PEOPLE VS. SUZUKI
Facts: Appellant was found guilty of illeal
possession of prohibited drugs and was sentenced to death. Hence, the instant
review.
The facts of the case
are:
Appellant was in the
airport for his flight to Manila
When he walked through
the metal detector, the alarm sounded. He was bodily frisked and nothing was
found on his person so they proceeded to check his luggage but appellant
refused then consented eventually and opened it. There they found packs of
aluminum foil and when opened, it was found to be marijuana.
Issue: WON the PASCOM agents were authorized to
conduct the search. WON accused consented to the search. WON the search was
conducted was incidental to a lawful arrest. WON the confiscated items were in
plain view.
Held:
In PPvs.Canton and PPvs.Johnson we validated the search conducted on
the departing passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons, thus:
"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.xxx"
It
should be stressed, however, that whenever the right against unreasonable
search and seizure is challenged, an individual may choose between invoking the
constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search
or seizure.9
Here, appellant voluntarily gave his consent
to the search conducted by the PASCOM agents.
It
is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.12 Given the circumstances obtaining
here, we find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and,
therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search
of the box of piaya revealed several marijuana fruiting
tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying
his arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.13 The packs of marijuana obtained in the
course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against appellant.14Nonetheless, we find the trial court’s reliance on the plain view doctrine misplaced. Such doctrine finds application only when the incriminating nature of the object is in the "plain view" of the police officer.15 Here, it is beyond cavil that the marijuana seized from appellant is contained in the box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and not immediately apparent to the airport authorities.
Neither
was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since appellant was not yet
arrested at the time of the search. To be considered a search incidental to a
lawful arrest, the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before the
search can be made.