Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJS, accused-appellant.

CRU!, J.:
ccused-appellant Ro!elio Men!ote "as convicted of ille!al possession of fi#ea#$s on
the st#en!th $ainl% of the stolen pistol found on his pe#son at the $o$ent of his
"a##antless a##est. In this appeal, he pleads that the "eapon "as not ad$issible as
evidence a!ainst hi$ because it had been ille!all% sei&ed and "as the#efo#e the f#uit of
the poisonous t#ee. The 'ove#n$ent disa!#ees. It insists that the #evolve# "as validl%
#eceived in evidence b% the t#ial (ud!e because its sei&u#e "as incidental to an a##est
that "as doubtless la"ful even if ad$ittedl% "ithout "a##ant.
The incident occu##ed sho#tl% befo#e noon of u!ust ), *+),, afte# the -este#n Police
Dist#ict #eceived a telephone call f#o$ an info#$e# that the#e "e#e th#ee suspicious-
loo.in! pe#sons at the co#ne# of /uan 0una and No#th 1a% 1ouleva#d in Tondo, Manila.
su#veillance tea$ of plainclothes$en "as fo#th"ith dispatched to the place. s late#
na##ated at the t#ial b% Pat#ol$en Rolando Me#cado and lbe#to /uan,
1
the% the#e sa"
t"o $en 2loo.in! f#o$ side to side,2 one of "ho$ "as holdin! his abdo$en. The%
app#oached these pe#sons and identified the$selves as police$en, "he#eupon the
t"o t#ied to #un a"a% but "e#e unable to escape because the othe# la"$en had
su##ounded the$. The suspects "e#e then sea#ched. One of the$, "ho tu#ned out to
be the accused-appellant, "as found "ith a .3) calibe# S$ith and -esson #evolve#
"ith si4 live bullets in the cha$be#. 5is co$panion, late# identified as Nicano# Mo#ellos,
had a fan .nife sec#eted in his f#ont #i!ht pants poc.et. The "eapons "e#e ta.en f#o$
the$. Men!ote and Mo#ellos "e#e then tu#ned ove# to police head6ua#te#s fo#
investi!ation b% the Intelli!ence Division.
On u!ust **, *+),, the follo"in! info#$ation "as filed a!ainst the accused-appellant
befo#e the Re!ional T#ial 7ou#t of Manila8
The unde#si!ned accuses RO'90IO M9N'OT9 % T9/S of a
violation of P#esidential Dec#ee No. *)::, co$$itted as follo"s8
That on o# about u!ust ), *+),, in the 7it% of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused did then and the#e "ilfull%, unla"full% and
.no"in!l% have in his possession and unde# his custod% and cont#ol
a fi#ea#$, to "it8
one ;*< cal. 3) 2S = -2 bea#in!
Se#ial No. ),>?-T
"ithout fi#st havin! secu#ed the necessa#% license o# pe#$it the#efo#
f#o$ the p#ope# autho#ities.
1esides the police office#s, one othe# "itness p#esented b% the p#osecution "as
Ri!obe#to Dan!anan, "ho identified the sub(ect "eapon as a$on! the a#ticles stolen
f#o$ hi$ du#in! the #obbe#% in his house in Malabon on /une *3, *+),. 5e pointed to
Men!ote as one of the #obbe#s. 5e had dul% #epo#ted the #obbe#% to the police,
indicatin! the a#ticles stolen f#o$ hi$, includin! the #evolve#.
2
Fo# his pa#t, Men!ote
$ade no effo#t to p#ove that he o"ned the fi#ea#$ o# that he "as licensed to possess it
and clai$ed instead that the "eapon had been 2Planted2 on hi$ at the ti$e of his
a##est.
"
The !un, to!ethe# "ith the live bullets and its holste#, "e#e offe#ed as 94hibits , 1,
and 7 and ad$itted ove# the ob(ection of the defense. s p#eviousl% stated, the
"eapon "as the p#incipal evidence that led to Men!ote@s conviction fo# violation of P.D.
*)::. 5e "as sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
#
It is sub$itted in the ppellant@s 1#ief that the #evolve# should not have been ad$itted
in evidence because of its ille!al sei&u#e. no "a##ant the#efo# havin! been p#eviousl%
obtained. Neithe# could it have been sei&ed as an incident of a la"ful a##est because
the a##est of Men!ote "as itself unla"ful, havin! been also effected "ithout a "a##ant.
The defense also contends that the testi$on% #e!a#din! the alle!ed #obbe#% in
Dan!anan@s house "as i##elevant and should also have been dis#e!a#ded b% the t#ial
cou#t.
