G.R. No. 120330 November 18, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Wenceslao Jayson, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Wenceslao Jayson was charged with illegal possession of firearm under P.D. No. 1866. The amended information alleged that on March 16, 1991, in Davao City, he willfully and unlawfully possessed a .38 caliber revolver (paltik) with four live ammunitions without the necessary license, and that the same firearm was used in killing Nelson Jordan on that date. The prosecution evidence showed that accused-appellant, a bouncer at the “Ihaw-Ihaw” nightclub, shot Nelson Jordan. He was arrested after eyewitnesses pointed to him as the gunman. Recovered from him was the .38 caliber revolver, four live bullets, and one empty shell. The firearm was covered by a memorandum receipt and mission order issued by Major Francisco Arquillano of the Davao Metropolitan District Command, authorizing him to carry the firearm for intelligence purposes from February 8 to May 8, 1991, but with restrictions prohibiting its carrying in places like nightclubs. Accused-appellant was initially charged with murder but, after plea-bargaining, pleaded guilty to homicide and was sentenced. He was separately tried and convicted for illegal possession of firearm, with the trial court sentencing him to 20 years. The Court of Appeals increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua and certified the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether accused-appellant is liable for illegal possession of firearm, considering his defense of good faith based on the mission order and memorandum receipt issued to him.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the warrantless arrest and search were valid as the arrest was made under Rule 113, §5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (when an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating the person to be arrested committed it), and the search was a valid incident of a lawful arrest under Rule 126, §12. On the main issue, the Court ruled that accused-appellant is liable for illegal possession. The mission order issued by Major Arquillano was invalid because Major Arquillano was not among the officers authorized by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866 to issue such orders to civilians, and accused-appellant, as a civilian not included in the government plantilla receiving regular compensation, was not qualified to be issued a mission order. His claim of good faith was rejected as the mission order itself contained restrictions prohibiting the carrying of firearms in nightclubs, and he was found in a nightclub area. The Court also addressed the effect of Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended P.D. No. 1866. It held that while penal laws have retroactive effect if favorable to the accused, R.A. No. 8294 could not be applied to reduce his penalty because its first paragraph (providing a lighter penalty) does not apply where another crime was committed (homicide), and its third paragraph (treating illegal possession as an aggravating circumstance) could not be applied as the homicide case was not before the Court. Thus, applying People v. Quijada, the Court found him guilty of aggravated illegal possession of firearm under P.D. No. 1866.