Good Faith Defense for Security Guards in Illegal Firearm Possession Cases

The Supreme Court has ruled that a licensed security guard who possesses a company-issued firearm in good faith, relying on a Duty Detail Order (DDO) from his security agency, cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of firearms—even if the firearm turns out to be unlicensed. The ruling in Cosme v. People (G.R. No. 261113, November 4, 2024) provides important protection for security professionals who act on the assurance of their employers.

The Facts of the Case

Hilario Cosme was a security guard assigned to a gasoline station in Pasay City. At around midnight on July 7, 2017, a police officer saw him carrying a shotgun while on duty. Cosme identified himself as the station's security guard but was not wearing his prescribed uniform and could not immediately present his authority to carry the firearm. He was arrested and charged with violation of Section 28(a) of Republic Act No. 10591 (the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).

During trial, Cosme presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP), his timecard, and a DDO issued by his employer, G-Air Security Agency. The DDO assigned him to the gasoline station from July 1 to 31, 2017, and stated that the issued firearms were licensed. His sister testified that the agency had assured its guards that their firearms were licensed, and that the agency later abandoned Cosme after his arrest.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Cosme, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts held that the prosecution proved he possessed a firearm without a license. The Supreme Court reversed, acquitting Cosme.

The Issue: What Must the Prosecution Prove?

The Court explained that the corpus delicti (the body of the crime) in illegal possession of firearms is the lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm—not mere possession, which is not prohibited by law. The prosecution must prove two things: (1) the firearm exists, and (2) the accused who possessed it had no corresponding license or permit.

Crucially, the phrase "or permit" is significant. The possessor of a firearm need not be the licensee. A security guard derives authority to carry a firearm not from an employer's license but from the DDO itself, which serves as the permit sanctioned by law.

The Good Faith Defense

The Court applied the old but still relevant ruling in Cuenca v. People (144 Phil. 457 [1970]). In that case, a security guard was acquitted because he was entitled to presume that his duly licensed agency had secured the necessary firearm license. Employees cannot be expected to demand proof from their employer before relying on such assurances.

Applying this principle, the Court held that Cosme was entitled to rely on the DDO's statement that the issued firearms were licensed. He was a licensed security professional, acting within the place and time specified in his DDO, and there was no proof he knew the firearm was unlicensed.

The Court also rejected the argument that Cosme's good faith was irrelevant because illegal possession is a malum prohibitum (prohibited act) crime. While intent to commit the act is not required under special laws, the prohibited act here is not mere possession—it is possession of an unlicensed firearm. Since Cosme had a valid permit (the DDO), he was not perpetrating the prohibited act.

Practical Takeaways

• DDOs are critical documents. A Duty Detail Order is the security guard's authority to carry a firearm. It must specify the firearm's details, the guard's name, and the duration and location of the assignment.
• Good faith can be a defense. A security guard who reasonably relies on an employer's assurance that a firearm is licensed may be acquitted, even if the firearm turns out to be unlicensed.
• Employers bear responsibility. Security agencies are tasked with securing licenses for firearms they issue. They—not their guards—are liable for failing to do so.
• Administrative vs. criminal liability. A guard who fails to carry a DDO while on duty may face administrative sanctions, but this does not automatically make him criminally liable for illegal possession.
• The prosecution's burden remains high. To convict, the prosecution must prove not just possession, but that the accused possessed the firearm knowing it to be unlicensed.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.