PEOPLE V.

MENGOTE
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelee, vs. ROGELIO MENGOTE y
TEJAS, accused-appellant
Date: June 22, 1992
Ponente:Cruz, J.
Doctrine: In warrantless arrest where an offense has just been committed, it
is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential
precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been
committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.
the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground
therefor.
Facts:
The Western Police District got a call from an informer that there were three
suspicious-looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Blvd. in
Tondo. When the surveillance team composed of plainclothesmen went to the
area, they saw two men "looking from side to side", one of whom was
hlding his abdomen. he team approahced and identified themselves as
policemen whewreupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape
because the other lawmen already surrounded them. The suspects were
searched and they found on Mengote a .38Caliber Smith and Wesson revolver
with six live bullets in the chamber. They also found on the other man,
Morelos, a fan knife secreted in his fron right pants pocket. The weapons were
thus taken from them and the two men were taken to the police headquarters
for investigation by the Intelligence Division. An information was filed against
Mengote charging him of violating P.D. No. 1866 for possessing the firearm
without the necessary license or permit.
Aside from the police officers, the other prosecution witness was Rigoberto
Danganan who identified the subject weapon as among the articles stolen
from him during the robbery in his house in Malabon. He pointed to Mengote
as one of the robbers. He had duly reported the robbery to the police
indicating the articles stolen from him including the revolver. Mengote made
no effort to prove his ownership or hid license to posses it but instead
claimed that the weapon was planted on him. The gun, together with the live
bullets and its holster were offered as Exhibits A, B and C respectively and
were admitted as evidence by the Court. The weapon was the principal
evidence that led to Mengote's conviction for violation of P.D. 1866 and was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Issue/Held: Was the arrest of Mengote lawful? NO
Ratio:
Look at Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court which deals with "Arrest
without warrant; when lawful":
1.Par. (a) is not applicable. Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested (1)
after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least

attempting to commit an offense, (2) in the presence of the arresting officer.

In this case, the requirements under par. (a) were not established since
Mengote was merely looking from side to side and holding his
abdomen. 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. Looking from side to side and
holding own abdomen are not sinister acts and the setting of the arrest made
them less so. It might have been different if Mengote was apprehended at an
ungodly hour but Mengote's arrest happened at 11:30 a.m. and in a crowded
street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. He
was walking in the clear light of the day. There was nothing clandestine about
his bein gon the street at that busy hour in the noonday sun. The prosecution
did not even show what the suspicion was all about. The caller/informer did
not explain why the men looked suspicious and did not elaborate on the
impending crime.
2. Par (b) is also not applicable. For par(b) to apply, it must be shown that
an offense has just in fact been committed and the peace officer or private
person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has commited it. In this case, the prosecution has not shown that an
offense has just been committed and that the arresting officers had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote committed it. All they had was
hearsay info from the caller and about a crime that had yet to be committed.
The arresting officers were not aware of the offense commited by Mengote
and his participation until Danganan went to the police headquarters and told
them about the robbery. As for the illegal possession of firearm, the
policemen only discovered the pistol only after he had been searched and the
investigation later revealed that he did not own it nad did not have license to
possess. Citing People v. Burgos, "In arrest without a warrant under Sec. 6(b),
however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe
that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must
in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has
actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not
enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact
of the commission of the offense must be undisputed." In Alih v.
Castro, it was held that the officer making the arrest must have
personal knowledge of the ground for arrest.
Thus, the firearm taken from Mengote at the time of his illegal arrest is
inadmissible in evidence. For losing its most important exhibit, the
prosecution mUst fail. ACQUITTED.
Note: SC immediately dismissed application of par. (c) since Mengote is not
an escapee from a penalk institution when he was arrested.