Cosme vs. People

A licensed private security professional who possesses a service firearm issued by a duly licensed security agency pursuant to a Duty Detail Order, within the place and time specified therein, cannot be convicted of illegal possession of firearm absent proof that he freely and voluntarily possessed it knowing it to be unlicensed; the DDO is a permit sanctioned by law and supports a good-faith reliance on the employer’s representation that the firearm is licensed.

Hilario Cosme y Terenal was a private security professional employed by G-Air Security Agency and detailed as a security guard at Soleum Gasoline Station. Under Republic Act No. 10591, Section 28(a) penalizes unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms and ammunition. Private security agencies and their personnel were governed prior to 2022 by Republic Act No. 5487, and the implementing rules of both statutes require the issuance of a Duty Detail Order, which serves as authority for security personnel to carry an agency-issued firearm within a specified duration and location.

Hilario Cosme y Terenal was charged before the Pasay City Regional Trial Court with violation of Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 under an Information alleging that on or about July 7, 2017, in Pasay City, he had in his possession, custody, and control one Armscor shotgun 12 gauge with Serial No. 1058051 loaded with two pieces of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition, without the corresponding license or authority of law. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and trial on the merits ensued.

According to the prosecution, just past midnight on July 7, 2017, Police Officer II Billy John Velasquez, while on patrol, saw Cosme at the Soleum gasoline station carrying a shotgun on his shoulder. When questioned, Cosme claimed to be the security guard of the gasoline station but was not wearing the prescribed uniform and could not present his authority to possess the firearm. PO2 Velasquez arrested him, frisked him, and found two pieces of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition, which he confiscated along with the firearm. After inquest proceedings, the present case was filed. The prosecution also presented a Certification from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office 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.”

In his defense, Cosme testified that he was a security guard for G-Air Security Agency, detailed at Soleum Gasoline Station. At the time he was apprehended, he was only wearing a security polo shirt and shorts because he had forgotten the key to his locker; he decided not to force it open upon his supervisor’s assurance that the supervisor would explain if he were caught not wearing the prescribed uniform. He was at the parking lot of the gas station when police officers arrived, frisked him, and confiscated his shotgun and ammunition. The officers told his agency to send a representative to the police station, but nobody came. He claimed to have been victimized by his agency because he was made to believe that the shotgun was licensed.

To corroborate his testimony, Cosme presented his License to Exercise Security Profession issued by the PNP Civil Security Group Office, his timecard, and a Duty Detail Order No. 2017. The DDO cited Section 4, Rule VII of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 5487, as amended, and Republic Act No. 10591; stated that its purpose was post security service duties; covered the period July 1 to July 31, 2017; and assigned Cosme as security guard at Soleum Gas Corp., EDSA Ave., from 1800H to 0600H, with a shotgun, Armscor .12 GA, Serial No. 1058051. The DDO did not contain the firearm’s license number. Cosme’s sister, Cherry Joy T. Cosme, also testified that she worked as a security guard at Happy Hotpot Restaurant in Makati City under G-Air Security Agency, whose manager, Bien Cosme Encarnacion, was their relative, and that the agency assured them that the firearms it issued were licensed. She later learned of Cosme’s arrest and lamented the agency’s treatment of her brother, saying “[p]inabayaan nga sya ng aming security agency gayung sila naman ang nag-isyu sa kanya ng baril na yun.”

The RTC and CA both found that Cosme had possession of the shotgun and ammunition, that he was not in the prescribed uniform, and that he did not present his DDO when accosted. The PNP-FEO certification stating that Cosme was not a licensed firearm holder was also part of the evidence.

• Second Element of Illegal Possession: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the second element of illegal possession of firearms, namely, that the accused who possessed or owned the firearm did not have the corresponding license for it.
• DDO as Authority: Petitioner maintained that licensed juridical entities are allowed by law to own and register firearms; thus, reliance on the PNP-FEO Certification to conclude that he had no authority to possess the subject firearm was misplaced. There was no need for a license in his name because the firearm was owned by the security agency, and it was the DDO that clothed him with authority to possess the firearm and ammunition during his duties as a security guard.
• Failure to Present DDO: Petitioner contended that even if he did not immediately present his DDO, the law is silent and does not punish the failure to immediately show said document; the silence of Republic Act No. 10591 as to whether the DDO and timecards would absolve him should be interpreted in his favor.
• Employer’s Responsibility: Petitioner argued that it was his employer, G-Air Security Agency, that should secure the license, and that he should not bear the brunt of his employer’s abandonment; as a security guard, he did not aid in the proliferation of illegal firearms and did not violate the policy of the State espoused in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 10591.

• Possession Without License: Respondent countered that although it was unfair that Cosme was left to suffer for the illegal possession of a firearm simply issued to him as part of his job, he nonetheless possessed and carried a firearm and ammunition without the requisite license.
• Employer’s License and Copy in Possession: Respondent argued that the license should have come from his employer and that a copy thereof should have been in his possession, considering that the DDO itself states that “[t]he issued firearms to the guards are licensed and a copy must be in the possession of the guards.”

• Second Element of Illegal Possession: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the second element of illegal possession of firearm, i.e., that the accused who possessed or owned the firearm did not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry it.
• Duty Detail Order as Permit: Whether a Duty Detail Order issued by a security agency constitutes a permit sanctioned by law authorizing a private security professional to possess the agency-issued firearm, even if the license is not in the professional’s name.
• Good Faith Reliance on Employer: Whether a private security professional may rely in good faith on the employer’s representation, through the DDO, that the issued firearm is licensed, absent proof that the professional knew the firearm was unlicensed.
• Failure to Present DDO at Apprehension: Whether the failure to present the DDO at the time of apprehension negates the professional’s authority to possess the firearm or warrants conviction for illegal possession.
• Ammunition Possession: Whether authority to possess a firearm includes authority to possess ammunition appropriate to that firearm.

• Second Element of Illegal Possession: No. The prosecution failed to prove the lack of a license or permit because Cosme had a valid permit sanctioned by law, the DDO, and was a licensed private security professional acting within its terms.
• Duty Detail Order as Permit: Yes. The DDO serves as authority to carry the issued firearm within the specific duration and location of posting; private security professionals derive authority from the DDO, not from the employer’s license.
• Good Faith Reliance on Employer: Yes. A private security professional of a duly licensed security agency is entitled to assume that the employer had the requisite license and to rely on the DDO’s statement that the issued firearms are licensed; good faith is a valid defense where the accused had proper authority.
• Failure to Present DDO at Apprehension: No. Failure to present the DDO at apprehension may subject the private security professional to administrative liability or a less grave offense, but it does not mean he had no authority to possess the firearm.
• Ammunition Possession: Yes. Possession of ammunition is necessarily included in the license to possess the firearm, and Cosme was entitled to presume he was authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to it.

• Second Element of Illegal Possession: The corpus delicti in illegal possession of firearm is the lack of license or permit on the part of the accused to possess or carry the firearm, since possession per se is not prohibited by law. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit. The phrase “or permit” is vital because the possessor of the firearm may not necessarily be the licensee. Here, Cosme had a License to Exercise Security Profession and a DDO. The DDO is a permit sanctioned by law under the IRRs of Presidential Decree No. 1866, Republic Act No. 10591, and Republic Act No. 5487. It authorized him to carry the firearm at Soleum Gas Station from July 1 to 31, 2017, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He was apprehended on July 7, 2017 at 12:10 a.m. within that place and time. Thus, unlawful possession was not established.