The follo"in! a#e the pe#tinent p#ovision of the 1ill of Ri!hts8
Sec. >. The #i!ht of the people to be secu#e in thei# pe#sons, houses,
pape#s, and effects a!ainst un#easonable sea#ches and sei&u#es of
"hateve# natu#e and fo# an% pu#pose shall be inviolable, and no
sea#ch "a##ant o# "a##ant of a##est shall issue e4cept upon p#obable
cause to be dete#$ined pe#sonall% b% the (ud!e afte# e4a$ination
unde# oath o# affi#$ation of the co$plainant and the "itnesses he
$a% p#oduce, and pa#ticula#l% desc#ibin! the place to be sea#ched
and the pe#sons o# thin!s to be sei&ed.
1
Sec. 3 ;*<. The p#ivac% of co$$unication and co##espondence shall
be inviolable e4cept upon la"ful o#de# of the cou#t, o# "hen public
safet% o# o#de# #e6ui#es othe#"ise as p#esc#ibed b% la".
;>< n% evidence obtained in violation of this o# the p#ecedin! section
shall be inad$issible fo# an% pu#pose in an% p#oceedin!.
The#e is no 6uestion that evidence obtained as a #esult of an ille!al sea#ch o# sei&u#e
is inad$issible in an% p#oceedin! fo# an% pu#pose. That is the absolute p#ohibition of
#ticle III, Section 3;><, of the 7onstitution. This is the celeb#ated e4clusiona#% #ule
based on the (ustification !iven b% /ud!e 0ea#ned 5and that 2onl% in case the
p#osecution, "hich itself cont#ols the sei&in! officials, .no"s that it cannot p#ofit b%
thei# "#on! "ill the "#on! be #ep#essed.2 The Solicito# 'ene#al, "hile concedin! the
#ule, $aintains that it is not applicable in the case at ba#. 5is #eason is that the a##est
and sea#ch of Men!ote and the sei&u#e of the #evolve# f#o$ hi$ "e#e la"ful unde#
Rule **3, Section A, of the Rules of 7ou#t #eadin! as follo"s8
Sec. A. Arrest without warrant when lawful. B peace office# o#
p#ivate pe#son $a%, "ithout a "a##ant, a##est a pe#sonC
;a< -hen, in his p#esence, the pe#son to be a##ested has co$$itted,
is actuall% co$$ittin!, o# is atte$ptin! to co$$it an offenseC
;b< -hen an offense has in fact (ust been co$$itted, and he has
pe#sonal .no"led!e of facts indicatin! that the pe#son to be a##ested
has co$$itted itC and
;c< -hen the pe#son to be a##ested is a p#isone# "ho has escaped
f#o$ a penal establish$ent o# place "he#e he is se#vin! final
(ud!$ent o# te$po#a#il% confined "hile his case is pendin!, o# has
escaped "hile bein! t#ansfe##ed f#o$ one confine$ent to anothe#.
In cases failin! unde# pa#a!#aphs ;a< and ;b< he#eof, the pe#son
a##ested "ithout a "a##ant shall be fo#th"ith delive#ed to the nea#est
police station o# (ail, and he shall be p#oceeded a!ainst in
acco#dance "ith Rule **>, Section ,.
-e have ca#efull% e4a$ined the "o#din! of this Rule and cannot see ho" "e can
a!#ee "ith the p#osecution.
Pa#. ;c< of Section A is obviousl% inapplicable as Men!ote "as not an escapee f#o$ a
penal institution "hen he "as a##ested. -e the#efo#e confine ou#selves to dete#$inin!
the la"fulness of his a##est unde# eithe# Pa#. ;a< o# Pa#. ;b< of this section.
Pa#. ;a< #e6ui#es that the pe#son be a##ested ;*< afte# he has co$$itted o# "hile he is
actuall% co$$ittin! o# is at least atte$ptin! to co$$it an offense, ;>< in the p#esence
of the a##estin! office#.
These #e6ui#e$ents have not been established in the case at ba#. t the ti$e of the
a##est in 6uestion, the accused-appellant "as $e#el% 2loo.in! f#o$ side to side2 and
2holdin! his abdo$en,2 acco#din! to the a##estin! office#s the$selves. The#e "as
appa#entl% no offense that had (ust been co$$itted o# "as bein! actuall% co$$itted o#
at least bein! atte$pted b% Men!ote in thei# p#esence.
The Solicito# 'ene#al sub$its that the actual e4istence of an offense "as not
necessa#% as lon! as Men!ote@s acts 2c#eated a #easonable suspicion on the pa#t of
the a##estin! office#s and induced in the$ the belief that an offense had been
co$$itted and that the accused-appellant had co$$itted it.2 The 6uestion is, -hat
offenseD -hat offense could possibl% have been su!!ested b% a pe#son 2loo.in! f#o$
side to side2 and 2holdin! his abdo$en2 and in a place not e4actl% fo#sa.enD
These a#e ce#tainl% not siniste# acts. nd the settin! of the a##est $ade the$ less so, if
at all. It $i!ht have been diffe#ent if Men!ote bad been app#ehended at an un!odl%
hou# and in a place "he#e he had no #eason to be, li.e a da#.ened alle% at 3 o@cloc. in
the $o#nin!. 1ut he "as a##ested at **83? in the $o#nin! and in a c#o"ded st#eet
sho#tl% afte# ali!htin! f#o$ a passen!e# (eep "ith I his co$panion. 5e "as not s.ul.in!
in the shado"s but "al.in! in the clea# li!ht of da%. The#e "as nothin! clandestine
about his bein! on that st#eet at that bus% hou# in the bla&e of the noonda% sun.
On the othe# hand, the#e could have been a nu$be# of #easons, all of the$ innocent,
"h% his e%es "e#e da#tin! f#o$ side to side and be "as holdin! his abdo$en. If the%
e4cited suspicion in the $inds of the a##estin! office#s, as the p#osecution su!!ests, it
has neve#theless not been sho"n "hat thei# suspicion "as all about. In fact, the
police$en the$selves testified that the% "e#e dispatched to that place onl% because of
the telephone call f#o$ the info#$e# that the#e "e#e 2suspicious-loo.in!2 pe#sons in
that vicinit% "ho "e#e about to co$$it a #obbe#% at No#th 1a% 1ouleva#d. The calle#
did not e4plain "h% he thou!ht the $en loo.ed suspicious no# did he elabo#ate on the
i$pendin! c#i$e.
In the #ecent case of People v. Malmstedt,
5
the 7ou#t sustained the "a##antless a##est
of the accused because the#e "as a bul!e in his "aist that e4cited the suspicion of the
a##estin! office# and, upon inspection, tu#ned out to be a pouch containin! hashish. In
People v. Claudio,
$
the accused boa#ded a bus and placed the bu#i ba! she "as
ca##%in! behind the seat of the a##estin! office# "hile she he#self sat in the seat befo#e
hi$. 5is suspicion a#oused, be su##eptitiousl% e4a$ined the ba!, "hich he found to
contain $a#i(uana. 5e then and the#e $ade the "a##antless a##est and sei&u#e that "e
subse6uentl% upheld on the !#ound that p#obable cause had been sufficientl%
established.
The case befo#e us is diffe#ent because the#e "as nothin! to suppo#t the a##estin!
office#s@ suspicion othe# than Men!ote@s da#tin! e%es and his hand on his abdo$en. 1%
no st#etch of the i$a!ination could it have been infe##ed f#o$ these acts that an
2
offense had (ust been co$$itted, o# "as actuall% bein! co$$itted, o# "as at least
bein! atte$pted in thei# p#esence.
This case is si$ila# to People v. Aminnudin,
7
"he#e the 7ou#t held that the "a##antless
a##est of the accused "as unconstitutional. This "as effected "hile be "as co$in!
do"n a vessel, to all appea#ances no less innocent than the othe# dise$ba#.in!
passen!e#s. 5e had not co$$itted no# "as be actuall% co$$ittin! o# atte$ptin! to
co$$it an offense in the p#esence of the a##estin! office#s. 5e "as not even actin!
suspiciousl%. In sho#t, the#e "as no p#obable cause that, as the p#osecution inco##ectl%
su!!ested, dispensed "ith the constitutional #e6ui#e$ent of a "a##ant.
Pa#. ;b< is no less applicable because its no less st#in!ent #e6ui#e$ents have also not
been satisfied. The p#osecution has not sho"n that at the ti$e of Men!ote@s a##est an
offense had in fact (ust been co$$itted and that the a##estin! office#s had personal
knowledge of facts indicatin! that Men!ote had co$$itted it. ll the% had "as hea#sa%
info#$ation f#o$ the telephone calle#, and about a c#i$e that had %et to be co$$itted.
The t#uth is that the% did not .no" then "hat offense, if at all, had been co$$itted and
neithe# "e#e the% a"a#e of the pa#ticipation the#ein of the accused-appellant. It "as
onl% late#, afte# Dan!anan had appea#ed at the Police head6ua#te#s, that the% lea#ned
of the #obbe#% in his house and of Men!ote@s supposed involve$ent the#ein. 8 s fo#
the ille!al possession of the fi#ea#$ found on Men!ote@s pe#son, the police$en
discove#ed this onl% after he had been sea#ched and the investi!ation conducted late#
#evealed that he "as not its o"ne#s no# "as he licensed to possess it.
