G.R. No. 120330 November 18, 1997 Mendoza, J.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WENCESLAO JAYSON

NATURE: Automatic review of CA's sentence of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Rule 124, 13

FACTS:
In March 1991, Wenceslao Jayson was a bouncer at the Ihaw-Ihaw nightclub in Davao City. He was
arrested without a warrant after being pointed by eyewitnesses as the gunman in the killing of Nelson
Jordan. Recovered from him was a .38 caliber revolver with 4 live bullets and an empty shell.
The gun and ammo were covered by a memorandum receipt and mission order issued by Major
Arquillano, Deputy Commander of the Civil-Military Operation and CAFGU Affairs of Davao
Metropolitan District Command. Said order authorized the Jayson to carry the gun and 12 rounds of
ammo for 3 months following certain restrictions:
o Carrying of firearms is prohibited in places where people gather for political, religious, social, educational, and
recreational purposes, such as churches or chapels, carnival grounds or fairs, nightclubs, cabarets (...) except when
the personnel concerned is on official mission in such places for which he was authorized to carry firearms.
With respect to the arrest, SPO1 Tenebro testified that while he and Patrolmen Camotes and Racolas
were patrolling in their car, they received a radio message directing them to Ihaw-Ihaw where there had
been a shooting. They proceeded to the place and saw the victim. Bystanders pointed to Jayson as the
gunman. He was apprehended about 10 meters away, attempting to flee.
He was initially charged with murder but was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide
after plea-bargaining. He was sentenced to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of
reclusion temporal).
He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of firearm (violation of PD 1866). Finding him in
good faith (believing that the mission order and memorandum receipt issued to him were valid), RTC
sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment. CA increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
SC: Although not raised as an error by the accused-appellant, it is pertinent to consider the
circumstances surrounding accused-appellants arrest and the seizure from him of the firearm in
question considering that both were made without any warrant from a court.

W/N the warrantless arrest, search, and seizure were valid !YES, YES, YES
Rule 113, 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an warrantless arrest shall be
lawful when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it. In the case at bar there was a shooting. The policemen summoned
to the scene of the crime found the victim. Jayson was pointed to them as the assailant only moments after
the shooting. In fact Jayson had not gone very far. The arresting officers thus acted on the basis of personal
knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts indicating that Jayson was the assailant. The search and
seizure were hence incident to a lawful arrest as allowed under Rule 126, 12.

W/N Jayson is liable for illegal possession of firearm ! YES
Major Arquillano was not authorized to issue mission orders to civilian agents of the AFP as he was not
any of the officers enumerated in the IRR of PD 1866. Neither was Jayson qualified to be issued a mission
order because he was a mere reserve of the CAFGU without regular monthly compensation. He also violated
the restrictions in the mission order by carrying the firearm inside the nightclub. While the defense argues that
the prosecution failed to present the police officer who certified that Jayson is not licensed to own a firearm, the
objection must be deemed waived in view of Jayson's failure to object to the presentation of the certificate.

W/N RA 8294 amending PD 1866 can be applied on the theory that it is more favorable to Jayson ! NO
While the new law reduces the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, it cannot be applied because
the statute provides that the lighter penalty does not apply to cases where another crime has been committed.
Neither can the paragraph treating the use of the subject firearm in the commission of murder or homicide to
be considered as an aggravating circumstance be applied because this case concerns solely the charge of
illegal possession of firearm.

Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama