Raising Awareness and Holding Accountability: When Can a Gun Owner be Criminally Held Liable for a School Active Shooting?
Atty. Manuel Alexander O. Soriano
Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario.
SEPTEMBER 2026
In Grade 10, Class Matalino of Marangal High School, the morning began like countless mornings before it: bright with promise, alive with laughter, and quietly carrying the
dreams of young hearts. To some, it was simply another day of lessons, friendships, and playful moments; to others, it was another page in the story of a childhood they
believed would go on forever. They came to school with the simple certainty that tomorrow would arrive just as yesterday had; that there would be more mornings to share,
more laughter to hear, more dreams to chase, and more memories yet to be made.
Like any other Grade 10 student, Nigel “Nignig” Dela Cruz began the day worrying about the little things that filled a young life: unfinished assignments, noisy classrooms, laughter with friends, their hobbies, their snacks, and perhaps the ache of puppy love. The classroom was alive with the familiar sounds of childhood: chairs scraping against the floor, pages turning, pencils tapping against desks, and laughter rising and falling in the warm morning air. Nothing seemed out of place. Nothing suggested that this ordinary day would become the day he would remember for the rest of his life.
Then came the smallest things, a pen rolling across a desk, a coin slipping from someone’s hand, a notebook left open, a crumpled piece of paper tossed aside. And then— BANG!
The horror tore through the classroom. For one breathless second, everything seemed to stop. The once-humid, loud, cheerful classroom was swallowed by a cold silence so sudden it felt unnatural. Shock gave way to confusion, confusion to disbelief, and disbelief to horror. Their mathematics teacher dropped with a bullet to the head!
Panic erupted. The laughter that had filled the room only moments before was swallowed by confusion and fear. Hearts pounded. Voices collided. The once-familiar classroom suddenly felt like a place no one recognized.
Chairs scraped violently against the floor. Desks were shoved aside. Someone screamed. Others pushed desperately toward the door, while some froze where they stood, their bodies refusing to obey their minds. The air, moments earlier filled with laughter and chatter, now seemed thick with terror. Yet, amid the chaos, only Nignig moved.
Before his mind could understand, think or plan, his body hesitantly acted on its own. Heart pounding, breath trembling, Nignig ran toward the shooter.
It was Marcus “Makmak” San Lugio, another Grade 10 student from Class Mahusay. For a fleeting moment, Nignig saw the confused eyes of Makmak. Then they clashed. Another shot rang out.
Nignig staggered, and perhaps due to shock, immediately collapsed to the floor.
Makmak fled the classroom and disappeared into the chaos, leaving behind a scene no student could have imagined when the morning began. The school was thrown into turmoil as authorities rushed to respond, and Makmak became the subject of an immediate police search.
As the police began their investigation, they established that the firearm used in the incident was a Glock 17 pistol. Further inquiry revealed that the weapon belonged to and was registered under Makmak’s father, Manuel “Oma” San Lugio. He stated that he is a businessman and he admitted that he did not notice that his firearm was missing or that Makmak has taken the same.
Nignig, meanwhile, survived the shooting and was brought to safety, where he received immediate medical attention.
Shortly thereafter, bystanders, news reporters, and worried families began gathering outside the school. Within the first hour, news of the incident had rapidly spread online, prompting countless netizens to offer their own theories about the motive and circumstances behind the shooting. Some attributed it to violent video games, adult online forums, the school system and its faculty, or even the students themselves. Others focused their anger directly on Makmak, reducing the incident to judgments about his character.
Amid the flood of speculation, however, one immediate and significant fact risks being overlooked: Makmak was able to obtain the firearm without his father, Oma, noticing that it was missing. Viewed from this perspective, the question is not simply whether Oma should be blamed for how he raised his son. That may be a subject for broader discussion, but it does not answer the more immediate and concrete question: How was Makmak able to access his father’s firearm without raising any alarm?
Did Makmak already know where the firearm was kept? Was it stored within his immediate reach? Could he simply take it without encountering any obstacle or attracting suspicion? Was the firearm kept in a place where its absence would not immediately be noticed? And, perhaps most importantly, why did Oma not realize that his firearm was missing before it was used?
Should the families of the mathematics teacher and/or Nignig initiate any criminal case, does Oma have any criminal liability for the actions of Makmak?
