Photo from Pexels | Tima Miroshnichenko
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:
In the case of Hilario Cosme v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court held that where the accused security professional is licensed to exercise their profession and is equipped with a permit sanctioned by law, possession of the issued firearm under a belief in good faith that it is licensed is a valid defense in a case for illegal possession of firearm.
Hilario Cosme was charged with violation of Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
On July 7, 2017, Police Officer II (PO2) Billy John Velasquez, who was on patrol, saw Cosme at the Soleum gasoline station carrying a shotgun on his shoulder. Questioned on his possession thereof, Cosme claimed to be the security guard of the gasoline station but was not wearing the prescribed uniform and was unable to present his authority to possess said firearm. Consequently, PO2 Velasquez arrested him, frisked him, and found two pieces of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition which he confiscated along with the firearm. After inquest proceedings, the present case was filed against Cosme.
The prosecution presented a Certification from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) which states that Cosme “is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of caliber nor authorized to possess any kind of ammunition per verification from the databases of this office.”
In his defense, Cosme testified that he is a security guard for G-Air Security Agency, detailed at the Soleum Gasoline Station. At the time he was apprehended, he was only wearing a security polo shirt and shorts because he forgot the key to his locker. He decided not to force open his locker upon the assurance of his supervisor that he would be the one to explain for him if he gets caught for not wearing the prescribed uniform. He was at the parking lot of the gas station when police officers arrived, frisked him, and confiscated his shotgun and ammunition. They told his agency to send a representative to the police station where he would be brought but nobody came. He claims to have been victimized by his agency because he was made to believe that the shotgun was licensed. To corroborate his testimony, he presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP) issued by the PNP Civil Security Group Office, his timecard, as well as a Duty Detail Order (DDO) showing that the shotgun was an issued agency owned firearm given to him.
The RTC found Cosme guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the crime charged. The CA affirmed his conviction, finding that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the firearm, that Cosme had possession thereof, coupled with the intent to possess, and that he had no license to possess the same.
Issue: Whether Cosme is guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: No. Cosme was acquirred for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearm is the lack of license or permit on the part of the accused to possess or carry the firearm since possession per se is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that: (a) the firearm exists; and (b) the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same.
The phrase “or permit” is vital because the possessor ofthe firearm may not necessarily be the licensee. The non-licensee is only expected to bear a permit sanctioned by law such as the DDO. Under the 1983 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Presidential Decree No. 1866, private security agency (PSA) guards were authorized to carry firearms on work premises as long as they were authorized by a DDO. The 2018 Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10591 provides that the DDO serves as the authority of the personnel to carry his issued firearm within the specific duration and location of posting or assignment.
Prior to its repeal in 2022 by Republic Act No. 11917, PSAs and their private security professionals (PSPs) were governed by Republic Act No. 548723 whose revised IRR commands PSAs to issue to the PSP concerned an appropriate DDO using PNP SAGSD24 Form No. 12-94. While Cosme’s DDO substantially complies with the prescribed form, glaringly absent is the subject firearm’s license number. Nonetheless, any error or omission in the DDO is not the responsibility of PSPs but that of their security agency for it is the latter which the law tasks to issue the appropriate permit.
The Supreme Court held that Cosme was entitled to rely on the statement in the DDO that “the issued firearms to the guards are licensed” and could not be expected to demand from his employer proof of said statement’s veracity before relying thereon.
As the putative licensee, the security agency should have provided him with a copy of its firearms license when it issued the DDO. At any rate, it is clear under the IRRs of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and Republic Act No. 10591 that PSPs derive their authority to carry firearms not from their employer’s license but from the DDO itself. The issuance of a DDO presupposes the existence of a valid license over the firearm/s stated therein.
The Court noted that as a rule, when the crime is punished by a special law, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender intended to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The act prohibited by the law is not the mere possession of a firearm, but the possession of one unlawfully, i.e.,without a license or a permit sanctioned by law.
Since Cosme had a valid permit sanctioned under Republic Act No. 10591 and its IRR, it could not be said that he was perpetrating the act prohibited by law. Moreover, while there was physical possession of the firearm, there was no animus possidendi of an unlicensed firearm.
Source:
Hilario Cosme y Terenal vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 261113 | November 04, 2024
SC: Security Guard Not Liable for Illegal Possession if Issued Firearm is Presumed Licensed
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.
