Cops still liable for bringing unlicensed guns

The Supreme Court has ruled that the policemen and other law enforcers are still liable if they are caught in possession of any kind of firearms not officially issued to them, even if these guns are licensed to other individuals.

Some police officers in Cebu City described the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso as a lesson because there are many policemen who believe that since they are law enforcers they can possess guns even without a license, or duly licensed but owned by other persons.

“Maayo unta og maleksyon kining ubang polis kay nagsalig ra man god na sila nga walay modakop nila.  Unya ra g’yod sila magmahay og madakpan,” one policeman said.

Many newly-hired policemen are forced to buy locally-made guns, mostly .45 cal. pistols, because the government cannot provide them with firearms.

In the case of Valeroso, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court that was sustained by the Court of Appeals because the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame issued a certification that the .38 cal. revolver that was seized from Valeroso is not licensed under his name, but to another person.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected the defense of Valeroso — a Manila-based policeman — that his possession of the firearm was legal because he was issued a memorandum receipt by the now-defunct Narcotics Command in 1996.

Some police officers here said “We could not blame if these newly-hired policemen will be forced to buy their guns because the government failed to provide them with service firearms which is also a part of uniform.”

Meanwhile, a retired police officer said, “Kun ang tanang polis pakalitan og himo’g on-the-spot inspection sa ila nga armas, daghan g’yod ang masakpan nga mogamit og walay lisensyang mga pusil.” —Rene U. Borromeo/BRP