PEOPLE  v  JOHNSON  G.R.  No.  138881|  December  18,  2000  |  Mendoza  |  Appeal  from  RTC|  Airport  Searches  

PLAINTIFF-­‐APPELLE:  People  of  the  Philippines  ACCUSED-­‐APPELLANT:  Leila  Johnson  y  Reyes  SUMMARY:  Leila  Johnson  was  frisked  at  the  gate  at  the  NAIA  departure  area.  The  lady  frisker,  Olivia  Ramirez,  felt  something  hard  on  Leila’s  abdominal  area,  which  Leila  claimed  to  be  a  special  girdle.  Disbelieving  this,  Olivia  reported  this  to  her  superior,  SPO4  Reynaldo  Embile,  who  instructed  her  to  inspect  her  further.  Leila  was  then  directed  to  remove  the  object.  She  had  three  plastic  packs  of  shabu,  weighing  over  580  grams  total.    Her  passport,  ticket,  luggage,  and  other  personal  effects  were  seized  and  pictures  were  taken  of  her.  She  was  convicted  in  the  RTC  for  violating  Sec.  16  of  RA  6425  DOCTRINE:    Passengers  attempting  to  board  an  aircraft  routinely  pass  through  metal  detectors;  their  carry-­‐on  baggage  as  well  as  checked  luggage  are  routinely  subjected  to  x-­‐ray  scans.  Should  these  procedures  suggest  the  presence  of  suspicious  objects,  physical  searches  are  conducted  to  determine  what  the  objects  are.  There  is  little  question  that  such  searches  are  reasonable,  given  their  minimal  intrusiveness,  the  gravity  of  the  safety  interests  involved,  and  the  reduced  privacy  expectations  associated  with  airline  travel.  Indeed,  travelers  are  often  notified  through  airport  public  address  systems,  signs,  and  notices  in  their  airline  tickets  that  they  are  subject  to  search  and,  if  any  prohibited  materials  or  substances  are  found,  such  would  be  subject  to  seizure.  These  announcements  place  passengers  on  notice  that  ordinary  constitutional  protections  against  warrantless  searches  and  seizures  do  not  apply  to  routine  airport  procedures.  

 FACTS:  1. Leila   Johnson,   58,   a   widow,   a   former   Filipino  citizen,   now   a   naturalized   American,  was   visiting  her   son   in   Calamba,   Laguna.   She   was   set   to   fly  back  home  to  the  US.  

2. Olivia  Ramirez,  the  lady  frisker  on  duty  when  Leila  went   to   NAIA,   felt   something   hard   on   Leila’s  abdominal  area.  Leila  said  it  was  two  panty  girdles  she  had  to  wear  due  to  an  ectopic  pregnancy.  

3. Olivia  didn’t  buy  it.  She  told  SPO4  Embile:  Sir,  hindi  po  ako  naniniwalang  panty  lang  po  iyon.  

4. Embile  told  her  to  investigate,  so  Olivia,  with  SPO1  Rizalina   Bernal,   took   Leila   to   a   women’s   room.  Asking   again  what   it  was   and   receiving   the   same  answer,   Olivia   told   her   to   remove   the   object,  which  turned  out  to  be  shabu.  

5. Embile  took  Leila  to  the  1st  Regional  Aviation  and  Security   Office   (1st   RASO)   where   Leila’s   passport  and   ticket   were   taken   and   her     luggage   opened.  Pictures  were  taken.  

6. LEILA’S   VERSION:   She  was  waiting   in   line  at   the  boarding   gate   when   she   was   approached   by  Embile   and   two   female   officers,   handcuffed,   and  taken  to  the  women’s  room,  where  she  was  asked  to   undress   and   subjected   to   a   body   search.  Nothing  was  found  on  her.  She  was  transferred  to  the  custody  of  Col.  Castillo  who  presented  her  with  two   white   packages   and   told   her   to   admit   the  packages   were   hers   and   affix   her   signature  thereon.  She  claims  she  was  detained  for  two  days  and  was  not  allowed  to  speak  to  counsel  or  family.  

7. RTC   Pasay   convicted   her   for   possession.   Leila  appealed,   claiming   the   shabu   should   be  inadmissible  since  she  was  forced  to  sign  the  bags  and  not  informed  of  her  rights.  

ISSUES:  Whether   or   not   the   search   and   seizure  was  valid.    HELD/RATIO:  YES.    1. This   is   a   warrantless   arrest   in   flagrante   delicto,  pursuant   to   a   valid   search   made   on   her   person.  Her   rights   were   not   violated   since   she   wasn’t  placed  in  custodial  investigation.  

2. Persons  may  lose  the  protection  of  the  search  and  seizure   clause   by   exposure   of   their   persons   or  property  to  the  public  in  a  manner  reflecting  a  lack  of  subjective  expectation  of  privacy,  which  society  is   prepared   to   recognize   as   reasonable.   Such  recognition   is   implicit   in   airport   security  procedures,   with   increasing   concerns   over  hijacking  &  terrorism  requiring  increased  security.  

3. The   shabu  was   acquired   legitimately   pursuant   to  airport  security  procedures.  

4. The   packs   of   shabu   having   thus   been   obtained  through  a  valid  warrantless  search,  are  admissible  in   evidence.   Her   subsequent   warrantless   arrest,  was   justified   since   it   was   effected   upon   the  discovery   and   recovery   of   shabu   in   her   person  in  flagrante  delicto.  

5. However,   the   other   personal   effects   and   pictures  taken  from  and  of  her  are  inadmissible  and  should  not   have   been   confiscated/taken,   since   they   are  unrelated  to  the  offense.  Her  belongings  should  be  returned  to  her.  

 WHEREFORE,  RTC  Pasay  decision  is  affirmed.    SO  ORDERED.