• Duty Detail Order as Permit: Under the 1983 IRR of Presidential Decree No. 1866, private security agency guards were authorized to carry firearms on work premises as long as they were authorized by a DDO. More recently, the 2018 Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10591 provides that the DDO serves as the authority of the personnel to carry his issued firearm within the specific duration and location of posting or assignment. Prior to its repeal in 2022 by Republic Act No. 11917, private security agencies and their private security professionals were governed by Republic Act No. 5487, whose revised IRR commands private security agencies to issue the appropriate DDO using PNP SAGSD Form No. 12-94. Cosme’s DDO substantially complied with the prescribed form, although the firearm’s license number was absent. Any error or omission in the DDO is not the responsibility of private security professionals but of their security agency, which the law tasks to issue the appropriate permit. The issuance of a DDO presupposes the existence of a valid license over the firearm stated therein, as shown by the standard wording that the issued firearms to the guards are licensed. Private security professionals derive their authority to carry firearms not from their employer’s license but from the DDO itself. However, it is not enough that a private security professional be covered by a DDO; at the time of possession, he should be licensed to exercise his profession and should have possessed the firearm within the premises and period specified in the DDO. Cosme met these requisites.

• Good Faith Reliance on Employer: In Cuenca vs. People, the accused security guard was unable to show the apprehending officer a license to possess his firearm, the same being allegedly in the office of his employer to which the firearm belonged; the agency did not bear a license and was still in the process of securing one. The Court En Banc held that the security guard was entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license to possess the firearm and ammunition and to turn them over to him while he was on duty as a regular security guard of a duly licensed security agency. Those dealing with the agency, either as clients or employees, are entitled to presume, absent indicia to the contrary, that it has complied with pertinent laws, rules, and regulations. The employee could not be expected to demand from his employer proof of the veracity of the latter’s assertion before relying thereon. Although Cuenca was promulgated under the old law on unlawful possession of firearms, no reason exists why it should not operate here. Cosme was entitled to rely on the statement in the DDO that the issued firearms to the guards are licensed and could not be expected to demand from his employer proof of that statement’s veracity. He did not have a copy of the firearms license allegedly issued to his employer despite the DDO’s instruction that he bear such copy, but as the putative licensee, the security agency should have provided him with a copy when it issued the DDO. Since Cosme had a valid permit sanctioned under Republic Act No. 10591 and its IRR, it could not be said that he was perpetrating the act prohibited by law. While there was physical possession of the firearm, there was no animus possidendi of an unlicensed firearm. In People vs. De Gracia, animus possidendi or intent to possess is a state of mind determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused and surrounding circumstances. Cosme was conspicuously carrying a shotgun on his shoulder while performing his duty at the gas station under the honest belief that his security agency had a license for it, as stated in his DDO. It is unnatural for an innocent person to wield a weapon in such a publicly accessible space, in plain view of civilians and law enforcement officers alike, if one knew it to be unlicensed. De Gracia held that for one to be found guilty of illegal possession of firearm, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent. However, the good faith defense is only unavailing where the accused had no license or authority to possess the firearm in the first place. Where the accused had the proper authority, possession of the firearm under a belief in good faith that it is licensed is a valid defense. Although Cosme failed to present his DDO when apprehended, the same did not mean that he had no authority to possess the subject firearm as indeed he had. At most, he may only be administratively liable for not having said DDO in his possession. Though the evidence does not show whether G-Air Security Agency held a license for the subject firearm, it is clear that Cosme was a duly licensed private security professional, that a DDO was issued to him, that he possessed his service firearm at the place and during the time period specified in the DDO, and that there was no proof that he possessed the same knowing it to be unlicensed.

• Failure to Present DDO at Apprehension: Since Cosme was not in uniform and was unable to present his DDO when apprehended, it was reasonable for the police officer to presume that he was not authorized to carry the subject firearm. The IRRs of Republic Acts Nos. 5487 and 11917 consider it a less grave offense for private security professionals to not have a DDO in their possession while on duty and to use an inappropriate uniform. The same is also a violation of the Code of Conduct which commands private security professionals to carry their LESP and DDO during their tour of duty. Cosme’s failure to present the DDO at apprehension may have led to the filing of the case, but it did not establish criminal liability for illegal possession. At most, he may be administratively liable.

