The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a security guard cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if he had reasonable belief that the firearm issued by his security agency was licensed.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division acquitted a security guard previously convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 10591, also known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The case stemmed from an incident on July 7, 2017, when a police officer on patrol noticed a security guard carrying a firearm while on duty at a gasoline station. The officer observed that the guard was not in his prescribed uniform and asked for the firearm’s license. When the guard failed to provide one, he was arrested. Authorities later confirmed that he was not a licensed firearm holder.

In his defense, the guard presented his License to Exercise Security Profession issued by the Philippine National Police Civil Security Group Office, as well as a Duty Detail Order (DDO) authorizing him to carry a firearm while stationed at the gasoline station. He argued that his security agency had assured him that the firearm assigned to him was licensed. He also explained that he was out of uniform that night because he had forgotten the key to his locker.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that the absence of a firearm license was enough to warrant conviction and that the DDO was not a valid defense.

However, the SC overturned the ruling, citing provisions in the law’s 1983 implementing rules and its 2018 revisions, which state that security guards may carry agency-issued firearms at their assigned posts as long as they have a valid DDO. The SC emphasized that the issuance of a DDO presumes the firearm listed is properly licensed.

The Court further clarified that security guards are entitled to rely on the standard wording in a DDO, which states that the firearm is licensed. They are not required to personally verify the firearm’s registration status with their agency.

“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,” the SC ruled.

Since there was no evidence proving that the security guard was aware that his firearm was unlicensed, and he had been properly authorized to carry it through a DDO, his conviction was overturned.