Pp v. Mengote case digest

People v. Mengote y Tejas Unlawful warrantless arrest; violation of right against illegal search and seizure

FACTS August 8, 1987: Western Police District received a telephone call ro! an inor!er that there "ere # suspicious$ loo%ing persons at the corner o &uan 'una and (orth )a* )oulevard, Tondo +anila and ecause o it, a surveillance tea! o plainclothes!en "ere then dispatched to the placePatrol!en sa" . !en /loo%ing ro! side to side0, one o "ho! "as holding his ado!en- The patrol!en approached these persons and identiied the!selves as police!en "here the . /suspicious$loo%ing !en0 allegedl* tried to run a"a* ut "ere unale to escape ecause other la"!en surrounded the!The suspects "ere then searched and one o the! "ho turned out to e +engote * Teas "as ound "ith -#8 calier S!ith and Wesson revolver "ith 2 live ullets in the cha!er- 3is co!panion, identiied as +orellos had a an %nie secreted in his ront right pants poc%et- The "eapons "ere then ta%en and +engote and +orellos "ere turned over police head4uarters or investigationAugust 11, 1987: +engote * Teas "as then iled eore 5TC or a violation o PD 1822 /6llegal Possession o Firear!s0Aside ro! the police!en, the prosecution also presented 5igoerto Danganan Danganan "ho identiied the -#8 calier S!ith and Wesson revolver as a!ong the articles stolen ro! hi! during a roer* in his house in +alaonDanganan pointed at +engote * Teas as one o the roersThe deense side ho"ever, +engote, !ade no eort to prove that he o"ned the irear! or that he "as licensed to

possess it and clai!ed instead that the "eapon had een planted on hi! at the ti!e o his arrest5TC: +engote "as convicted or violation o PD 1822 and sentenced to reclusion perpetuaAs appeal ho"ever * +engote, it is su!itted in the Appellants )rie that: $the revolver should not have een ad!itted in evidence ecause o its illegal seiure, no "arrant thereor having een previousl* otained $(either could it have een seied as an incident o a la"ul arrest ecause the arrest o +engote "as itsel unla"ul, having een also eected "ithout a "arrant$also contends that the testi!on* regarding the alleged roer* r oer* in Danganans house "as irrelevant and should also have een disregarded * the trial court6SS;: Whether the "arrantless search and seiure "as illegal< Whether the "arrantless arrest "as illegal< 3;'D:

Yes, the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. There is no 4uestion that evidence otained as a result o an illegal search or seiure is inad!issile in an* proceeding or an* purpose- 6n act, illegal search or seiure is an asolute prohiition o Article #=.> o the Constitution- The Solicitor ?eneral, ho"ever, "hile conceding the rule, !aintains that it is not applicale in the case at ar- 3is reason is that the arrest and search o +engote and the seiure o the revolver ro! hi! "ere la"ul under 5ule 11#, Section @, o the 5ules o Court: Sec- @- Arrest without warrant; when lawful -  A peace oicer or private person !a*  "ithout a "arrant, arrest a person: Cdpr

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an oense! (b) When an oense has in act just been committed, and he has personal "nowledge o acts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it! and

=c> When the person to e arrested is a prisoner "ho has escaped ro! a penal estalish!ent or place "here he is serving inal udg!ent or te!poraril* conined  "hile his case is pending, or has escaped "hile eing transerred ro! one conine!ent to another#$% &oes not agree with the #olicitor 'eneralPar-c o Section @ is oviousl* inapplicale as +engote "as not an escapee ro! a penal institution "hen he "as arrested- We thereore conine ourselves to deter!ine la"ulness o his arrest under either Par- =a> or Par- => o this sectionParagraphs a and b however, have not been established in the case. At the ti!e o the arrest in 4uestion, +engote * Teas "as !erel* loo%ing ro! side to side and holding his ado!en, according to the arresting oicers the!selves- There "as apparentl* no oense that had  ust een co!!itted or "as eing actuall* co!!itted or at least eing atte!pted * +engote in their presenceAs to the argu!ent actual eBistence o an oense "as not necessar* as long as +engotes acts  created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it - #$% loo"ing rom side to side and holding his abdomen and in a place not e*actly orsa"en certainly do not constitute sinister acts. 6t "ould have een dierent i +engote had een apprehended at an ungodl* hour and in a place "here he had no reason to e, li%e a dar%ened alle* at # ocloc% in the !orning- )ut he "as arrested at 11:# in the !orning and in a cro"ded street shortl* ater alighting ro! a passenger eep "ith his co!panion- 3e  "as not s%ul%ing in the shado"s ut "al%ing in the clear light o da*- There "as nothing clandestine aout his eing on that street at that us* hour in the lae o the noonda* sunPeople v. Malmstedt  =Court sustained the "arrantless arrest o the accused ecause there "as a ulge in his "aist that eBcited the suspicion o the arresting oicer and, upon inspection, turned out to e a pouch

containing hashish> and People v. Claudio =accused oarded a us and placed the uri ag she "as carr*ing ehind the seat o the arresting oicer "hile she hersel sat in the seat eore hi!- 3is suspicion aroused, he surreptitiousl* eBa!ined the ag, "hich he ound to contain !ariuana- 3e then and there !ade the "arrantless arrest and seiure that "e suse4uentl* upheld on the ground that proale cause had een suicientl* estalished> do not appl* to this case- These cases do not apply for 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 imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense has been committed, was actually being committed or was at least being attempted in their presence. 6nstead, the case eore us is si!ilar to People v. Aminnudin "here the Court held that the "arrantless arrest o the accused "as unconstitutional- This "as eected "hile he "as co!ing do"n a vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than the other dise!ar%ing passengers- 3e had not co!!itted nor "as he actuall* co!!itting or atte!pting to co!!it an oense in the presence o the arresting oicers- 3e  "as not even acting suspiciousl*- 6n short, there "as no proale cause that, as the prosecution incorrectl* suggested, dispensed "ith the constitutional re4uire!ent o a "arrantSC: +oreover, Paragraph  is all the !ore not applicale or its re4uire!ents have not een satisiedThe prosecution has not sho"n that at the ti!e o +engotes arrest an oense had in act ust een co!!itted and that the arresting oicers had personal nowledge o acts indicating that +engote had co!!itted it- All the* had "as hearsa* inor!ation ro! the telephone caller, and aout a cri!e that had *et to e co!!ittedAs or the illegal possession or the irear! ound on +engotes person, the police!en discovered this onl* after  he had een searched and the investigation conducted later revealed that he "as not its o"ners nor "as he licensed to possess it- )eore these events, the peace oicers had no %no"ledge even o +engote identit*, let alone the act =or suspicion> that he "as unla"ull* carr*ing a irear! or that he "as involved in the roer* o Danganans house- =6n short there "as no investigation done, police!en had no personal %no"ledge aout +engote> 6t "ould e a sad da*, indeed, i an* person could e su!!aril* arrested and searched ust ecause he is holding his ado!en, even i it e possil* ecause o a sto!achache, or i a peace oicer could cla!p handcus on an* person "ith a shit* loo% on suspicion that he !a* have co!!itted a cri!inal act or is actuall* co!!itting or atte!pting it- Without the evidence o the irear! ta%en ro! hi! at the ti!e o his illegal arrest, the prosecution has lost its !ost i!portant eBhiit and !ust thereore ail- The testi!onial evidence against +engote ="hich is ased on the said irear!> is not suicient to prove his guilt e*ond reasonale dout o the cri!e i!puted to hi!There is no need therefore to discuss the other issue in depth as the ruling is sufficient enough to sustain Mengote's exoneration. F6(A' D6SPS6T6E; P5T6(: Decision is reversed and set aside- +engote is ac4uitted-