• Ammunition Possession: It must be added that possession of ammunition is necessarily included in the license to possess firearm. Since it was valid for Cosme to presume that his service firearm was covered by a license in favor of his employer, it follows that he was likewise entitled to presume that he was authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to said firearm. It cannot therefore be said that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Corpus Delicti in Illegal Possession of Firearm — The corpus delicti is the lack of license or permit on the part of the accused to possess or carry the firearm, since possession per se is not prohibited by law. The prosecution must prove that the firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit. The phrase “or permit” is vital because the possessor may not necessarily be the licensee; a non-licensee is only expected to bear a permit sanctioned by law, such as a DDO. In this case, Cosme had a DDO and was a licensed private security professional acting within its terms, so the corpus delicti was not established.

• Duty Detail Order as Permit and Source of Authority — Under the 1983 IRR of Presidential Decree No. 1866, private security agency guards were authorized to carry firearms on work premises if authorized by a DDO. Under the 2018 Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10591, the DDO serves as the authority of the personnel to carry his issued firearm within the specific duration and location of posting or assignment. Prior to its repeal by Republic Act No. 11917, Republic Act No. 5487 and its revised IRR required private security agencies to issue a DDO using PNP SAGSD Form No. 12-94. Private security professionals derive their authority to carry firearms not from their employer’s license but from the DDO itself. The issuance of a DDO presupposes the existence of a valid license over the firearm stated therein. However, a DDO alone is not enough: the private security professional must be licensed to exercise his profession and must possess the firearm within the premises and period specified in the DDO.

• Good Faith Reliance on Employer’s Representation — A security guard of a duly licensed security agency is entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license to possess the firearm and ammunition and to turn them over to him while on duty. Those dealing with the agency, either as clients or employees, are entitled to presume, absent indicia to the contrary, that it has complied with pertinent laws, rules, and regulations. The employee cannot be expected to demand from his employer proof of the veracity of the latter’s assertion before relying thereon. Where the accused had the proper authority, possession of the firearm under a belief in good faith that it is licensed is a valid defense. The failure to present the DDO at apprehension does not mean the professional had no authority; at most, it may result in administrative liability.

• Animus Possidendi in Illegal Possession — Animus possidendi, or intent to possess, is a state of mind determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused and surrounding circumstances. For a crime punished by a special law, intent to commit the crime is not necessary; it is sufficient that the offender intended to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The act prohibited is not mere possession of a firearm but possession of one unlawfully, i.e., without a license or permit sanctioned by law. Where the accused had a valid permit, he did not perpetrate the prohibited act, and there was no animus possidendi of an unlicensed firearm. The good faith defense is only unavailing where the accused had no license or authority to possess the firearm in the first place.

• Ammunition Included in Firearm License — Possession of ammunition is necessarily included in the license to possess the firearm. A person validly authorized to possess a firearm is likewise entitled to presume that he is authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to that firearm. Thus, Cosme’s possession of ammunition did not constitute a separate or additional ground for criminal liability once his possession of the firearm was lawful.

• “Licensed private security professionals of private security agencies are authorized to possess their service firearm in the performance of their duty by virtue of a Duty Detail Order (DDO) and, on such basis, are entitled to presume that their agency issued them a licensed firearm. Hence, even if it turns out that said firearm was unlicensed, criminal liability for illegal possession of firearm does not attach absent proof that the accused freely and voluntarily possessed it knowing it to be unlicensed. Where the accused security professional is licensed to exercise their profession and is equipped with a permit sanctioned by law, possession of the issued firearm under a belief in good faith that it is licensed is a valid defense in a case for illegal possession of firearm.” — This passage states the core ruling: a licensed private security professional acting under a DDO may rely in good faith on the employer’s representation that the firearm is licensed, and criminal liability requires proof of knowing possession of an unlicensed firearm.

• “The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearm is the lack of license or permit on the part of the accused to possess or carry the firearm since possession per se is not prohibited by law.” — This defines the corpus delicti and anchors the Court’s conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the offense.

• “The phrase “or permit” is vital because the possessor of the firearm may not necessarily be the licensee. The non-licensee is only expected to bear a permit sanctioned by law such as the DDO.” — This clarifies that a person need not be the licensee of the firearm; a permit such as the DDO can supply the authority to possess.

