PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:

The Solicitor-General submits that the actual existence offense was not necessary as long as Mengote's acts "c reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officer induced in them the belief that an offense had been co and that the accused-appellent had committed it.

ROGELIO TEJAS MENGOTE:

Claimed that the weapon has been "planted" on him at th his arrest. The revolver should not have been admitted in evidence b its illegal seizure, no warrant thereof having been previou obtained. Neither could it have been seized as an incident arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful.

PRIOR PROCEEDING:

Illegal Possession of Firearms. The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee thriugh the Solicitor General in the proceeding. Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49.

PRESENT PROCEEDING:

APPEAL, from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 49. Rogelio Tejas Mengote, accused-appelant through Atty. Violeta C. Drilon couns oficio initiated the proceeding. Supreme Court, First Division.

eral submits that the actual existence of an ecessary as long as Mengote's acts "created a on on the part of the arresting officers and he belief that an offense had been committed appellent had committed it.

apon has been "planted" on him at the time of

not have been admitted in evidence because of warrant thereof having been previously uld it have been seized as an incident of a lawful rrest of Mengote was itself unlawful.

pellee thriugh the Solicitor General initiated

l Trial Court of Manila Branch 49. through Atty. Violeta C. Drilon counsel de

CITATION: PARTIES:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO TEJAS MENGOTE, 210 SCRA 174, G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992 People of the Phillipines, plaintiff-apellee Rogelio Tejas Mengote, accused-appellant
The Solicitor-General submits that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long as Mengote'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 accusedappellent had committed it.
Claimed that the weapon has been "planted" on him at the time of his arrest. The revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure, no warrant thereof having been previously obtained. Neither could it have been seized as an incident of a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:

OBJECTIVE OF THE PARTIES:

CONVICTION

ROGELIO TEJAS MENGOTE:

ACQUITTAL

CAUSE OF ACTION:
(Mengote)

THEORY OF LITIGATION: SUPREME COURT

Appealed the decition of RTC of Manila Branch 49, The revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure, no warrant thereof having been previously obtained. Neither could it have been seized as an incident of a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful.

DEFENSE:
(Solicitor General)

The Solicitor-General submits that the actual existence of an offense was not necessary as long as Mengote'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-appellent had committed it.

PD 1866 AND RULE 135 SECTION 5 OF THE RULES OF COURT. Illegal Possession of Firearms. The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee thriugh the Solicitor General initiated the proceeding. PRIOR PROCEEDING: Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49.

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS:

APPEAL, from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 49. Rogelio Tejas Mengote, accused-appelant through Atty. Violeta C. Drilon counsel de oficio PRESENT initiated the proceeding. PROCEEDING: Supreme Court, First Division.

FACTS:

The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer 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 o 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.

ISSUE: HOLDING:

Wheter or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. YES.
Warratless search in broady daylight of a person merely looking from side to side and holding his stomach is illegal. An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III, Section 32 of the Constitution.
Rule 113 Section 5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,

REASONING:

or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. 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.

059, June 22, 1992

CONVICTION

ACQUITTAL

admitted in evidence because of its illegal en seized as an incident of a lawful arrest

sary as long as Mengote's acts "created a m the belief that an offense had been had committed it.

suspicious looking persons at the thesmen was forthwith dispatched s abdomen. They approached the escape because the other lawmen found with a .38 caliber with live and they were turned over to the e accused of illegal possession of , which he reported to the police m or that he was licensed o possess convicted for violation of P.D.1866 dmissible as evidence against him

his stomach is illegal.

or any purpose as provided by Art.

rested has committed it and mporarily confined while his case is pending,

uestion, the accused appellant was emselves. There was apparently no mpt by Mengote in their presence. unexplained suspicion.