People v.

Cuizon
256 SCRA 320

Facts:
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted surveillance on the spouses Cuizon
regarding their involvement with illegal drugs. Acting upon a tip coming from Hongkong the NBI
gathered a team to intercept the Spouses Cuizon in Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), who
allegedly brought with them Shabu drugs. The spouses Cuizon were seen by the NBI to have handed
two pieces of luggage to their alleged Chinese accomplices and the spouses picked two similar
luggage and headed out of the airport. The intercept at the airport failed due to technical failure of the
NBI’s communication devices. The NBI then split into two groups the first one followed the Spouses
Cuizon to their house and second group followed the alleged accomplices to their hotel. The NBI
conducted an arrest without warrant on the suspicious personalities and searched the premises of the
house of the Spouses Cuizon and the hotel of the alleged accomplices.

The NBI found Shabu hidden on the compartments of all four luggage found in the spouses
Cuizon House and the alleged accomplices’ hotel. Charges were filed against the spouses Cuizon and
their alleged accomplices. The petitioners then challenged the suit by questioning the validity of how
the evidences were gathered, stating that there was no valid warrantless arrest nor a valid warrantless
search.

Issues
a) Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid.
b) Whether or not the warrantless search subsequent to the warrantless arrest is valid
c) Whether or not there was a valid representation of the counsel on one of the accused.

Held
a) Warrantless Arrest
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid warrantless arrest in the case at hand. The court
found it stupendous the circumstance surrounding the arrest, especially the failure of the NBI to
arrest the Couple and their alleged accomplices merely on the fact that the battery died on their
handheld communication device during the operation at the airport. Instead the NBI waited for the
couple and their accomplices to arrive at their destination before arresting them. The fears (creating a
shootout at the airport, airport employees as accomplices, etc.) expressed by the NBI were found by
the court to be incredulous and baseless. The court reiterated in the ruling the exclusivity of the
circumstances which allows the authorities to conduct warrantless arrest.

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure the authorities may
conduct a valid warrantless arrest under the following circumstances:

(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 committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
 his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.

The Supreme Court could not find paragraphs (a) and (b) as basis for the warrantless arrest as
claimed by the NBI.

Paragraph (a) cannot apply as there is no commission of offense happening in the house or at the
hotel. If the arrest was made at the airport or while at transit the NBI may claim a valid warrantless
arrest but due to the incredulous circumstance the NBI failed to do so. Hence we could not qualify
that the arrest was made during the commission of a crime.

Paragraph (b) cannot apply as there was no personal knowledge of the crime. The tip according
to the Supreme Court was mere hearsay evidence, hence it could not qualify as personal knowledge.

b) Warrantless Search
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no valid warrantless search as there was no valid
warrantless arrest. The Rules of Court under Rule 126 Section 13 states that:

"A person lawfully arrested maybe searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant."

Hence a valid arrest first must happen before the authorities can conduct a valid warrantless
search of the person. There is a clear wanting of a valid arrest in the case at hand, therefore any
evidence obtained during an invalid warrantless arrest is inadmissible, even if they shows a glaring
proof of the alleged felonious act.

c) Right to Counsel
There was no valid representation of one of the accused by his counsel. The law provides that the
right to counsel is an indispensable right, that during a trial it cannot be subject to waiver. Hence in
the case at hand the Supreme Court ruled that one of the accused was denied of his right to counsel.

The defendant was provided with a counsel but the failure of communication because of
language barrier made it seemed like he doesn’t have one. Since the defendant was a native speaker
of the Cantonese dialect who cannot speak nor understand any Filipino or English the counsel and
the defendant cannot understand each other making it impossible for them to communicate.