The Supreme Court (SC) First Division has ruled that a security guard cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if he reasonably presumed that the firearm issued to him by his agency was licensed.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC acquitted the security guard of violating Republic Act No. (RA) 10591, also known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

“Licensed private security professionals of private security agencies are authorized to possess their service firearms in the performance of their duties by virtue of a Duty Detail Order (DDO) and, on such basis, are entitled to presume that their agency issued them a licensed firearm,” the ruling stated.

FACTS AND ISSUE

While on duty at a gasoline station, the accused security guard was seen by police officers carrying a firearm while not wearing his uniform. When asked to present the firearm’s license, he failed to do so and was subsequently arrested.

Authorities later obtained certification stating that the guard was not a licensed firearm holder.

The security guard argued that he was a licensed security professional, as evidenced by his License to Exercise Security Profession issued by the Philippine National Police Civil Security Group Office. He also presented a DDO that confirmed his assignment at the gasoline station and authorized him to carry an agency-issued firearm.

He stated that his security agency had led him to believe the firearm assigned to him was licensed.

Despite this, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition under RA 10591. The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the conviction.

The main issue in the case was whether a security guard can be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if he presumes the firearm issued to him is licensed.

RULING

The SC reversed the lower court’s ruling and acquitted the security guard.

The Court held that security guards are entitled to rely on the standard language in their DDO, which states that the firearms issued to them are licensed. They are not required to demand proof of registration from their security agency.

“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 a firearm,” the SC ruled.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.