Title
People vs. Canton
Case
G.R. No. 148825
Decision Date
Dec 27, 2002
Susan Canton was convicted for possessing 998.2809 grams of shabu at NAIA. The Supreme Court upheld her conviction, ruling the warrantless search and arrest valid under airport security protocols and flagrante delicto. Her rights were not violated, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua with a P1M fine was affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148825)

Procedural History and Trial Outcome

At trial, prosecution witnesses included a forensic chemist (Julieta Flores), the lady frisker (Mylene Cabunoc), and SPO4 Victorio de los Reyes. The defense presented SPO2 Jerome Cause and recalled the frisker as hostile; appellant did not testify. The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a regulated drug and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua and a P1,000,000 fine. Motions for reconsideration and inhibition were denied by the trial court. On appeal, appellant raised multiple assignments of error challenging the warrantless search and seizure, the scope of the frisk/strip search, violation of right to counsel, admission of a medical report, and the applicability of People v. Johnson.

Facts Found by the Trial Court and Evidence

While passing through a metal detector at NAIA, the detector alarmed as appellant proceeded; the lady frisker performed a pat-down and felt bulges on appellant’s abdomen, front genital area, and thighs. Appellant refused an initial request to remove items, claimed they were “money,” and was escorted to a ladies’ comfort room for further examination by the frisker and a customs examiner. Appellant removed clothing and produced three gray tape-wrapped packages taken from abdomen, genital area, and right thigh; these packages contained white crystalline substances that laboratory testing identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Appellant signed a receipt for seized items (including three bags of shabu, passport, plane ticket, and two panty girdles), and later was arrested after discovery of the substances.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant’s principal contentions included: (1) the strip search was not incidental to a lawful arrest because no arrest preceded the search; (2) the frisk exceeded Terry limits because it went beyond a pat-down for weapons; (3) she was subjected to custodial interrogation without counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution; (4) admission and judicial notice of an unoffered medical report constituted hearsay and improper reliance by the trial court; and (5) People v. Johnson was improperly applied, with appellant urging instead reliance on Katz v. U.S.

Constitutional and Doctrinal Framework Applied

The Court applied the 1987 Constitution (Article III protections against unreasonable search and seizure and exclusion of evidence obtained in violation thereof). It reiterated that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable except under recognized exceptions established in jurisprudence (including vehicle searches, plain view, customs searches, consent/waiver, Terry stop-and-frisk, and searches incidental to lawful arrest). The Court emphasized that the question of reasonableness is case-specific and that exceptions must be supported by factual circumstances.

Court’s Conclusion on Search Incidental to Arrest

The Supreme Court held that the frisk/strip search on appellant was not incidental to a prior lawful arrest because no arrest preceded the search. Under Rule 113 and controlling jurisprudence, a search incidental to arrest requires that the arrest occur first. Here, the airport personnel did not know the contents of the concealed packages prior to the strip search; discovery of the substances during the search prompted the arrest. Therefore, the search could not be justified as incidental to a lawful arrest.

Airport Security Procedures and the RA 6235 Exception

The Court found the search permissible under airport security procedures authorized by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235, which conditions carriage on a ticket on the passenger’s consent to searches for prohibited materials or substances. The Court treated routine airport searches as a recognized exception to the warrant requirement distinct from Terry; such searches are not limited to weapons because airport security necessarily extends to prohibited materials given the gravity of aviation safety. The appellant had passed through a metal detector, consented to a frisk, and the discovery of suspicious packages plus her evasive comment (“money, money only”) and the tactile impression of rice-like granules justified further inspection. The Court emphasized that a rule precluding further search in such circumstances would unduly hinder effective law enforcement in airports.

Limitations of the Terry Stop-and-Frisk Doctrine

The Court clarified that Terry v. Ohio authorizes a narrowly tailored pat-down of outer clothing for weapons where officer safety is a concern. It held that the Terry doctrine does not confine airport security searches because statutory airport procedures expressly authorize searches for prohibited materials and substances beyond weapons. Thus, the scope of permissible airport security searches is broader than the limited protective frisk described in Terry.

Reliance on People v. Johnson

The Court applied People v. Johnson, a Philippine precedent involving substantially similar facts (departure airport frisk, discovery of taped packages containing shabu, conviction upheld). In Johnson the Court had recognized the reduced expectation of privacy in airport travel and the reasonableness of routine airport searches and associated seizures. The Supreme Court distinguished Katz because Katz concerned electronic surveillance and a different factual and doctrinal milieu; thus Katz was inapposite to the airport-search context presented here.

Arrest Without Warrant Justified as Flagrante Delicto

Once the packages containing a regulated drug were discovered on appellant’s person, the Court held that the subsequent warrantless arrest fell within Section 5(a) of Rule 113 (arrest without warrant when the offense is committed in the arresting officer’s presence). The discovery constituted flagrante delicto; therefore the arrest without a warrant was lawful and appropriate.

Right to Counsel and Custodial Investigation Analysis

The Court addressed appellant’s claim that her right to counsel under Section 12, Article III was violated. It reiterated that the right to counsel attaches upon custodial investigation or custody interrogation — i.e., when the person is taken into custody and questioned to elicit incriminating information. The Court found no custodial interrogation in the relevant sense: no statements obtained during such an interrogation were admitted or formed part of the prosecution’s case, and the defense’s witness (SPO2 Jerome Cause) testified that no custodial investigation was conducted post-arrest. Additionally, signature on the receipt for seized items was voluntary and the appellant was told she could decline to sign. Therefore the constitutional right to counsel was not implicated in a manner that warranted reversal.

Admission of the Medical Report and Hearsay

The Court agreed with appellant that the trial court err

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms