G.R. No. 191263 - People vs. Cadidia

On July 31, 2002, around 6:30 AM, Philippine National Police personnel Marilyn Trayvilla and Leilani Bagsican, while performing their duties as friskers at Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I, conducted a routine search.
Trayvilla noticed an unusual, thick mass in the area of Cadidia’s buttocks upon her entry into the departure area.
When questioned, the accused explained that the mass was nothing but her sanitary napkin.
Unsatisfied with the explanation, the friskers escorted Cadidia to a comfort room where, after instructing her to remove her underwear, they discovered two plastic sachets containing shabu concealed within the sanitary napkin.

Recounted the initial observation and subsequent frisking which revealed the concealed sachets.
In her re-direct, clarified that although she initially stated she had asked Cadidia to reveal the contents, it was her co-worker Bagsican who actually made the request while both were present in the cubicle.

Corroborated Trayvilla’s account of the discovery and testified that she had personally observed the suspicious bulk in the accused’s maong pants.
Mentioned that after the discovery, she temporarily secured the sachets in her blazer before turning them over to their supervisor.

Recounted that after the friskers recovered the sachets and sanitary napkin, they promptly handed the evidence to him at the comfort room.
Confirmed his role in marking the seized items and subsequently transferring them to the Intelligence and Investigation Office and further to the NAIA-DITG.

The evidence, including the confiscated sachets and sanitary napkin, was sequentially turned over:

From the friskers (Trayvilla and Bagsican) to SPO3 Appang.
Then to the Domestic International Airport’s RASO, and thereafter to SPO4 Rudy Villaceran of NAIA-DITG.

SPO3 Appang’s initials were recorded on the items, thus securing the chain of custody.
The seized samples were forwarded to Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes at the Camp Crame Crime Laboratory.
Laboratory examination, detailed in her Initial and Final Chemistry Reports, confirmed the presence of shabu (Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride).

Cadidia testified that she arrived at the airport on the morning of July 31, 2002, intending to board a Cebu Pacific flight to Butuan City.
She claimed that upon encountering the friskers at the x-ray machine, the officers apprehended her and later, in a comfort room, conducted a search due to suspicions of concealed valuables.
She denied possession of drugs, attributing the unusual bulk to her menstrual sanitary napkin; however, the friskers maintained they discovered shabu.
Cadidia further related that after the search, the officers demanded money from her, and she subsequently contacted her relatives to furnish P200,000.00, which only a meager sum of P6,000.00 was provided, leading to her arrest and subsequent drug examination.

Haaji Mohamad Domrang testified in support of Cadidia’s claim that she had requested help from her relatives for money.
The case was consolidated in Criminal Case No. 02-1464 for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
During trial, the prosecution presented detailed testimonies establishing the immediate discovery, secured chain of custody, and laboratory confirmation of the drugs.
The accused’s version of events, including her allegations of frame-up and inconsistencies in the frisking process, was raised as a defense; however, the prosecution maintained that such inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine the overall credibility of the evidence.

Whether the minor discrepancies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses (Trayvilla, Bagsican, and SPO3 Appang) regarding who instructed the accused to remove her underwear and the handling of the evidence are material enough to create reasonable doubt.
Whether these inconsistencies affect the positive identification of Cadidia as the individual who transported the illegal drugs.

Whether the alleged broken chain of custody and the failure to comply with all formal inventory procedures (such as physical inventory, photograph documentation, and proper marking) compromise the evidentiary integrity of the seized drugs.
Whether these procedural lapses, if any, warrant the conviction being set aside.

Whether airport frisking, given the reduced expectation of privacy due to public exposure and stringent security measures, justifiably permits the search and seizure that led to the discovery of the drugs.