Mengote

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

People vs Mengote

- Illegal possession of fire arms


- WPD received a phone call from an informer that there were 3 suspicious looking
persons in Tondo. A team was dispatched. They saw 2 men and one of them was
holding his abdomen. They approached the persons- identified themselves and tried to
runaway but were unable to escape. Suspects were searched and one found a gun with
bullets. Another had a fan knife secreted In his fron right pants pocket.
- A witness identified the weapon as articles stolen from his house. He pointed mengote
as one fo the robbers. Mengote did not contend that the weapon was his or he was
licensed. He claimed that it was planted at the time of his arrest.
- Revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal seizure and
no warrant was obtained for it? The arrest was unlawful? The robbery was irrelevant?
- The arrest was not valid- not in flagrante/ hot pursuit. Mengote was merely looking from side to
side and was only touching his abdomen.
- What offense? What offense could possibly have been suggested by a person "looking from side
to side" and "holding his abdomen" and in a place not exactly forsaken?
- Arrest was at 11:30 am and not at ungodly hour.
- The only basis of the arrest was a telephone call about the suspicious looking person who were
about to commit robbery- the caller did not explain why he though tof that.
- there was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's darting eyes
and his hand on his abdomen.
- 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. (Emphasis supplied)
- HAahaha would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily arrested and searched
just because he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly because of a stomach-ache, or if a
peace officer could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on suspicion that he may
have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or attempting it.

You might also like