Facts
It was past midnight on July 7, 2017, when a police officer on patrol saw Cosme at the Soleum Gasoline Station carrying a shotgun on his shoulder. Questioned on his possession thereof, Cosme claimed to be the security guard of the gasoline station but was not wearing the prescribed uniform and was unable to present his authority to possess the said firearm. Thereafter, he was arrested and frisked by a police officer who found two pieces of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition, which were confiscated along with the firearm. After the inquest proceedings, a case was filed against Cosme. During the trial, the prosecution presented a Certification from the PNP-FEO, which states that Cosme is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of caliber or authorized to possess any kind of ammunition per verification.
In his defense, Cosme testified that he is a security guard from G-Air Security Agency, detailed at the Soleum Gasoline Station. He claimed that he had been victimized by his agency because he was made to believe that the shotgun was licensed. To corroborate his testimony, he presented his License to Exercise Security Profession (LESP) issued by the PNP Civil Security Group Office, his timecard, as well as his Duty Detail Order No. 2017.
The RTC found Cosme guilty of violation of Section 28(a) of RA 10591, which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: May Cosme be held guilty of illegal possession of firearm to prove the existence of a valid license in favor of the security agency over the weapon it issued?
Ruling
NO.
As a rule, when the crime is punished by a special law, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender intended to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. The act prohibited by the law is not the mere possession of a firearm, but the possession of one unlawfully, i.e., without a license or a permit sanctioned by law. Since Cosme has a valid permit sanctioned under Republic Act No. 10591 and its IRR, it could not be said that he was perpetrating the act prohibited by law. Moreover, while there was physical possession of the firearm, there was no animus possidendi (intent to possess) of an unlicensed firearm.
Though the evidence does not show whether G-Air Security Agency held a license for the subject firearm, it is clear that Cosme was a duly licensed PSP, that a DO was issued to him, that he possessed his service firearm at the place and during the time period specified in the DDO, and that there was no proof that he possessed the same knowing it to be unlicensed. It must be added that his possession of the ammunition is necessarily included in the license to possess a firearm. Since it was valid for Cosme to presume that his service firearm was covered by a license in favor of his employer, it follows that he was likewise entitled to presume that he was authorized to carry ammunition appropriate to said firearm. It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.