PEOPLE V. MENGOTE G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992
FACTS:
l Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila.
l A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place.
l Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan narrated that they saw two men "looking from side to side," one of whom was holding his abdomen. They approached these persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them.
l The suspects were then searched. One of them, who turned out to be the accused-appellant, was found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with six live bullets in the chamber.
l His companion, later identified as Nicanor Morellos, had a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket. The weapons were taken from them.
l Mengote and Morellos were then turned over to police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.
l One other witness presented by the prosecution was Rigoberto Danganan, who identified the subject weapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery in his house in Malabon on June 13, 1987. He pointed to Mengote as one of the robbers.
l He had duly reported the robbery to the police, indicating the articles stolen from him, including the revolver.
l Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the firearm or that he was licensed to possess it and claimed instead that the weapon had been "Planted" on him at the time of his arrest.
l It is submitted in the Appellant's Brief that the revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure. no warrant therefor having been 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.
l 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:
WON the arrest was lawful
HELD:
NO. The Supreme court held that par(a) section 5 Rule 113 of rules of court requires that a person be arrested after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused was merely “looking from side to side” and “holding his abdomen”. There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
The Court takes note that there was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence.
This case is similar to People v. Aminnudin, where the Court held that the warrantless arrest of the accused was unconstitutional. This was effected while be was coming down a vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than the other disembarking passengers. He had not committed nor was be actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. He was not even acting suspiciously. In short, there was no probable cause that, as the prosecution incorrectly suggested, dispensed with the constitutional requirement of a warrant.
Par. (b) is no less applicable because its no less stringent requirements have also not been satisfied. The prosecution has not shown that at the time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed it. All they had was hearsay information from the telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be committed.
The truth is that they 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.
As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on Mengote's person, the policemen discovered this only after he had been searched and the investigation conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor was he licensed to possess it.
Before these events, the Peace officers had no knowledge even of Mengote' identity, let alone the fact (or suspicion) that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm or that he was involved in the robbery of Danganan's house.
Hence, accused-appellant is acquitted.