PEOPLE V.

MENGOTE
G.R. No. 87059 | June 22, 1992
Ponente: J. Cruz | Search and Seizure

FACTS:
 Accused-appellant Rogelio Mengote was arrested shortly before noon of August 8, 1987.
o Western Police District received a phone call informing them of 3 “suspicious-
looking” persons in Tondo
 The men were then searched and a .38 caliber revolver was found on Rogelio Mengote.
o He was charged with illegal possession of firearms.
 During the trial, the prosecution presented Rogelio Danganan who identified the revolver
as one of the items stolen from his house in Malabon on June 13, 1987.
o Danganan identified Mengote as one of the robbers.
 The defense claims that the gun should not have been admitted into evidence because it
was a fruit of an illegal seizure, no warrant therefore having been previously obtained.
 Prosecution concedes that Article III, Section 3(2) contains an absolute prohibition of
admissibility of evidence from illegal searches or seizures. However, prosecution claims
that it was valid under Rule 113 Sec. 5 (Arrest without warrant; when lawful).

ISSUE/S with CORRESPONDING RATIO:

1. Whether or not the .38 caliber revolver is admissible in evidence
NO. The .38 caliber was illegally seized as the circumstances surrounding Mengote’s arrest and
search was not under the purview of Rule 113 Sec. 5.
- Sec 5(c) was clearly not applicable as it requires that Mengote was an escapee from a
penal institution.
- Sec 5(a) requires that the person be arrested while committing or after committing the
crime in the presence of the arresting officer
o At the time of arrest, Mengote and company were only “looking side to side”
o SolGen claims that the actual existence of a crime was not necessary as long as
the arresting officer had in them in the belief that an offense had been committed.
o The circumstances negate the SolGen’s claim as no clear offense could have been
implied from just looking side to side, while rubbing one’s stomach, in the clear
light of day.
o Compared to People v. Malmstedt, the Court in that case upheld the arrest because
“there was a bulge in his waist that excited the suspicion of the arresting officer”
and said bulge turned out to be hashish. In the instant case, there was nothing to
support the officer’s suspicion.
- Sec 5(b) requires personal knowledge of the crime committed. All they had was hearsay
information from a phone caller. The truth is that the officers did not know of any offense
at the time of arrest as it was only after an information has been filed that they found out
about the robbery in Danganan’s house.

Wherefore, appealed decision is REVERSED. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.