Case Digest (G.R. No. 261113)
Facts:
Hilario Cosme y Terenal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 261113, November 04, 2024, Supreme Court First Division, Rosario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hilario Cosme y Terenal (Cosme) was charged by Information with violation of Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 for possessing an Armscor 12-gauge shotgun (Serial No. 1058051) and two pieces of ammunition on July 7, 2017 in Pasay City without the corresponding license. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty and trial followed.
The prosecution's case rested on the arresting officer's account that at about 12:10 a.m. on July 7, 2017, PO2 Billy John Velasquez saw Cosme carrying a shotgun at the Soleum gasoline station, that Cosme was not in full uniform and could not show authority to carry the firearm, and that the firearm and ammunition were confiscated. The PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) certified that Cosme was not a licensed firearm holder in its database.
Cosme testified he was a security guard for G-Air Security Agency assigned to the Soleum station and that he was wearing a security polo and shorts because he had forgotten his locker key; he said his supervisor had assured him the supervisor would explain his attire if confronted. He presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP), his timecard, and a Duty Detail Order (DDO) issued July 1–31, 2017 showing his assignment to Soleum and listing the shotgun (Armscor .12 GA, Ser. No. 1058051) as an agency-owned firearm. His sister testified that the agency assured guards that issued firearms were licensed and that the agency abandoned Cosme after his arrest.
At trial the Regional Trial Court (Pasay City, Branch 108) found Cosme guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him (the RTC decision specified penalties). The Court of Appeals (Tenth Division; CA-G.R. CR No. 44151) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty; it reasoned that Cosme failed to present the DDO when accosted and that the law is silent on whether a DDO/timecards absolve an accused from criminal liability, noting also that the agency did not come to his aid. Cosme's motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Cosme filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti — specifically, that he lacked the requisite license or permit to possess the firearm — and that, as a private security professional (PSP) authorized by a D...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Cosme lacked the corresponding license or permit to possess the firearm such that he was guilty under Section 28(a) of RA 10591?
- Can a Duty Detail Order (DDO) and possession of a License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP)/compliance with the DDO exculpate a private security professional accused of i...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)