PEOPLE VS. LEILA JOHNSON
Facts:
Leila Johnson was
arrested at the airport after she was found to have in her possession more than
500 grams of shabu when she was initially frisked by a security personnel at a
gate in the airport. The security personnel felt something hard in respondent’s
abdominal area and when asked she said that she had to wear 2 girdles because
of an operation. Unconvinced, the security personnel went to her supervisor.
Subsequently, after a thorough search on respondent, packets of shabu were
seized from her.
Accused (respondent)
was subsequently convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
In the present appeal,
respondent contended that the search made upon her was not valid and that her
constitutional rights were infringed when such search was conducted.
Issue: WON a valid search was made.
Held:
The constitutional
right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial
investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the
provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which
provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful. 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; and…
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of
the accused above falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above cited,
hence the allegation that she has been subjected to custodial investigation is
far from being accurate.[18]
The methamphetamine
hydrochloride seized from her during
the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport
security procedures.
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 expectation
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport
security procedures. With
increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased
security at the nation’s airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their
carry-on baggages 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.
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride
having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are
admissible in evidence against the accused-appellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of “shabu” in
her person in flagrante
delicto.