PEOPLE v JOHNSON

G.R. No. 138881| December 18, 2000 | Mendoza | Appeal from RTC| Airport Searches
PLAINTIFF--APPELLEE: 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: ISSUES: Whether or not the search and seizure was

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 toldSPO4 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.
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.