• “Since it was valid for Cosme to presume that his service firearm was covered by a license in favor of his employer, it follows that he was likewise entitled to presume that he was authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to said firearm. It cannot therefore be said that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” — This applies the good-faith presumption to the ammunition charge and states the ultimate basis for acquittal.

• Cuenca vs. People, 144 Phil. 457 (1970) — Controlling precedent. The Court En Banc held that a security guard of a duly licensed security agency was entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license to possess the firearm and ammunition and to turn them over to him while on duty. The employee could not be expected to demand proof of the employer’s assertion before relying on it. The ruling was restricted to duly licensed security agencies and regular security guards, and the owner, manager, or operator who failed to secure the license should be prosecuted. The Court found no reason not to apply Cuenca despite its promulgation under the old law on unlawful possession of firearms.

• People vs. De Gracia, 304 Phil. 118 (1994) — Cited for animus possidendi and good faith. The Court held that for illegal possession of firearm, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm and intended to possess it, even if possession was in good faith and without criminal intent. The Court clarified, however, that the good faith defense is only unavailing where the accused had no license or authority in the first place; where the accused had proper authority, possession under a belief in good faith that the firearm is licensed is a valid defense.

• Peralta vs. People, 817 Phil. 554 (2017) — Cited for the elements of the corpus delicti in illegal possession of firearm: the firearm exists, and the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry it.

• Section 28(a), Republic Act No. 10591 — Penalizes unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm with prision mayor in its medium period. Cosme was charged under this provision, but the Court held it was not violated because he had a permit sanctioned by law, the DDO, and was a licensed private security professional acting within its terms.

• Section 3(k), Republic Act No. 10591 — Defines a Duty Detail Order as a document issued by the juridical entity or employer detailing the disposition of the firearm, including the name of the employee, the firearm information, the specific duration and location of posting or assignment, and the authorized bonded firearm custodian. The Court used this definition to characterize Cosme’s DDO as the source of his authority to possess the firearm.

• Section 12, Republic Act No. 10591 — Cited to hold that possession of ammunition is necessarily included in the license to possess the firearm. Since Cosme was entitled to presume that the firearm was licensed in favor of his employer, he was likewise entitled to presume that he was authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to it.

• 1983 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1866, Section 6(h)(l) — Provided that guards of security agencies were not authorized to carry firearms except while on proper uniform and properly authorized by a duty detail issued by the Chief Security Officer concerned; carrying was limited from the premises of the office to the place of work and return. The Court cited this as historical authority for the DDO.

• 2018 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10591, Rule II, Section 7.9 — Provides that private security agencies detailing their security personnel on actual duty shall issue the appropriate DDO, which serves as the authority of the personnel to carry the issued firearm within the specific duration and location of posting or assignment. The Court relied on this to treat the DDO as a permit sanctioned by law.

• Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 5487 (2003), Rule VII, Section 4 — Commands private security agencies to issue to the private security professional concerned an appropriate DDO using PNP SAGSD Form No. 12-94. The Court noted that Cosme’s DDO substantially complied with the prescribed form.

• Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 5487 (2003), Rule XVII, Part 2, Section 3(b); Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11917 (2022), Section 342 — Classify failure to have a DDO in possession while on duty and use of inappropriate uniform as less grave offenses. The Court used these provisions to show that Cosme’s failure to present his DDO at apprehension could at most result in administrative liability, not criminal liability for illegal possession.

• Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 5487 (2003), Rule X(C)(a); Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11917 (2022), Section 236 — The Code of Conduct commands private security professionals to carry their LESP and DDO during their tour of duty. The Court cited this in explaining why Cosme’s failure to present the DDO was a regulatory violation but not proof of unlawful possession.

• Republic Act No. 11917 — The Private Security Services Industry Act, which repealed Republic Act No. 5487 in 2022. The Court noted that prior to its repeal, private security agencies and their private security professionals were governed by Republic Act No. 5487.

• Republic Act No. 5487 — The Private Security Agency Law, which governed private security agencies and their personnel prior to its repeal. The Court cited its revised IRR in determining the authority conferred by a DDO.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Zalameda, J.; and Marquez, J. Hernando, J., was on official business.