G.R. No. 261113 , November 04, 2024
HILARIO COSME Y TERENAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Hilario Cosme y Terenal, a licensed security guard employed by G-Air Security Agency and detailed at the Soleum Gasoline Station, was arrested on July 7, 2017, by police officers who found him in possession of a 12-gauge shotgun and two ammunition rounds. He was not wearing his complete prescribed uniform at the time. The Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) issued a Certification stating Cosme was not a licensed firearm holder. Cosme was charged with illegal possession of firearm under Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 . In his defense, Cosme presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP), timecards, and a Duty Detail Order (DDO) issued by his agency for July 2017, authorizing him to carry the specific firearm for his duty. He testified that his agency assured him the issued firearm was licensed and that he was a victim of his agency’s abandonment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which held that the DDO did not absolve him from criminal liability and that his failure to present the DDO when accosted and his agency’s failure to assist him undermined his defense.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner, a licensed security guard possessing a firearm issued by his agency under a Duty Detail Order (DDO), can be held criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act No. 10591 , absent proof that he knew the firearm was unlicensed.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts and ACQUITTED Hilario Cosme y Terenal. The Court ruled that for a licensed private security professional, the DDO issued by a licensed private security agency serves as the legal authority to possess and carry a firearm in the performance of duty. The prosecution must prove not only the possession of an unlicensed firearm but also that the accused freely and voluntarily possessed it with knowledge of its lack of license. Where the accused security guard is licensed, equipped with a DDO sanctioned by law, and possesses the firearm under a belief in good faith that it is licensed by his agency, criminal liability does not attach. The PNP-FEO Certification stating Cosme had no personal license was insufficient to prove the firearm itself was unlicensed, as the license could be under the agency’s name. The failure to immediately present the DDO during arrest does not negate this authority. The defense of good faith is valid, and the petitioner cannot be penalized for his agency’s possible negligence or violation.