PEOPLE V. CANTON

People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Susan Canton, appellant. Digest by Raffi ReyesNature: Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110Date: December 27, 2002

Ponente: Davide, Jr., C. J.

Doctrine: RA 6235 Sec. 9 is another exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures. The provision clearly states that the search, unlike in the Terry search, is not limited to weapons. Passengers are also subject to search for prohibited materials or substances. Facts:

February 12, 1998 Susan Canton was at the NAIA, being a departing passenger bound for Saigon, Vietnam. When she passed through the metal detector booth, a beeping sound was emitted. Mylene Cabunoc, a civilian employee of the National Action Committee on Hijacking and Terrorism (NACHT) and the frisker on duty at that time, called her attention and asked her if she (Cabunoc) could search her (Canton). Upon frisking Canton, Cabunoc felt something bulging at her abdominal area, and similar packages in front of her genital area and thighs. According to Cabunoc, she noticed that the package contained what felt like rice granules. Cabunoc asked Canton to bring out the packages but Canton refused, saying: Money, money only. Cabunoc reported the matter to her supervisor on duty, SPO4 Victorio de los Reyes. SPO4 de los Reyes instructed Cabunoc to call Customs Examiner Lorna Jalac and to bring Canton to a comfort room for a thorough physical examination. Upon further frisking in the ladies room, Cabunoc touched something in front of Cantons sex organ and she directed Canton to remove her skirt, girdles and panty. Canton obliged and Cabunoc and Jalac discovered three packages (abdominal area, in front of her genital area, and right thigh) individually wrapped and sealed in gray colored packing tape, which Canton voluntarily handed to them. Cabunoc turned over the packages to SPO4 de los Reyes who then informed Police Superintendent Daniel Santos about the incident. Together with Canton, they brought the gray plastic packs to the customs examination table, opened them, and found white crystalline substances inside, which after laboratory examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. For the defense, SPO2 Jerome Cause testified that no investigation was ever conducted on Canton. However, Canton signed a receipt of the following articles seized from her: (1) 3 bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu approximately 1,100 grams; (2) 1 American passport; (3) 1 Continental Micronesia plane ticket; and (4) two panty girdles. SPO2 Cause said that he informed Canton of her rights but admitted that she did not have a counsel when she signed the receipt. RTC: found Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16 Article III of RA 6425, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Php1million.Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search made on Canton was valid. YES, it was valid.

Held/Ratio:

Cantons contentionsSupreme Court

TC erred in justifying the warrantless search against her based on the alleged existence of probable causeThe search conducted on Canton was not incidental to a lawful arrest

Cantons arrest did not precede the search. When the metal detector alarmed while Canton was passing through it, the lady frisker on duty made a pat down search on her. In the process, Cabunoc felt a bulge on Cantons abdomen. The strip search that followed was for the purpose of ascertaining what were the packages concealed on Cantons body.

TC erred in holding that she was caught in flagrante delicto and that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest

The arrest could not be said to have been made before the search because at the time of the strip search, the arresting officers could not have known what was inside the plastic containers hidden in her body, which were wrapped and sealed.

They could not have determined whether Canton was actually committing a crime; the strip search was therefore nothing but a fishing expeditionCanton, having been flagrante delicto, was lawfully arrested without a warrant

Section 5, Rule 113 ROC 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...

The present case falls under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113. The search conducted on Canton resulted in the discovery of shabu. Armed with the knowledge that Canton was committing a crime, the airport security personnel and police authorities were duty-bound to arrest her. Her subsequent arrest without a warrant was justified, since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person flagrante delicto.

TC erred in not ruling that the frisker went beyond the limits of the Terry search doctrine

The stop and frisk search should have been limited to the patting of her outer garments in order to determine whether she was armed or dangerous.The scope of a search pursuant to airport security procedure is not confined only to search for weapons under the Terry search doctrine

The Terry search or stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. He could validly conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

In the present case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure. RA 6235 Section 9 provides: Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed thereon: Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft, which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier.

RA 6235 Sec. 9 is another exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures. The provision clearly states that the search, unlike in the Terry search, is not limited to weapons. Passengers are also subject to search for prohibited materials or substances.

The strip search in the ladies room was justified under the circumstances.

TC erred in not ruling that Canton was under custodial investigation without counsel

Canton alleges that from the moment frisker Cabunoc felt a package at her abdominal area, started inquiring about its contents, detained her, and stripped search her in the ladies room, she was under custodial investigation without counsel.The constitutional right to counsel afforded an accused under custodial investigation was not violated

In this case, no custodial investigation was conducted after Cantons arrest. She affixed her signature to the receipt of the articles seized from her, but before she did so, she was told that she had the option to sign or not to sign it. Aside from this, no statement was taken from her during her detention and used in evidence against her.

TC erred in admitting to the records of the case the report of Dr. Ma. Bernadette Arcena, which was not testified on or offered in evidence, and using the same in determining her guiltThe admission of the medical report was erroneous.

Canton assails the validity of the medical report as evidence on the ground that it violates the hearsay rule.

The medical report contained the following: This is the first time I carried shabu. I need the money.

SC held that this contention is meritorious. The admission of the questioned document was erroneous because it was not properly identified.

TC erred in applying the ruling in People v. Johnson Canton questions the applicability of the doctrine in the Johnson case because of its sweeping statement allowing searches and seizures of departing passengers in airports in view of the gravity of the safety interests involved.

She argues that the applicable case should have been Katz v. United States which upholds the 4th Amendment that protects people and not places.The ruling in People v. Johnson is applicable to the instant case

The Johnson case, which involves similar facts and issues, finds application to the present case. The court ruled that the packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride seized during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures and are therefore admissible in evidence against Johnson.

Cantons reliance on Katz v. United States is misplaced. The facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from the case at bar.

Dispositive: Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 16 Article III of RA 6425, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of Php 1 million. The appellants passport, plane ticket, and girdles are ordered to be returned to her.

-Raffi Reyes-