Case Summary (G.R. No. 261113)
Applicable Law
The case revolves around Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 (the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act), which penalizes unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms and ammunition.
Background and Charge
Cosme was charged under Section 28(a) for possessing an unlicensed Armscor shotgun with ammunition while not wearing the required uniform or presenting authorization. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, initiating a trial on the merits.
Incident Description
On the night of the incident, Police Officer II Billy John Velasquez encountered Cosme while on patrol and found him with a shotgun. Upon questioning, Cosme failed to produce a license or appropriate identification, leading to his arrest and subsequent confiscation of the firearm and ammunition.
Prosecution Evidence
The prosecution presented a certification from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office indicating that Cosme was not a licensed firearm holder. This evidence supported the claim that he lacked legal authority for possession.
Defense Testimony
In his defense, Cosme asserted that he was authorized to carry the shotgun based on a Duty Detail Order (DDO) from G-Air Security Agency. He testified that he was not wearing a uniform due to a personal oversight and relied on the assurance from his agency regarding the legality of the firearm.
DDO Presentation
Cosme provided documentation, including his License to Exercise Security Profession, a timecard, and the DDO, which specified his assignment and indicated that the firearms were licensed. Despite this, he was unable to present the DDO during his arrest, complicating his defense.
Trial Court Decision
The Regional Trial Court found Cosme guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. It held that the prosecution proved the elements of possession and intent to possess an unlicensed firearm, dismissing the relevance of the DDO since he could not produce it at the time of apprehension.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, emphasizing that the absence of the DDO at the arrest moment suggested a lack of proper authorization. It determined that the defense did not satisfy its burden of proving a valid license for the firearm.
Arguments for Reconsideration
Cosme's Motion for Reconsideration contended that the security agency should be responsible for securing the firearm license and that the DDO entitled him to presume authorization for possession. He also argued that the law did not mandate immediate DDO presentation to avoid liability.
Position of the People
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that while it was unjust for Cosme to suffer consequences due to his employer’s failure, he nonetheless unlawfully possessed the firearm without the proper license required by law.
Legal Framework of Firearm Possession
Section 28(a) establishes that unlawful acquisition or possession is eviden
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 261113)
Background of the Case
- Hilario Cosme y Terenal (Cosme), a licensed private security professional, was charged with illegal possession of a firearm under Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591.
- The incident occurred on July 7, 2017, in Pasay City where Cosme was found in possession of an Armscor 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition without a license.
- He pleaded not guilty, asserting his possession was authorized by a Duty Detail Order (DDO) issued by his employer, G-Air Security Agency.
Facts and Proceedings
- Police Officer II Billy John Velasquez arrested Cosme after seeing him carrying a shotgun at a gas station; Cosme was not in uniform and could not present a license or authority.
- Cosme presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP), timecard, and DDO issued by his employer which stated the firearms were licensed.
- The PNP-Firearms and Explosives Office certified Cosme was not a licensed firearm holder.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Cosme, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, and Cosme filed a petition for review.
Legal Issue
- Whether Cosme’s possession of a firearm without presenting a license or immediate proof of the firearm’s license constitutes illegal possession under RA 10591 despite being a licensed security professional bearing a DDO.
Applicable Law
- Republic Act No. 10591 Section 28(a) penalizes unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms.
- The corpus delicti requires proof of the firearm's existence and proof that the accused lacks the corresponding license or permit.
- The law and its IRRs authorize licensed security personnel to carry firearms while on duty under authority of a Duty Detail Order (DDO).
- The DDO serves as the legal authority for possession within the specified duration and location.
- Private Security Agencies (PSAs) are responsible for securing firearm licenses; their personnel rely on their DDO as authorization.
Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner Cosme argued he possessed the firearm under a good-faith belief it was licensed as stated in the DDO.
- Cosme contended it was the security agency’s