People Vs Johnson

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
LEILA
JOHNSON Y REYES, accused-appellant.
as a lady frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA departure area. Her duty was
to frisk departing passengers, employees, and crew and check for
weapons, bombs, prohibited drugs, contraband goods, and explosives.
[G.R. No. 138881. December 18, 2000]

MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
This is an appeal from the decision, dated May 14, 1999, of the
Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, finding accused-appellant Leila
Johnson y Reyes guilty of violation of 16 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act), as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentencing her to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and
the costs of the suit.
While inside the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the accused
possess three plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
regulated drug, each bag weighing: #1 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY
SEVEN POINT FIVE (187.5) grams; #2 ONE HUNDRED NINETY
EIGHT POINT ZERO (198.0) grams; and #3 ONE HUNDRED NINETY
FOUR POINT SEVEN (194.7) grams, respectively, or a total of FIVE
HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT TWO (580.2) grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The accused does not have the corresponding license
or prescription to possess or use said regulated drug.
Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty,
whereupon trial was held. The prosecution presented four witnesses,
namely, NBI Forensic Chemist George de Lara, SPO4 Reynaldo
Embile, duty frisker Olivia Ramirez, and SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. The
defense presented accused-appellant who testified in her own behalf.
Accused-appellant Leila Reyes Johnson was, at the time of the
incident, 58 years old, a widow, and a resident of Ocean Side,
California, U.S.A. She is a former Filipino citizen who was naturalized
as an American on June 16, 1968 and had since been working as a
registered nurse, taking care of geriatric patients and those with
Alzheimers disease, in convalescent homes in the United States.
On June 16, 1998, she arrived in the Philippines to visit her sons family
in Calamba, Laguna. She was due to fly back to the United States on
July 26. At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia Ramirez was on duty
When she frisked accused-appellant Leila Johnson, a departing

passenger bound for the United States, she felt something hard on the
latters abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Mrs. Johnson explained she
needed to wear two panty girdles as she had just undergone an
operation as a result of an ectopic pregnancy.
Not satisfied with the explanation, Ramirez reported the matter to her
superior, SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, saying Sir, hindi po ako
naniniwalang panty lang po iyon. (Sir, I do not believe that it is just a
panty.) She was directed to take accused-appellant to the nearest
womens room for inspection. Ramirez took accused-appellant to the
rest room, accompanied by SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. Embile stayed
outside.
Inside the womens room, accused-appellant was asked again by
Ramirez what the hard object on her stomach was and accusedappellant gave the same answer she had previously given. Ramirez
then asked her to bring out the thing under her girdle. Accusedappellant brought out three plastic packs, which Ramirez then turned
over to Embile, outside the womens room.
The confiscated packs contained a total of 580.2 grams of a substance
which was found by NBI Chemist George de Lara to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Embile took accused-appellant and the plastic packs to the 1st
Regional Aviation and Security Office (1st RASO) at the arrival area of
the NAIA, where accused-appellants passport and ticket were taken
and her luggage opened. Pictures were taken and her personal
belongings were itemized.
In her defense, accused-appellant alleged that she was standing in line
at the last boarding gate when she was approached by Embile and two
female officers. She claimed she was handcuffed and taken to the
womens room. There, she was asked to undress and was then
subjected to a body search. She insisted that nothing was found on her
person. She was later taken to a room filled with boxes, garbage, and
a chair. Her passport and her purse containing $850.00 and some
change were taken from her, for which no receipt was issued to her.
After two hours, she said, she was transferred to the office of a certain
Col. Castillo.
After another two hours, Col. Castillo and about eight security guards
came in and threw two white packages on the table. They told her to
admit that the packages were hers. But she denied knowledge and
ownership of the packages. She was detained at the 1st RASO office
until noon of June 28, 1999 when she was taken before a fiscal for
inquest. She claimed that throughout the period of her detention, from
the night of June 26 until June 28, she was never allowed to talk to
counsel nor was she allowed to call the U.S. Embassy or any of her
relatives in the Philippines.
TC found the accused LEILA JOHNSON Y REYES, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 16 of Republic
Act 6425 as amended and hereby imposes on her the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and condemns said accused to pay a fine of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of
suit. The accused shall be credited in full for the period of her detention
at the City Jail of Pasay City during the pendency of this case provided
that she agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules
and regulations of the City Jail.
Accused-appellant claims that she was arrested and detained in gross
violation of her constitutional rights. She argues that the shabu
confiscated from her is inadmissible against her because she was
forced to affix her signature on the plastic bags while she was detained
at the 1st RASO office, without the assistance of counsel and without
having been informed of her constitutional rights. Hence, she argues,
the methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, should have been
excluded from the evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not accused was arrested and detained in gross violation
of her constitutional rights.
Ruling:
No. The contention has no merit. No statement, if any, was taken from
accused-appellant during her detention and used in evidence against
her. There is, therefore, no basis for accused-appellants invocation of
Art. III, 12(1) and (3). On the other hand, what is involved in this case
is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search made on her
person.
The trial court held: The constitutional right of the accused was not
violated as she was never placed under custodial investigation but was
validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. 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;
(b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(Underscoring supplied)
xxxx
The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the
routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport
security procedures.
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. Such recognition is
implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the
nations airports. 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.
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been
obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in
evidence against the accused-appellant herein. Corollarily, her
subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified
since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her
person in flagrante delicto.
Anent her allegation that her signature on the said packs had been
obtained while she was in the custody of the airport authorities without
the assistance of counsel, the Solicitor General correctly points out that
nowhere in the records is it indicated that accused-appellant was
required to affix her signature to the packs. In fact, only the signatures
of Embile and Ramirez thereon, along with their testimony to that effect,
were presented by the prosecution in proving its case.
There is, however, no justification for the confiscation of accusedappellants passport, airline ticket, luggage, and other personal effects.
The pictures taken during that time are also inadmissible, as are the
girdle taken from her, and her signature thereon. Rule 126, 2 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the search and seizure
only of the following:
Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may be issued for
the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
Accordingly, the above items seized from accused-appellant should be
returned to her.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 110, finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of 16 of R.A.
No. 6425, as amended, and imposing upon her the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the fine
imposed on accused-appellant is reduced to P50,000.00. Costs
against appellant.
The passport, airline ticket, luggage, girdle and other personal effects
not yet returned to the accused-appellant are hereby ordered returned
to her.

People Vs Johnson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Johnson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Johnson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the accused charged with?

What evidence was presented against the accused?

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

[G.R. No. 138881. December 18, 2000]

When she frisked accused-appellant Leila Johnson, a departing

and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be

You might also like