ERNESTO CUENCA Y CUEVAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal, by certiorari, taken by defendant Ernesto Cuenca y Cuevas, from a decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Manila, convicting him of the
crime of illegal possession of a firearm and seven rounds of ammunition and
sentencing him to imprisonment for one year and to pay the costs, as well as
directing the confiscation and forfeiture of said firearm and ammunition.

The facts, as found by the trial court, and adopted by the Court
of Appeals, are as follows:

“The accused was a special watchman and security guard of the Bataan Veterans Security Agency.  In that agency, they were more than forty
security guards.  It was the practice in
the agency that when the security guards reported for work, they were provided
with fire­arms and ammunition, which they would return after their tour of
duty.

“On January 3, 1963,
the accused was detailed at the Philippine Savings Bank as security guard.  He was wearing the uniform of the agency and
was armed with a pistol, Ithaca,
.45 cal., with Serial No. 1009738, which had a magazine containing seven rounds
of ammunition.  The firearm and the
ammunition were provided by the agency. 
The firearm was not always used by him alone, as at other times the same
firearm was used by the other security guards. 
On the date and at the place men­tioned, Pat. Paul Sabate,
who was stationed at Plaza Miranda as security officer of the stage show,
arrested the accused for illegal possession of the said firearm and
ammunition.  When asked to produce his
license to possess the firearm and ammunition, the accused told him that he was
a special watchman and security guard of the Bataan
Veterans Security Agency to which the fire­arm and ammunition belonged, and the
license to possess the same was in the office of the agency.  The accused told Pat. Sabate that the owner of the agency
was one Mr. Forbes, who had the license for the said firearm and ammunition.  According to Pat. Sabate, the agency was under the supervision of the Manila
Police Depart­ment.

“It appears that the agency has no license to pos­sess the
firearm and ammunition in question; hence, neither the accused nor the agency
is a licensed possessor of said firearm and ammunition.  The accused claimed that he was made to
believe in the agency that Mr. Forbes had license to possess them.”

The issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty of the
offense charged, considering that, at the time above-mentioned, he was a
regular security guard of the Bataan Veterans
Security Agency, which was duly licensed to operate as such security agency;
that, in the course of its regular operation, the same provides its security
guards, who are in the discharge of their duties as such, with the usual
firearms and ammunitions, which, at the end of their respective shifts, are
either kept in the proper locker or returned to the agency and then delivered
by the latter to the security guards assigned to the next shift; that the
firearm and ammunitions in ques­tion were found in appellant’s possession at
the time when, and at the place where, he was actually discharging his duties,
wearing the corresponding uniform, arm band and badge; that, upon being asked
by Patrolman Paul Sabate to produce the requisite
license, appellant stated that the same was in the possession of Jose Forbes,
the owner and operator of the Bataan Veterans
Security Agency, of which he (appellant) is, and has been, since April, 1961,
one of its approximately forty (40) security guards; and that, soon thereafter,
Jose Forbes confirmed, in the police station, the statements made by appellant,
but added that he (Forbes) was still in the process of getting the said
license.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted appellant
herein, despite his protests of good faith, upon the ground that the crime of
illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition is not ma­lum
in se, but malum prohibitum,
and that it, accordingly, requires neither malice nor evil
purpose or intent.  It should be
noted, how­ever, that the Bataan Veterans Security
Agency is duly licensed to operate as such. 
Consequently, it may legally engage the services of competent persons to
discharge the duties of special watchmen and security guards, and provide them,
as such, with the corres­ponding firearms and ammunitions.  The agency is thus supposed to obtain the
license necessary therefor.  Had it done so, there would be no question
about the absence of any criminal liability on the part of appellant herein for
the possession of the firearm and ammuni­tion in question, even though the
license were not in his name, but in that of the agency or its owner and
operator, Jose Forbes. Hence, the query boils down to whether or not appellant
is guilty of the crime charged owing to the failure of Jose Forbes
to comply with his duty to obtain such license, before he got said
firearm and ammunition and delivered the same to his aforementioned employee.

Upon mature deliberation, the Court feels and so holds that the
answer must be in the negative.  The
reason is that appellant was entitled to assume that his employer had the
requisite license to possess said firearm and ammunition and to turn them over
to him while he was on duty as one of the regular security guards of the Bataan Veterans Security Agency, the same being a duly
licensed security agency.  As such, those
dealing with it, either as clients or as employees thereof, are entitled to
presume, in the absence of indicia to the contrary – and there were none in the
present case – that it has complied with pertinent laws, rules and
regulations.  What is more, Jose Forbes
had told appellant that the firearm and ammunition in question were duly
licensed, and, as an employee of the agency, appellant could not be expected to
demand from his employer proof of the veracity of the latter’s assertion before
relying thereon.

We are not unmindful of the danger posed by the possibility or
probability of abuse or misuse of the license of security agencies to operate
as such.  The danger arises, however,
when said license is granted improvidently, without taking the necessary
precautions therefor – prior to and subsequently to
the issuance of said license – in terms of adequate measures to see to it, inter
alia, that the agency is a trustworthy and
responsible one; that it is properly managed by persons possessed of the moral
character necessary therefor; that only those having
the requisite qualifications are engaged as security guards; that suitable
rules are adopted and enforced governing their discipline, and the assignment,
care and custody of firearms and ammunitions, as well as the keeping of
registers and the entry therein of annotations or memoranda setting forth, at
all times, the location and/or disposition of each one of the aforementioned
firearms and ammunitions; and that the operation of the agency is effectively
supervised by the Government.

Needless to say, this decision must be deemed restricted in its
application to duly licensed security agencies and to regular security guards
thereof.  Moreover, the owner, manager
and/or operator of the security agency, who failed to secure the requisite
license – in the case at bar, Jose Forbes, as the owner and operator of the Bataan Veterans Security Agency – should be prosecuted for
illegal possession of firearms and/or such other crime as may have been
committed in consequence of the breach of the laws and regula­tions above
referred to.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed
and herein appellant, Ernesto Cuenca y Cuevas,
accordingly, acquitted, with costs de oficio.  Let a copy of this decision be served upon
the City Fiscal of Manila for appropriate action in accordance with the
preceding paragraph, with due advise to this Court of the action taken hereon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, and Teehankee,
JJ., concur.

Barredo and
Villamor, JJ., no part.