G.R. No. 261113 - Hilario Cosme y Terenal vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 261113)

Factual Background

Cosme was a licensed private security professional holding a License to Exercise Security Profession and assigned by his employer, G-Air Security Agency, to post-security duties at the Soleum gasoline station pursuant to a Duty Detail Order. In the early hours of July 7, 2017, Police Officer II Billy John Velasquez, on patrol, observed a man later identified as Cosme carrying a shotgun on his shoulder at the gasoline station. Upon questioning, Cosme said he was the station’s security guard, but he was not in full uniform and he failed to present any authority to possess the firearm. The police frisked and arrested him and confiscated an Armscor 12-gauge shotgun with serial number 1058051 and two 12-gauge shotgun cartridges. A PNP-FEO certification later stated that Cosme was not a licensed or registered firearm holder in their database.

Documentary and Testimonial Evidence

Cosme testified that he was a security guard employed by G-Air Security Agency and that he had been issued the shotgun by the agency in reliance on a Duty Detail Order. He explained that he was wearing a polo shirt and shorts because he had forgotten his locker key and that his supervisor had assured him the supervisor would explain his absence of uniform if he were stopped. Cosme presented his LESP, his timecard, and the DDO which listed the firearm’s make, caliber, and serial number and stated that “[t]he issued firearms to the guards are licensed.” His sister, Cherry Joy T. Cosme, corroborated that the agency represented that the firearms issued to guards were licensed and decried the agency’s failure to assist after his arrest. The prosecution offered the PNP-FEO certification negating registration in Cosme’s name.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

The prosecution charged Cosme with violation of Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 for unlawful possession of a small arm. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City, found the prosecution had proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Cosme. The RTC sentenced him to a term within the statutory range for the offense and imposed ancillary penalties provided by law.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC conviction. The CA held that the prosecution proved the existence of the firearm and that Cosme possessed it without the corresponding license or authority. The CA rejected the evidentiary value of the DDO and timecards as exculpatory, noted Cosme failed to present his DDO when accosted, and reasoned that the employer’s failure to come to his aid undermined the claim that the firearm was licensed. The CA modified the penalty but otherwise sustained conviction and denied Cosme’s motion for reconsideration.

Issues on Review

The principal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution established the corpus of the crime of illegal possession of firearm under Republic Act No. 10591, specifically whether the prosecution proved that the accused who possessed the firearm did not have the corresponding license or permit to possess it. Ancillary issues were whether a Duty Detail Order and the status of the employer’s license may relieve a private security professional of criminal liability and whether belief in good faith that a service firearm is licensed constitutes a defense.

Law Governing Possession by Private Security Personnel

The Court reviewed the elements of the offense, citing that the corpus delicti consists of the existence of the firearm and the absence of the corresponding license or permit. The Court explained that a non-licensee may be clothed with authority by a permit sanctioned by law and that the DDO historically and under current IRRs serves as such authority for private security professionals. The Court relied on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1866, the 2018 Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10591, and the Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 5487 to show that a DDO is the instrument by which a juridical entity delegates authority to its security personnel to carry issued firearms within specified locations and periods.

Precedent and Analogue Authority

The Court analyzed the prior decision in Cuenca v. People and observed that the En Banc Court there allowed a security guard to presume that the duly licensed security agency had the requisite license for weapons it issued, and held that the guard was not criminally liable when he reasonably relied on the employer’s representation and there were no indicia to the contrary. The Court also discussed People v. De Gracia for the proposition that animus possidendi is a state of mind to be assessed by the surrounding facts, and Peralta v. People for the articulation of the corpus delicti.

Reasoning and Legal Analysis

The Court emphasized that issuance of a DDO presupposes the existence of a valid license over the firearm and that a DDO serves as the legally sanctioned permit authorizing a private security professional to carry an issued weapon during the time and at the place specified. The Court found that Cosme was a duly licensed private security professional and that the DDO issued to him authorized him to carry the specified firearm at the Soleum Gas Station on July 7, 2017 between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., which encompassed the time and place of his apprehension. The Court held that possession of a service firearm under a bona fide belief that it was licensed negates the element that the possessor lacked a corresponding license or permit. The Court clarified that where the accused in fact had the authority conferred by a DDO, mere failure to immediately produce the DDO may render the accused administratively culpable but does not automatically establish criminal liability for unlawful possession. The Court further reasoned that it was unnatural for an innocent, licensed security professional to display a service firearm in public if he knew it to be unlicensed, and that there was no proof that Cosme possessed the firearm knowing it to be unlicensed. The Court observed that omissions in the DDO, such as absence of the firearm license number, are the responsibility of the agency that issued it and do not ipso facto crimina

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 261113)

Parties and Procedural Posture

HILARIO COSME Y TERENAL, PETITIONER , VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT . was the captioned controversy on review under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
The petition assailed the February 26, 2021 Decision and May 24, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44151 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 108, conviction.
The criminal information charged the accused under Republic Act No. 10591 for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of Section 28(a).
The Supreme Court, First Division, rendered the challenged disposition reversing the appellate and trial courts and acquitting the petitioner.

Key Factual Allegations

Police Officer II Billy John Velasquez apprehended Cosme at the Soleum gasoline station in Pasay City just past midnight on July 7, 2017 after seeing him carrying a shotgun on his shoulder.
The arresting officer testified that Cosme was not wearing the prescribed uniform and could not immediately present authority to possess the firearm.
The arresting officers frisked Cosme and seized one Armscor 12-gauge shotgun with Serial No. 1058051 and two pieces of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition.
The PNP-FEO issued a certification stating 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."
Cosme testified that he was a security guard of G-Air Security Agency detailed at the Soleum Gasoline Station and that he held a License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP).
Cosme presented his timecard and a Duty Detail Order (DDO) stating that agency-owned firearms were issued to guards for the July 1–31, 2017 detail at Soleum Gas Station.
The DDO presented by Cosme did not show the firearm's license number despite stating that "the issued firearms to the guards are licensed."
Cosme's sister testified that the agency assured employees that the issued firearms were licensed and that the agency abandoned Cosme after his arrest.

Evidence Presented

The prosecution offered testimony of the arresting officer and the physical evidence of the shotgun and ammunition seized at the scene.
The prosecution relied on the PNP-FEO certification that Cosme was not a licensed firearms holder in the database.
The defense introduced Cosme's LESP, timecard, and the DDO showing issuance of the subject firearm to Cosme for the specified post and hours.
The defense produced witness testimony from Cosme's sister that the agency represented the firearms as licensed and thereafter failed to assist Cosme.
There was no direct evidence that the employer's firearms license existed or that the accused, at the time of possession, knew the firearm to be unlicensed.

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved the element that the accused did not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the firearm required by Republic Act No. 10591.
Whether a security professional covered by a valid DDO and holding a LESP may lawfully possess an agency-issued firearm absent a license in his personal name.
Whether the belated presentation or absence of the DDO at the time of apprehension negates the defense of good faith and supports criminal liability.
Whether possession of ammunition is separately punishable where the firearm was claimed to be issued under a DDO.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 10591, Section 28(a) prescribes the penalty for unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm and requires proof of lack of license or permit as the forbidden element.
The phrase corpus delicti i