SAN FRANCISCO — Despite conflicting testimony from two San Francisco police officers about a key moment during the arrest, Judge John D. Echeverria on July 14 denied a defense motion to reduce the accused’s felony charge to a misdemeanor following a preliminary hearing in Department 20.
Officer Jessie Manalo testified regarding the arrest of the accused. According to his testimony, the accused caught his and Officer Bianca Padilla’s attention while they were interviewing witnesses in an unrelated incident.
Officer Manalo explained that the accused was approaching him and Officer Padilla “in a threatening manner,” describing that he was “rolling his sleeves up” and “balling up his fists” while yelling, “fuck the police.”
Officer Padilla responded by going to check on the accused. Officer Manalo had a restricted view of the interaction because a staircase blocked his view.
This caused Officer Manalo to lose “temporary sight” of Officer Padilla. He then decided to check on Officer Padilla because “a moment of time that was too long” had passed since he had last seen her.
Deputy Public Defender Everett Hewlett then asked Officer Manalo to further explain his and his partner’s actions during the arrest. Officer Manalo explained that Officer Padilla ordered the accused to turn around and get on his knees, but the accused refused.
DPD Hewlett then asked Officer Manalo, “That’s when you and your partner put hands on him, correct?”
Officer Manalo confirmed DPD Hewlett’s statement and continued to explain that he had a hold of the accused’s right arm while Officer Padilla had his left. Officer Manalo then said that he performed a “leg sweep” on the accused.
During the leg sweep, Officer Manalo said the accused’s arm had to be released in order to perform the maneuver.
DPD Hewlett then asked Officer Manalo, “Is it standard to let go of the arm during the leg sweep?” Officer Manalo replied, “In order to perform the leg sweep … the arm is let go.”
During Officer Padilla’s testimony, when asked about the events leading up to the accused’s arrest, she gave an account similar to Officer Manalo’s. She explained that she noticed the accused “looking at us and pointed at us” while walking past her and Officer Manalo.
Officer Padilla then testified that the accused displayed “pre-assaultive indicators,” such as balling up his fists and rolling up his sleeves.
When the accused stopped in front of Officer Padilla and Officer Manalo, Officer Padilla “advised him to move along,” and the accused complied. Officer Padilla said the accused continued “yelling” and that she saw him “lunge[] at this person.”
The person, identified as one of the victims, then flagged down Officer Padilla and said, “He just assaulted me, I want to press charges.”
Officer Padilla testified that she then ordered the accused to “place his hands on his head” and get on his knees in both English and Spanish. Deputy District Attorney Phelan then asked Officer Padilla whether she had identified herself as a police officer, to which Officer Padilla replied, “I can’t recall if I did at that moment.”
When describing the arrest, Officer Padilla said, “Officer Manalo told me he was going to attempt to do a takedown.”
During the takedown, Officer Padilla said she “lost grip” and saw that the accused “balled his fist and swung at Officer Manalo.”
DDA Phelan then asked whether the swing had made contact with Officer Manalo, to which Officer Padilla said she was “unable to tell if it made contact.”
After both officers testified, DPD Hewlett argued that the felony charge was “conduct based off of one swing” that “Officer Manalo didn’t know it was happening.”
DPD Hewlett requested a 17(b) motion to reduce the accused’s felony charge of resisting arrest to a misdemeanor.
DDA Phelan opposed the motion, saying this was the accused’s “third prelim [with the accused] involving the same conduct … involving the police.”
She then explained that the accused’s conduct had been consistent and that the two previous charges had been held to answer. DDA Phelan also argued that Penal Code section 69 “doesn’t require contact.”
“Is it a problem Officer Manalo didn’t see the swing?” Judge Echeverria asked DDA Phelan.
DDA Phelan responded that Officer Padilla testified because “she observed the swing.”
Judge Echeverria then said he “didn’t hear Officer Manalo confirm … [the accused] swung at him.”
DDA Phelan again explained that Officer Padilla had a “better vantage point to see [the accused’s] actions.”
“The swing alone should suffice,” DDA Phelan said regarding the accused’s felony charge.
DPD Hewlett then argued that the swing “shouldn’t be prison eligible.”
Judge Echeverria denied the 17(b) motion to reduce the accused’s charge to a misdemeanor. Arraignment is scheduled for July 28 in Department 22.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
