EXPLAINER: Is a gun owner liable if someone else uses their weapon in a crime?

Warning: This story contains sensitive discussion on guns and shooting incidents.

The mother of one of the victims in the June 22 shooting at a school in Tacloban City has called for charges to be filed against the owners of the firearms used in the incident.

Authorities said one of the guns belonged to a police officer, while the other is registered to a security agency in Cebu City.

But can a gun owner be held liable if someone else uses their weapon to commit a crime?

Under Republic Act No. 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, qualified citizens can own firearms for self-defense, but ownership carries heavy legal obligations.

To qualify, applicants must be Filipino citizens, at least 21 years old, and has a legal source of income.

They must also have no record of crimes involving moral turpitude and no pending charges or convictions for offenses carrying a penalty of over two years in prison.

Applicants must also pass psychiatric and drug tests, undergo a gun safety seminar, submit a formal application, and clear a police background check before being issued a license.

Under Section 6, all firearms owned by the national government – including those of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), and other law enforcement agencies – must be registered with the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police (PNP-FEO).

A weapon is considered a “loose firearm” if it is unregistered, has an erased or altered serial number, is lost or stolen, or is illegally manufactured.

It is also classified as a loose firearm if a registered weapon is in the possession of anyone other than the licensed owner, or if its license has expired or been revoked.

If a loose firearm is used to commit a crime, it may be treated as an aggravating circumstance under Section 29, which could lead to a heavier penalty depending on the charges filed.

Furthermore, Section 39 states that a firearm license or permit may be revoked, cancelled, or suspended if the weapon is used in a crime. The same provision notes that a gun owner can be held liable if their firearm, ammunition, or parts are lost due to negligence.

There is also a separate liability for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm. Under Section 40 of the law, a licensed owner who fails to report the loss or theft of the weapon to authorities within 30 days of discovery faces a P10,000 fine.

Rules are stricter when it comes to firearms issued to members of the PNP.

According to the Revised PNP Operational Procedures released in 2021, police officers must always carry their issued firearms and other basic equipment while on duty.

Meanwhile, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Memorandum Circular No. 2018-001 allows PNP uniformed personnel to possess one short firearm for their exclusive use in performing their official duties.

This weapon will remain in their custody from the time it is issued until their separation from the service – such as retirement, resignation, dismissal, or death.

They are also required to return the issued short firearm for safekeeping if they leave the country for more than 30 days.

A retiring police officer must return their issued short firearm within 30 days before their retirement date to clear their accountability for the weapon.

But PNP Memorandum Circular No. 2022-117 states that any PNP personnel – who through their own fault or negligence loses control of their issued handgun or allows another person to use it – may face criminal charges for malversation of public property under the Revised Penal Code.

In addition, the officer could face administrative charges for grave misconduct, in accordance with existing rules of NAPOLCOM and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

There are also instances where parents can be held liable if a minor uses their firearm to commit a crime.

In the Supreme Court (SC) ruling for the case Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a minor used his father’s gun in a shooting that resulted in the victim’s death.

The SC ruled that parents are directly and primarily liable for paying civil damages under the law.

The High Court said there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the parents if they fail to ensure that dangerous weapons such as firearms are kept out of their children’s reach or use.

This is because under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the father – or in case of his death or incapacity, the mother – is liable for damages caused by their minor children who live with them.

Similarly, guardians may also be held liable for damages caused by minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their custody.

Meanwhile, the PNP has promised to file charges against the owners of the firearms used in the shooting incident.

“With all the pieces of evidence available, I expect a solid case that can stand in court. Let this serve as a warning to all registered gun owners on the responsibility – and accountability – that comes with the privilege of owning firearms,” said PNP chief Police General Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr.

NAPOLCOM also said it will conduct a motu proprio investigation to determine the possible administrative liability of the police officer who allegedly owns one of the firearms used in the incident.

“This intentional or negligent act of the policewoman in allowing her nephew to use her issued firearm led to the death of three teenagers, and the wounding of many others. She has a lot of explaining to do,” said NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rafael Calinisan. — JMA, GMA News