G.R. No. 157802 - Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation vs. Coros

Hilario Cosme y Terenal (Cosme), a licensed private security professional employed by G-Air Security Agency, was apprehended on July 7, 2017, at Soleum Gasoline Station, Pasay City, carrying an Armscor shotgun 12 gauge with serial no. 1058051 loaded with two rounds of ammunition.
He was charged under Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition without the corresponding license.

PO2 Billy John Velasquez, during a midnight patrol, saw Cosme carrying the firearm and arrested him after Cosme failed to produce a prescribed uniform and authority to carry the weapon.
The PNP-Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) certification stated that Cosme was not a licensed holder for the firearm or ammunition in question.

Cosme testified that he was on duty as a security guard for G-Air Security Agency, wearing a security polo shirt and shorts since he forgot his locker key and that his supervisor would explain his lack of full uniform if questioned.
He claimed belief in good faith that the issued firearm was licensed as per the Duty Detail Order (DDO) issued by his agency, although he did not present it at the time of arrest.
Cosme submitted his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP), timecard, and the DDO which indicated his assignment to Soleum Gas Station from July 1 to 31, 2017, authorized to carry the shotgun during specified hours.
His sister testified on their reliance on the security agency’s assurance that the firearms issued were licensed and lamented the agency’s alleged abandonment.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cosme guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of firearms.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, rejecting the DDO and timecard as defenses on the basis that the law is silent on their sufficiency to absolve criminal liability.
Cosme filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the employer agency was responsible for obtaining the license and that he was duly licensed with the authority of the DDO.
The CA denied the motion.

Whether or not Cosme’s possession of the firearm was unlawful despite the issued DDO and his licensed status as a private security professional.
Whether Cosme’s failure to produce a firearm license at the time of arrest establishes his criminal liability.
Whether the presumption of the firearm’s license in favor of the security agency and Cosme’s good faith belief in such license constitutes a valid defense against illegal possession charges.