Case Title People vs Mengote

G.R. no. 87059

Main Topic Warrantless Arrest
Other Related Topic
Date: June 22, 1992

DOCTRINES
 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.
FACTS:
 The Western Police District received a telephone call from aninformer that there were three
suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo,
Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place. The
patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of whom holding his abdomen. They
approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to
run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were
then searched. One of them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live
ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them
and they were turned over to the police headquarters for investigation. An information was
filed before the RTC convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness
testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the
police including the revolver. For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned
the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon
was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866 and
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not
admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore the
fruit of a poisonous tree.
 No crime has been actually committed, only the mere suspicion of the police since the
accused was said to be looking side by side, acting suspiciously in a busy road on morning.

ISSUE:
 Whether it is a valid warrantless arrest
HELD:
 SC held that the arrest was illegal, since there was no probable cause, merely a call from an
unknown caller, who did not say what crime was being committed. Crime done was
inexistent, and no reasonable belief for the police to conduct a search on the accused.
 There was apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually
committed or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. Moreover a person may
not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion.

Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted.

 There is no need to discuss the other issues raised by the accused-appellant as the ruling
we here make is sufficient to sustain his exoneration. Without the evidence of the firearm
taken from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the prosecution has lost its most important
 exhibit and must therefore fail. 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.
 This should be a lesson to other peace officers. Their impulsiveness may be the very cause
of the acquittal of persons who deserve to be convicted, escaping the clutches of the law
because, ironically enough, it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enforce
it.