Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    People vs. Mengote - CORRAL

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Rogelio Mengote was not validly arrested. Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious people and saw Mengote looking around and holding his abdomen, but these were not grounds for arrest. To make a valid arrest, police must witness a crime being committed or attempted, or have personal knowledge that a specific crime was committed and that the person arrested was involved. However, police in this case did not witness a crime and only had an anonymous tip, not direct knowledge of a crime or Mengote's involvement. Therefore, the arrest and subsequent search of Mengote were unlawful and the evidence found could not be used against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Mengote - CORRAL

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    36 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Rogelio Mengote was not validly arrested. Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious people and saw Mengote looking around and holding his abdomen, but these were not grounds for arrest. To make a valid arrest, police must witness a crime being committed or attempted, or have personal knowledge that a specific crime was committed and that the person arrested was involved. However, police in this case did not witness a crime and only had an anonymous tip, not direct knowledge of a crime or Mengote's involvement. Therefore, the arrest and subsequent search of Mengote were unlawful and the evidence found could not be used against him.

    Original Description:

    Arrest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Rogelio Mengote was not validly arrested. Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious people and saw Mengote looking around and holding his abdomen, but these were not grounds for arrest. To make a valid arrest, police must witness a crime being committed or attempted, or have personal knowledge that a specific crime was committed and that the person arrested was involved. However, police in this case did not witness a crime and only had an anonymous tip, not direct knowledge of a crime or Mengote's involvement. Therefore, the arrest and subsequent search of Mengote were unlawful and the evidence found could not be used against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    People vs. Mengote - CORRAL

    Uploaded by

    Laika Corral
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Rogelio Mengote was not validly arrested. Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious people and saw Mengote looking around and holding his abdomen, but these were not grounds for arrest. To make a valid arrest, police must witness a crime being committed or attempted, or have personal knowledge that a specific crime was committed and that the person arrested was involved. However, police in this case did not witness a crime and only had an anonymous tip, not direct knowledge of a crime or Mengote's involvement. Therefore, the arrest and subsequent search of Mengote were unlawful and the evidence found could not be used against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJAS


    G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992

    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 was dispatched 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, who turned out to be the accused-appellant, was found with a
    revolver. The weapons were taken from them. The revolver was used as evidence against
    him but Mengote contended that the weapon should be inadmissible because the seizure
    was a product of an illegal search for no warrant was previously obtained and neither was
    it an incident to a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful, having
    been also effected without a warrant.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Mengote was validly arrested.

    Held:

    No. Mengote was not validly arrested.

    Rule 113 Sec 5 (a) of the Rules requires that the person be arrested (1) after he has
    committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an
    offense, (2) in the presence of the arresting officer.

    These requirements have not been established in this case. At the time of the arrest, the
    accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his abdomen."
    There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being actually
    committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence. These are certainly
    not sinister acts. There was nothing to support the arresting officers' suspicion other than
    Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.

    Further, Rule 113 Sec. 5 (b) is no less applicable in this case. The prosecution has not
    shown that at the time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and
    that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Mengote had
    committed it. All they had was hearsay information from the telephone caller, and about a
    crime that had yet to be committed. They did not know what offense had been committed
    and neither they were aware of the participation of the accused. It was only when the
    witness arrived at the police headquarter that they learned of the robbery and Mengote’s
    supposed involvement therein.

    You might also like