Title II-People vs. Mengote

People vs.
Rogelio Mengote
22 June 1992
Cruz, J.,:
Facts:
1. A stolen pistol was found in possession of Rogelio Mengote at the moment of his warrantless arrest
and was convicted of illegal possession of firearms.
2. He pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally
seized and was therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree.
3. The government insists that the revolver was validly received in evidence by the trial judge because
its seizure was incidental to a lawful arrest even if admittedly without warrant.
4. The incident occurred when an informer called the police and informed them that there were three-
suspicious-looking persons in Tondo, Manila.A surveillance team was dispatched to the place.
5. At the trial, patrolmen said that they saw 2 men looking from side to side one of whom was holding
his abdomen. When they were approached and the patrolmen identified themselves as policemen,
the 2 run away but were unable to escape. The suspects were then searched.
6. One of the suspects was Mengote. In his possession is a revolver with 6 live bullets.
7. Rigoberto Danganan, a prosecution witnesses identified the subject weapon as among the articles
stolen from him during the robbery in his house in Malabon. He pointed out that Mengote was one
of the robbers.
8. Petitioners contention: The revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal
seizure. No warrant was previously obtained neither could it have been seized as an incident of a
lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful, having been also effected without a
warrant. The defense also contends that the testimony regarding the alleged robbery in Danganan's
house was irrelevant and should also have been disregarded by the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is lawful.
Ruling:
No. Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace officer or private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person; (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) 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; and (c) When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.In cases failing under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question,
the accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the
arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long as
Mengote's acts "created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the
belief that an offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it." The question
is, What offense? What offense could possibly have been suggested by a person "looking from side to side"
and "holding his abdomen" and in a place not exactly forsaken?
Mengote was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street shortly after alighting from a
passenger jeep with his companion. He was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of day.
There was nothing clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaze of the noonday
sun.
The policemen admitted that they were dispatched in that place after a receiving a telephone call
from the informer that there were "suspicious-looking" persons in that vicinity who were about to commit a
robbery without the caller explaining why he thought the men looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on the
impending crime.There was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's darting
eyes and his hand on his abdomen.
The police officers did not know then what offense, if at all, had been committed and neither were
they aware of the participation therein of the accused-appellant. It was only later, after Danganan had
appeared at the Police headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of Mengote's
supposed involvement therein.
The testimonial evidence against Mengote (which is based on the said firearm) is not sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed to him.
Fallo:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant is
ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is validly detained for other offenses. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Title II-People vs. Mengote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title II-People vs. Mengote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title II-People vs. Mengote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is lawful.

You might also like