1efo#e these events, the Peace office#s had no .no"led!e even of Men!ote@ identit%,
let alone the fact ;o# suspicion< that he "as unla"full% ca##%in! a fi#ea#$ o# that he "as
involved in the #obbe#% of Dan!anan@s house.
In the land$a#. case of People v. Burgos,
9
this 7ou#t decla#ed8
Ende# Section :;a< of Rule **3, the office# a##estin! a pe#son "ho has (ust co$$itted,
is co$$ittin!, o# is about to co$$it an offense $ust have personal knowledge of the
fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. ;Sa%o v.
7hief of Police, )? Phil. )A+<. ;9$phasis supplied<
444 444 444
In a##ests "ithout a "a##ant unde# Section :;b<, ho"eve#, it is not enou!h that the#e is
#easonable !#ound to believe that the pe#son to be a##ested has co$$itted a c#i$e. A
crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually
been committed is an essential precondition. t is not enough to suspect that a crime
may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be
undisputed. The test of #easonable !#ound applies onl% to the identit% of the
pe#pet#ato#. ;9$phasis supplied<
This doct#ine "as affi#$ed in Alih v. Castro,
10
thus8
If the a##est "as $ade unde# Rule **3, Section A, of the Rules of 7ou#t in connection
"ith a c#i$e about to be co$$itted, bein! co$$itted, o# (ust co$$itted, "hat "as that
c#i$eD The#e is no alle!ation in the #eco#d of such a falsification. Pa#entheticall%, it $a%
be obse#ved that unde# the Revised Rule **3, Section A;b<, the officer making the
arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor as st#essed in the #ecent
case of People v. Burgos. ;9$phasis supplied<
It "ould be a sad da%, indeed, if an% pe#son could be su$$a#il% a##ested and sea#ched
(ust because he is holdin! his abdo$en, even if it be possibl% because of a sto$ach-
ache, o# if a peace office# could cla$p handcuffs on an% pe#son "ith a shift% loo. on
suspicion that he $a% have co$$itted a c#i$inal act o# is actuall% co$$ittin! o#
atte$ptin! it. This si$pl% cannot be done in a f#ee societ%. This is not a police state
"he#e o#de# is e4alted ove# libe#t% o#, "o#se, pe#sonal $alice on the pa#t of the
a##estin! office# $a% be (ustified in the na$e of secu#it%.
The#e is no need to discuss the othe# issues #aised b% the accused-appellant as the
#ulin! "e he#e $a.e is sufficient to sustain his e4one#ation. -ithout the evidence of
the fi#ea#$ ta.en f#o$ hi$ at the ti$e of his ille!al a##est, the p#osecution has lost its
$ost i$po#tant e4hibit and $ust the#efo#e fail. The testi$onial evidence a!ainst
Men!ote ;"hich is based on the said fi#ea#$< is not sufficient to p#ove his !uilt be%ond
#easonable doubt of the c#i$e i$puted to hi$.
-e co$$end tt%. Violeta 7alvo-D#ilon fo# he# able and spi#ited defense of the
accused-appellant not onl% in the b#ief but also in the #epl% b#ief, "hich she did not
have to file but did so (ust the sa$e to st#ess the constitutional #i!hts of he# client. The
fact that she "as actin! onl% as a counsel de oficio "ith no e4pectation of $ate#ial
#e"a#d $a.es he# #ep#esentation even $o#e co$$endable.
The 7ou#t feels that if the peace office#s had been $o#e $indful of the p#ovisions of
the 1ill of Ri!hts, the p#osecution of the accused-appellant $i!ht have succeeded. s
it happened, the% allo"ed thei# ove#-&ealousness to !et the bette# of the$, #esultin! in
thei# dis#e!a#d of the #e6ui#e$ents of a valid sea#ch and sei&u#e that #ende#ed
inad$issible the vital evidence the% had invalidl% sei&ed.
This should be a lesson to othe# peace office#s. Thei# i$pulsiveness $a% be the ve#%
cause of the ac6uittal of pe#sons "ho dese#ve to be convicted, escapin! the clutches
of the la" because, i#onicall% enou!h, it has not been obse#ved b% those "ho a#e
supposed to enfo#ce it.
-59R9FOR9, the appealed decision is R9V9RS9D and S9T SID9. The accused-
appellant is 7FEITT9D and o#de#ed #eleased i$$ediatel% unless he is validl%
detained fo# othe# offenses. No costs.
SO ORD9R9D.
3