At the outset, it must be emphasized that under our laws, “criminal liability is personal and circumscribed to acts or omissions of the person of the offender, not of other persons,” as held in the case People of the Philippines vs Edgar Go (G.R. No. 210816, 10 December 2018). Hence, under this principle, Oma cannot be held liable for acts or omissions of Makmak. He may only be charged for his own act, omission or negligence.
Another problem then surfaces, under the Revised Penal Code, a person may generally be charged for his acts or omissions with criminal intent. In this case, it is evident that Oma does not have any criminal intent to commit any crime. Nevertheless, one may argue that while Oma did not have any criminal intent to commit any crime, his negligence in handling and storing his firearms led to heinous school shooting. Hence, it may be argued that Oma committed Reckless Imprudence.
In the case of Jason Ivler vs Hon. Maria Modesto-San Pedro (G.R. No. 172176, 17 November 2010), the Supreme Court held,
Like any other Grade 10 student, Nigel “Nignig” Dela Cruz began the day worrying about the little things that filled a young life: unfinished assignments, noisy classrooms, laughter with friends, their hobbies, their snacks, and perhaps the ache of puppy love. The classroom was alive with the familiar sounds of childhood: chairs scraping against the floor, pages turning, pencils tapping against desks, and laughter rising and falling in the warm morning air. Nothing seemed out of place. Nothing suggested that this ordinary day would become the day he would remember for the rest of his life.
Then came the smallest things, a pen rolling across a desk, a coin slipping from someone’s hand, a notebook left open, a crumpled piece of paper tossed aside. And then— BANG!
The horror tore through the classroom. For one breathless second, everything seemed to stop. The once-humid, loud, cheerful classroom was swallowed by a cold silence so sudden it felt unnatural. Shock gave way to confusion, confusion to disbelief, and disbelief to horror. Their mathematics teacher dropped with a bullet to the head!
Panic erupted. The laughter that had filled the room only moments before was swallowed by confusion and fear. Hearts pounded. Voices collided. The once-familiar classroom suddenly felt like a place no one recognized.
Chairs scraped violently against the floor. Desks were shoved aside. Someone screamed. Others pushed desperately toward the door, while some froze where they stood, their bodies refusing to obey their minds. The air, moments earlier filled with laughter and chatter, now seemed thick with terror. Yet, amid the chaos, only Nignig moved.
Before his mind could understand, think or plan, his body hesitantly acted on its own. Heart pounding, breath trembling, Nignig ran toward the shooter.
It was Marcus “Makmak” San Lugio, another Grade 10 student from Class Mahusay. For a fleeting moment, Nignig saw the confused eyes of Makmak. Then they clashed. Another shot rang out.
Nignig staggered, and perhaps due to shock, immediately collapsed to the floor.
Makmak fled the classroom and disappeared into the chaos, leaving behind a scene no student could have imagined when the morning began. The school was thrown into turmoil as authorities rushed to respond, and Makmak became the subject of an immediate police search.
As the police began their investigation, they established that the firearm used in the incident was a Glock 17 pistol. Further inquiry revealed that the weapon belonged to and was registered under Makmak’s father, Manuel “Oma” San Lugio. He stated that he is a businessman and he admitted that he did not notice that his firearm was missing or that Makmak has taken the same.
Nignig, meanwhile, survived the shooting and was brought to safety, where he received immediate medical attention.
Shortly thereafter, bystanders, news reporters, and worried families began gathering outside the school. Within the first hour, news of the incident had rapidly spread online, prompting countless netizens to offer their own theories about the motive and circumstances behind the shooting. Some attributed it to violent video games, adult online forums, the school system and its faculty, or even the students themselves. Others focused their anger directly on Makmak, reducing the incident to judgments about his character.
Amid the flood of speculation, however, one immediate and significant fact risks being overlooked: Makmak was able to obtain the firearm without his father, Oma, noticing that it was missing. Viewed from this perspective, the question is not simply whether Oma should be blamed for how he raised his son. That may be a subject for broader discussion, but it does not answer the more immediate and concrete question: How was Makmak able to access his father’s firearm without raising any alarm?
