People vs. Cucubin, Jr.

GR 136267, 10 July 2001

Facts:
August 26, 1997, 3:30 PM, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the Cavite City police station, received
a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe
Boulevard in San Antonio, Cavite City. A police team, composed of SPO1 Malinao, Jr., PO3
Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo, responded to the call and found Henry
P. Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then parked on the road.
PO3 Rosal testified that a tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him that Fidel
Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe,
located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley Point, Cavite City, about a kilometer and a
half away from the crime scene. PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. proceeded to the caf and
were informed of the description of Cucubin by one of the food servers, Danet Garcellano. A
tricycle driver named Armando Plata told the police that such description befitted a person
known as alias Jun Dulce. Plata led the police to Cucubins house.
The door was opened by a man who has a description similar to that of given by Garcellano
and happened to be Cucubin. The policemen identified themselves and informed the man
that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. Cucubin denied
involvement in the incident. The police asked permission to enter and look around the
house. They noticed a white t-shirt placed over a divider near the kitchen and upon
examination was found bloodied. Along with the shirt were two spent .38 caliber shells fell
from it. The said items were taken by the police while Cucubin was brought to the caf and
positively identified by Garcellano as the companion of the victim.
Cucubin refused to divulge to the investigators where the gun is, thus, police officers sought
his permission to conduct further search in his house. The police officers, accompanied by
Prosecutor Lu, proceeded thereto and saw Cubcubins 11-year old son, Jhumar, and found on
top of a plastic water container (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and
Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. A gun loaded with five
live bullets was found.
Cucubin was found guilty of a murder and was sentenced to suffer death penalty, hence, the
automatic review.

Issue:
Whether or not there was probable cause for the arresting officers to believe that Cucubin
committed the crime, to allow them to conduct the latters warrantless arrest.
Held:
No, theres no probable cause. The court reversed the decision of RTC and ordered the
immediate release of the accused-appellant.
Under the Rules of Court:
Rule 113, 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended,
provides that A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person: (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; (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.
Under 5(b), two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be
valid: first, the offender has just committed an offense and, second, the
arresting peace officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. It has been
held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must
be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.
In this case the arrest of Cucubin was effected shortly after the victim was killed. There is no
probable cause for the arresting officers, to believe that Cucubin committed the crime. The
two police officers did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that Cucubin had
committed the crime.
The search of Cucubins house was illegal and, consequently, the things obtained as a result
of the illegal search, are inadmissible in evidence against him and there is no evidence to
link Cucubin directly to the crime