PEOPLE

v JOHNSON
G.R. No. 138881| December 18, 2000 | Mendoza | Appeal from RTC| Airport Searches
PLAINTIFF-APPELLE: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Leila Johnson y Reyes
SUMMARY: Leila Johnson was frisked at the gate at the NAIA departure area. The lady frisker, Olivia Ramirez, felt
something hard on Leilas abdominal area, which Leila claimed to be a special girdle. Disbelieving this, Olivia
reported this to her superior, SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, who instructed her to inspect her further. Leila was then
directed to remove the object. She had three plastic packs of shabu, weighing over 580 grams total. Her passport,
ticket, luggage, and other personal effects were seized and pictures were taken of her. She was convicted in the RTC
for violating Sec. 16 of RA 6425
DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
ISSUES: Whether or not the search and seizure was
1. Leila Johnson, 58, a widow, a former Filipino
valid.
citizen, now a naturalized American, was visiting

her son in Calamba, Laguna. She was set to fly
HELD/RATIO: YES.
back home to the US.
1. This is a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto,
2. Olivia Ramirez, the lady frisker on duty when Leila
pursuant to a valid search made on her person.
went to NAIA, felt something hard on Leilas
Her rights were not violated since she wasnt
abdominal area. Leila said it was two panty girdles
placed in custodial investigation.
she had to wear due to an ectopic pregnancy.
2. Persons may lose the protection of the search and
3. Olivia didnt buy it. She told SPO4 Embile: Sir, hindi
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or
po ako naniniwalang panty lang po iyon.
property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack
4. Embile told her to investigate, so Olivia, with SPO1
of subjective expectation of privacy, which society
Rizalina Bernal, took Leila to a womens room.
is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
Asking again what it was and receiving the same
recognition is implicit in airport security
answer, Olivia told her to remove the object,
procedures, with increasing concerns over
which turned out to be shabu.
hijacking & terrorism requiring increased security.
st
5. Embile took Leila to the 1 Regional Aviation and
3. The shabu was acquired legitimately pursuant to
Security Office (1st RASO) where Leilas passport
airport security procedures.
and ticket were taken and her luggage opened.
4. The packs of shabu having thus been obtained
Pictures were taken.
through a valid warrantless search, are admissible
6. LEILAS VERSION: She was waiting in line at the
in evidence. Her subsequent warrantless arrest,
boarding gate when she was approached by
was justified since it was effected upon the
Embile and two female officers, handcuffed, and
discovery and recovery of shabu in her person in
taken to the womens room, where she was asked
flagrante delicto.
to undress and subjected to a body search.
5. However, the other personal effects and pictures
Nothing was found on her. She was transferred to
taken from and of her are inadmissible and should
the custody of Col. Castillo who presented her with
not have been confiscated/taken, since they are
two white packages and told her to admit the
unrelated to the offense. Her belongings should be
packages were hers and affix her signature
returned to her.
thereon. She claims she was detained for two days

and was not allowed to speak to counsel or family.
WHEREFORE, RTC Pasay decision is affirmed.
7. RTC Pasay convicted her for possession. Leila

appealed, claiming the shabu should be
SO ORDERED.
inadmissible since she was forced to sign the bags
and not informed of her rights.