SC: Security Guard Not Liable for Illegal Possession if Issued Firearm is Presumed Licensed

March 25, 2025

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

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division acquitted a security guard charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. (RA) 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

On July 7, 2017, at around midnight, the security guard was on duty at a gasoline station when a police officer on patrol saw him carrying a firearm issued by his security agency. The police officer noticed that the guard was not wearing his prescribed uniform and asked for the firearm’s license. When the guard failed to present one, he was arrested.

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

In his defense, the guard claimed he was a licensed security guard, as evidenced by his License to Exercise Security Profession issued by the Philippine National Police Civil Security Group Office. He also has a Duty Detail Order (DDO) stating his assignment at the gasoline station, authorizing him to carry an agency-issued firearm. He stated that his security agency led him to believe the gun assigned to him was licensed. He also explained he was not wearing the prescribed uniform that night because he forgot the key to his locker.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled that simply proving the guard had no license was enough for conviction and that the DDO was not a valid defense.

The SC reversed the conviction, ruling that under the law’s 1983 implementing rules, private security agency guards can carry firearms on work premises so long as authorized by a DDO. The 2018 revised rules confirm that the DDO serves as the authority for security personnel to carry their issued firearm within the assigned location and period. The issuance of a DDO assumes the presence of a valid license for the firearms listed in the order.

The SC clarified that guards are entitled to rely on the standard language in the DDO that the issued firearms are licensed. They do not need to demand from the security agency proof that the firearms are indeed registered.

“Where the accused security professional is licensed to exercise their profession and is equipped with a permit sanctioned by law [such as a DDO], 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.”

Since there was no proof that the security guard knew his issued firearm was unlicensed, and he was properly authorized through a DDO, his conviction was overturned. (Press release courtesy of SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 261113 (Hilario Cosme v. People of the Philippines, August 14, 2024) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261113-hilario-cosme-y-terenal-vs-people-of-the-philippines/