You are on page 1of 2

23.

RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO/RAMON GOCO y MARTINEZ @ MON,


petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
FACTS: Ramon Martinez was arrested by the policemen while on patrol for
breach of peace (shouting "Putangina mo! Limang daan na ba ito?") along
Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila. The police conducted a body search on
Ramon and found shabu on his pocket, hence he was charged with possession
of dangerous drugs. RTC convicted Ramon GUILTY for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs act but the case for breach of peace against Ramon was
dismissed because it cannot be said that the act of shouting in a populated
place, with many people conversing with each other on the street, would
immediately constitute breach of peace. He appealed.
CA sustained the validity of the body search made on Ramon as an incident of
a lawful warrantless arrest 1 for breach of the peace which he committed in the
presence of the police officers DESPITE the fact that it (case breach of the
peace) was subsequently dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the body search made on Ramon is lawful
RULING: NO. It is clear that Ramon did not commit breach of peace - the
reason for his arrest. Hence, it cannot be said that Ramon was validly arrested
because the warantless search that resulted from it was also illegal or invalid
from the beginning. Thus, the subject shabu purportedly seized from Ramon is
inadmissible in evidence (Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides
that: 2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
[referring to Section 2] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.)
24. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HADJI SOCOR
CADIDIA, accused-appellant.
FACTS: Marilyn Trayvilla while performing her duty as a female frisker
assigned at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I (domestic airport) in Pasay
City, frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the departure area and
noticed something unusual and thick in the area of Cadidias buttocks. Upon
inquiry, Cadidia answered that it was only her sanitary napkin which caused
the unusual thickness. Not convinced with explanation, Trayvilla and her
female co-employee Bagsican brought the accused to the comfort room inside
the domestic airport to check. When she and Bagsican asked Cadidia to
1

The traditional exceptions are (1) customs searches, (2) searches of moving vehicles, (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view, (4) consented searches, (5) "stop and frisk" measures and (6) searches incidental to
a lawful arrest.
1

remove her underwear, they discovered that inside were two sachets of
shabu. The two sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor SPO3
Appan. The accused was identified and found to be bound for Butuan City on
board Cebu Pacific Airline. Court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act [No.] 9165 (Dangerous Drugs
Act).
Accused appealed stating that the court erred in not appreciating the
following:
(1) that it was just a frame-up
(2) that the search and seizure was invalid and
(3) that her guilt was not found beyond reasonable doubt
CA did not give merits to the accuseds arguments and affirmed the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid
RULING: YES. Airport frisking is an authorized form of search and seizure. As
held in similar cases of People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526 (2000) and People v.
Canton, 394 SCRA 478 (2002) this Court affirmed the conviction of the
accused Leila Reyes Johnson and Susan Canton for violation of drugs law
when they were found to be in hiding in their body illegal drugs upon airport
frisking. The Court in both cases explained the rationale for the validity of
airport frisking 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.