Did Makmak already know where the firearm was kept? Was it stored within his immediate reach? Could he simply take it without encountering any obstacle or attracting suspicion? Was the firearm kept in a place where its absence would not immediately be noticed? And, perhaps most importantly, why did Oma not realize that his firearm was missing before it was used?
Should the families of the mathematics teacher and/or Nignig initiate any criminal case, does Oma have any criminal liability for the actions of Makmak?
At the outset, it must be emphasized that under our laws, “criminal liability is personal and circumscribed to acts or omissions of the person of the offender, not of other persons,” as held in the case People of the Philippines vs Edgar Go (G.R. No. 210816, 10 December 2018). Hence, under this principle, Oma cannot be held liable for acts or omissions of Makmak. He may only be charged for his own act, omission or negligence.
Another problem then surfaces, under the Revised Penal Code, a person may generally be charged for his acts or omissions with criminal intent. In this case, it is evident that Oma does not have any criminal intent to commit any crime. Nevertheless, one may argue that while Oma did not have any criminal intent to commit any crime, his negligence in handling and storing his firearms led to heinous school shooting. Hence, it may be argued that Oma committed Reckless Imprudence.
In the case of Jason Ivler vs Hon. Maria Modesto-San Pedro (G.R. No. 172176, 17 November 2010), the Supreme Court held,
“Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)”
Nevertheless, to be liable for reckless imprudence, the negligent act must be the proximate cause of the resulting death and injury. In the case of People of the Philippines vs Mario Laplap (G.R. No. 250895, 16 June 2021), the Supreme Court held that,
“Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
x x x
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Further, as discussed in the Edgar Go case, the elements of Reckless Imprudence are as follow:
(1)
that the offender does or fails to do an act;
(2)
that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3)
that it be without malice;
(4)
that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
(5)
that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In this case, however, even assuming, arguendo, that Oma was negligent in storing the firearm, it was Makmak’s deliberate act of firing the
weapon that directly caused the injuries sustained by the mathematics teacher and Nignig. Thus, the alleged negligent storage of the firearm
cannot, by itself, be deemed the proximate cause of the resulting injuries. In the absence of a sufficient causal connection between Oma’s
alleged negligence and the injuries, there is no basis to hold Oma criminally liable for reckless imprudence.
Finally, even under Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regularization Act,” Oma does not have any liability. Under the law, the following are considered criminal offenses:
Finally, even under Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regularization Act,” Oma does not have any liability. Under the law, the following are considered criminal offenses:
1.
Unlawful Acquisition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition under Section 28;
2.
Use of Loose Firearm under Section 29;
3.
Absence of Permit to Carry Outside of Residence under Section 31;
4.
Unlawful Manufacture, Importation, sale or Disposition of Firearms or Ammunition under Section 32;
5.
Arms Smuggling under Section 33;
6.
Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification under Section 34;
7.
Use of an Imitation Firearm under Section 35; and
8.
Illegal Transfer or Registration of Firearms under Section 41.
As can be seen, the negligent storage of a firearm is not, by itself, penalized as an offense under the above-mentioned law. The closest applicable provision concerns the illegal transfer of firearms.
“Section 41. Illegal Transfer/Registration of Firearms. – It shall be unlawful to transfer possession of any firearm to any person who has not yet obtained or secured the necessary license or permit thereof.
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall violate the provision of the preceding paragraph. In addition, he/she shall be disqualified to apply for a license to possess other firearms and all his/her existing firearms licenses whether for purposes of commerce or possession, shall be revoked. If government-issued firearms, ammunition or major parts of firearms or light weapons are unlawfully disposed, sold or transferred by any law enforcement agent or public officer to private individuals, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
Any public officer or employee or any person who shall facilitate the registration of a firearm through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or submission of falsified documents shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall violate the provision of the preceding paragraph. In addition, he/she shall be disqualified to apply for a license to possess other firearms and all his/her existing firearms licenses whether for purposes of commerce or possession, shall be revoked. If government-issued firearms, ammunition or major parts of firearms or light weapons are unlawfully disposed, sold or transferred by any law enforcement agent or public officer to private individuals, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
Any public officer or employee or any person who shall facilitate the registration of a firearm through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or submission of falsified documents shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
However, the provision expressly contemplates an actual transfer of possession of the firearm. Thus,
there must be an affirmative act of transferring or surrendering possession of the firearm. Mere negligent
storage, which merely enabled another person to furtively obtain the firearm without the owner’s knowledge or consent, does not constitute such transfer.
