Case Summary (G.R. No. 241834)
Facts of the Incident
A Western Police District surveillance team, acting on an anonymous telephone tip that “three suspicious-looking persons” were at the specified corner and were about to commit a robbery, proceeded in plainclothes to the location. Officers observed two men who were “looking from side to side,” one of whom was holding his abdomen. Upon approach and identification as policemen, the two attempted to flee but were contained by surrounding officers. A search was conducted; Mengote was found to have a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver loaded with six live bullets, and his companion Morellos had a fan knife. The two were taken to police headquarters for investigation.
Procedural History
On August 11, 1987, information was filed charging Mengote with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) for possession of the .38 S&W revolver without the necessary license. At trial, the revolver and related items were offered and admitted in evidence over defense objection. The trial court convicted Mengote and imposed reclusion perpetua. Mengote appealed, principally arguing that the gun was illegally seized as the product of an unlawful, warrantless arrest and thus inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.
Evidence Presented at Trial
Prosecution witnesses included the arresting officers, who described the approach, attempted flight, and subsequent search; and Rigoberto Danganan, who identified the revolver as one of the items stolen during a June 13, 1987 robbery at his house in Malabon and pointed to Mengote as one of the robbers. The accused did not claim ownership or a license for the firearm; he asserted that the gun had been “planted” on him at the time of arrest. Exhibits A, B and C (the gun, live bullets, and holster) were admitted over defense objections.
Issues on Appeal
Primary legal question: whether the revolver was admissible evidence given that it was seized following a warrantless arrest and search—i.e., whether the arrest and search were lawful under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, so as to permit seizure as an incident of arrest. Secondary contention: the relevance and admissibility of Danganan’s testimony linking the gun to an earlier robbery.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Guarantee
The Court relied on Article III of the 1987 Constitution: Section 2 (right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrants and probable cause requirement) and Section 3(1)-(2) (inviolability of privacy of communication and correspondence; exclusionary rule: evidence obtained in violation of these sections is inadmissible). The Rules of Court provision considered was Rule 113, Section 5 (Arrest without warrant; when lawful), which allows warrantless arrest in limited circumstances: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer; (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person arrested committed it.
Analysis under Rule 113 Section 5(a): Presence and Actual Commission of an Offense
The Court examined whether the arrest fit within paragraph (a), which requires (1) that the offense was committed, was being committed, or was being attempted, and (2) that this occurred in the presence of the arresting officer. The Court found these requirements unmet. The officers’ observations—Mengote “looking from side to side” and “holding his abdomen” at around 11:30 a.m. on a busy street after alighting from a jeepney—did not constitute an act amounting to the commission, attempted commission, or presence of an offense. The anonymous informer’s report that “suspicious-looking” persons were about to commit a robbery did not supply the necessary particularized facts. The Court emphasized that ordinary conduct and ambiguous gestures, absent more specific indicators of criminal activity, cannot justify a warrantless arrest under paragraph (a).
Distinguishing Precedents Relied Upon by Prosecution
The Court considered precedents proffered by the prosecution (People v. Malmstedt and People v. Claudio) where courts had upheld warrantless arrests based on more concrete, articulable facts (e.g., a visible bulge later found to be contraband; surreptitious placement of an item by the accused that aroused suspicion and was then inspected). The Court held these cases distinguishable because in the present case there were no comparable objective facts (no bulge or incriminating placement) to justify suspicion that an offense was being committed in the officers’ presence.
Analysis under Rule 113 Section 5(b): Personal Knowledge of a Just-Committed Offense
The Court turned to paragraph (b), which requires that an offense must in fact have just been committed and that the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of facts indicating the accused’s commission of it. The Court found paragraph (b) unsatisfied. At the time of arrest the officers had only hearsay—an anonymous tip alleging “suspicious-looking” persons and an imminent robbery—and no personal knowledge that a crime had in fact occurred. Information later obtained at police headquarters (Danganan’s identification linking the revolver to a prior robbery and implicating Mengote) came only after the arrest and therefore could not
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 241834)
Case Citation and Decision Date
- Reported in 285 Phil. 642, First Division, G.R. No. 87059.
- Decision promulgated June 22, 1992.
- Opinion authored by Justice Cruz; Justices Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Bellosillo concur.
Procedural Posture
- Accused-appellant Rogelio Mengote was prosecuted for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms).
- Trial court convicted Mengote principally on the basis of a revolver found on his person at the time of warrantless arrest and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua (sentencing by Judge Romeo J. Callejo).
- Mengote appealed, arguing illegality of the seizure (fruit of the poisonous tree), unlawfulness of the warrantless arrest, and irrelevance of testimony concerning an alleged robbery.
- The Government (Solicitor General) defended the seizure as lawful because it was incidental to an arrest lawful under Rule 113, Section 5 (arrest without warrant), as well as asserting admissibility of the seized weapon.
Facts (operative chronology)
- Shortly before noon on August 8, 1987, the Western Police District received a telephone tip from an informer reporting three "suspicious-looking" persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila.
- A plainclothes surveillance team was immediately dispatched to the location.
- Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan testified that they saw two men "looking from side to side," and that one of them was "holding his abdomen."
- Upon approach and identification as policemen, the two men attempted to flee but were prevented from escaping by other officers who had surrounded them.
- The suspects were searched; one, later identified as Rogelio Mengote, was found to have a .38 cal. Smith & Wesson revolver with six live bullets; his companion, later identified as Nicanor Morellos, had a fan knife in his front right pants pocket.
- The weapons were taken and Mengote and Morellos were turned over to police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.
- On August 11, 1987, an information was filed against Mengote charging wilful, unlawful, and knowing possession of one .38 cal. "S & W" bearing Serial No. 8720-T without a required license or permit, in violation of P.D. No. 1866.
- Rigoberto Danganan later appeared and identified the revolver as among articles stolen from him during a June 13, 1987 house robbery in Malabon, pointing to Mengote as one of the robbers; Danganan had earlier reported that robbery to the police.
- Mengote did not attempt to prove ownership of the firearm or that he held a license; he claimed the weapon had been "planted" on him at arrest.
- The revolver, the live bullets, and the holster were offered and admitted as Exhibits A, B, and C over defense objection.
Evidence Presented at Trial
- Testimony of arresting officers Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan (transcripts TSN September 21, 1987; October 21, 1987).
- Testimony of other police officers involved in the surveillance and arrest.
- Testimony of Rigoberto Danganan identifying the weapon as stolen from him and naming Mengote as a robber (record reference p. 54).
- Trial exhibits: Exhibit A (the revolver), Exhibit B (live bullets), Exhibit C (holster) — admitted despite defense objection.
- Defense offered claim that firearm was planted and produced no evidence of lawful ownership or licensing.
Issues Raised on Appeal
- Whether the revolver seized from Mengote at the time of his warrantless arrest was admissible evidence, or whether it was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure (thus inadmissible under the exclusionary rule).
- Whether the arrest of Mengote without a warrant was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, paragraphs (a) or (b).
- Whether the testimony concerning Danganan’s robbery and identification of the revolver was relevant and admissible in light of the circumstances of arrest and seizure.
Constitutional and Rules Provisions Quoted
- Article III, Section 2 (right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrant requirement; probable cause to be determined personally by judge after examination under oath or affirmation).
- Article III, Section 3(1) and (2) (privacy of communication and correspondence; exclusionary rule: "Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.").
- Rule 113, Section 5 (Arrest without warrant; when lawful), quoted in full in the opinion:
- (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
- (b) When an offense has in fact just been