chain of custody. I think that I can apply the chain of custody rule in my case since I have a suspicion that the firearm confiscated from me was different from that presented by the police. Can I raise the chain of custody rule in my case?

Delio

Dear Delio,

It is important to authenticate evidence and ensure that the evidence confiscated is the very same evidence presented in court. This is referred to as preserving the integrity of the evidence. In drug cases, one way of authenticating the identity of the confiscated drugs is the chain of custody rule. This rule was expounded in Lopez v. People of the Philippines, GR 172953, April 30, 2008, where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Dante Tinga, held that:

“As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.”

To preserve the integrity of the firearm, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen, laid down the guidelines to be followed in Togado v. People of the Philippines, GR 260973, Aug. 6, 2024, and we enumerate two that may be applicable on the given set of facts:

“1. Where an accused is charged with Violation of Republic Act No. 10591, the presentation of the exact same firearm is required for the court to determine whether the accused should be convicted, and if so convicted, the proper penalty to be imposed;

“

“4. 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 the foregoing requirements should not, however, automatically result in an acquittal, but may constitute a reasonable as to the guilt of the accused if not sufficiently justified.”

Nonetheless, note that although the integrity of a firearm as evidence must be preserved, the chain of custody rule will not apply because a firearm is a unique object evidence that is readily identifiable, as opposed to a drug substance or chemical, which has no distinguishing mark and may be easily mixed up with other similar substances. This is in consonance with the pronouncement in People of the Philippines v. Olarte, GR 233209, March 11, 2019, where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, stated that:

“In this regard, the Court emphasizes that if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. And at all times, the source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects being offered as evidence must be tethered to and supported by a testimony. Here, the determination whether a proper foundation has been laid for the introduction of an exhibit into evidence refits within the discretion of the trial court; and a higher court reviews a lower court’s authentication ruling in a deferential manner, testing only for mistake of law or a clear abuse of discretion. In other words, the credibility of authenticating witnesses is for the trier of fact to determine.

“In the case at hand, the chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated grenade (an object made unique), for it is not amorphous, and its form is relatively resistant to change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade, a structured object, based on personal knowledge that the same contraband or article is what it purports to be — that it came from the person of accused-appellant.” (Emphasis ours)

Applying the above-quoted decisions to your situation, the firearm seized from you should be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated. Considering that the said evidence is considered unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, the law enforcers need not observe the chain of custody rule to authenticate the same. What is only needed is the testimony of witnesses with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; that is to say, the firearm presented in court is the same firearm confiscated from you.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]