Hence, under the existing legal framework, Oma cannot be held criminally liable solely for the negligent storage of his firearm absent a specific statutory provision penalizing such conduct or other sufficient legal grounds for criminal liability. This apparent gap in the law, however, raises a pressing question of public safety: should firearm ownership entail no criminal consequence when a failure to exercise reasonable care in securing a firearm enables another person to obtain and use it to inflict harm?
The circumstances surrounding this tragedy underscore the need to revisit the adequacy of our existing laws governing firearm ownership, possession, and storage. While the right to own and possess a firearm carries with it the responsibility to prevent unauthorized access, that responsibility must be translated into clear, enforceable, and proportionate legal obligations. Legislators should therefore consider enacting or strengthening measures that prescribe minimum standards for the safe storage of firearms, particularly in households where children or other unauthorized persons may gain access to them. Such measures may include appropriate storage devices, reasonable precautions against unauthorized access, and clearly defined consequences for violations, subject to the circumstances and degree of negligence involved.
Criminal liability, however, must remain grounded in law. The absence of an express statutory prohibition cannot simply be remedied by stretching the language of existing penal provisions beyond their intended scope. Rather, the proper course is legislative action that clearly defines the prohibited conduct, establishes the requisite degree of fault, and prescribes corresponding penalties consistent with the principles of legality and fairness. In this way, the law can uphold the rights of responsible firearm owners while addressing the preventable dangers posed by unsecured firearms.
Ultimately, this tragedy should prompt more than a search for someone to blame after the damage has been done. It should compel a serious examination of whether our laws sufficiently protect the public from the foreseeable risks of irresponsible firearm storage. A firearm owner’s responsibility should not begin only when a weapon is used, but should extend to the reasonable precautions necessary to prevent its unauthorized acquisition and misuse. Without meaningful safeguards and a legal framework that promotes accountability, similar tragedies may recur, leaving innocent and defenseless members of our communities to bear the consequences of risks that could have been prevented.
Hence, under the existing legal framework, Oma cannot be held criminally liable solely for the negligent storage of his firearm absent a specific statutory provision penalizing such conduct or other sufficient legal grounds for criminal liability. This apparent gap in the law, however, raises a pressing question of public safety: should firearm ownership entail no criminal consequence when a failure to exercise reasonable care in securing a firearm enables another person to obtain and use it to inflict harm?
The circumstances surrounding this tragedy underscore the need to revisit the adequacy of our existing laws governing firearm ownership, possession, and storage. While the right to own and possess a firearm carries with it the responsibility to prevent unauthorized access, that responsibility must be translated into clear, enforceable, and proportionate legal obligations. Legislators should therefore consider enacting or strengthening measures that prescribe minimum standards for the safe storage of firearms, particularly in households where children or other unauthorized persons may gain access to them. Such measures may include appropriate storage devices, reasonable precautions against unauthorized access, and clearly defined consequences for violations, subject to the circumstances and degree of negligence involved.
Criminal liability, however, must remain grounded in law. The absence of an express statutory prohibition cannot simply be remedied by stretching the language of existing penal provisions beyond their intended scope. Rather, the proper course is legislative action that clearly defines the prohibited conduct, establishes the requisite degree of fault, and prescribes corresponding penalties consistent with the principles of legality and fairness. In this way, the law can uphold the rights of responsible firearm owners while addressing the preventable dangers posed by unsecured firearms.
Ultimately, this tragedy should prompt more than a search for someone to blame after the damage has been done. It should compel a serious examination of whether our laws sufficiently protect the public from the foreseeable risks of irresponsible firearm storage. A firearm owner’s responsibility should not begin only when a weapon is used, but should extend to the reasonable precautions necessary to prevent its unauthorized acquisition and misuse. Without meaningful safeguards and a legal framework that promotes accountability, similar tragedies may recur, leaving innocent and defenseless members of our communities to bear the consequences of risks that could have been prevented.
*The views and opinions expressed are based on applicable laws, constitutional provisions, and/or jurisprudence in force at the time of writing, and do not constitute legal advice or an official stance on any political matter. Subsequent legal or factual developments may affect the relevance or applicability of the views and opinions herein expressed.