26/03/2025
https://www.facebook.com/share/15SoD4PCRm/
The (SC) has ruled that security guards cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if they reasonably believe that the firearm issued by their agency is licensed.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SCโs First Division acquitted a security guard charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. (RA) 10591 or the ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต.
The case stemmed from the arrest of a security guard by a police officer who 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 firearmโs license. When the guard failed to present one, he was arrested.
While both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the accused guilty of unlawful possession of fi****ms and ammunition, the SC reversed the conviction.
It ruled that under the 1983 ๐๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ถ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด (๐๐๐) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐ฐ. 1866, private security agency guards can carry fi****ms on work premises so long as authorized by a Duty Detail Order (DDO). The 2018 ๐๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 10591 confirms 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 fi****ms listed in the order.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/mpse8pzk.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/y4aym6e2.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.