People vs. Mengote

The State (P) vs. Suspicious-looking Individuals (D)
GR 87059, June 22, 1992 (210 SCRA 174)	[T]

Summary: Three persons were searched and thereafter arrested based on a telephone call from an informer that three suspicious-looking persons were standing at a street corner.

Rule of Law: In warrantless arrests under Section 6(b), 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 test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

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 plain clothes men was dispatched to the place and they saw two men "looking from side to side," one of whom was holding his abdomen. They approached these persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them, Rogelio Mengote (D), was found with a .38 caliber revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. His companion had a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket. The weapons were taken from them. Mengote (D) and his companion were then turned over to police headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.

Issues: Is the warrantless search valid? Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: No. In the landmark case of People vs. Burgos, this Court declared:

Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

                              xxx xxx xxx

In arrests without a warrant under Section 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. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

This doctrine was affirmed in Alih vs. Castro, thus:

If the arrest was made under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court in connection with a crime about to be committed, being committed, or just committed, what was that crime? There is no allegation in the record of such a falsification. Parenthetically, it may be observed that under the Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest must have personal knowledge of the ground therefor as stressed in the recent case of People vs. Burgos.