The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Don Djowel Sales for illegal possession of marijuana, emphasizing the legality of routine airport security searches. This decision reinforces that airport security procedures, including frisking, are reasonable intrusions on privacy given the paramount interest in public safety. The Court highlighted that when security personnel have reasonable suspicion—such as feeling a bulge during a pat-down—they are justified in conducting a more thorough search, and evidence obtained during these searches is admissible in court. This ruling underscores the balance between individual rights and the necessity of security measures in public spaces like airports.

The Airport Frisk: Did Security Overstep or Protect?

Don Djowel Sales was arrested at Manila Domestic Airport after a security frisk revealed marijuana in his pocket. He argued that the search was an unlawful violation of his rights, while the prosecution maintained it was a legitimate airport security procedure. The central legal question: Does a routine airport security frisk that leads to the discovery of illegal drugs violate an individual’s right against unreasonable search and seizure?

The case hinged on the legality of the warrantless search conducted on Sales. The Supreme Court referenced People v. Johnson, stating:

“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.”

Building on this principle, the Court affirmed that airport security procedures are an established exception to the warrant requirement due to the diminished expectation of privacy in airports and the compelling public interest in preventing air travel-related crimes. The initial metal detector check didn’t raise suspicion, but the subsequent frisk by NUP Soriano revealed a bulge in Sales’ pocket.

The court found no irregularity in the security personnel’s actions, as their reasonable suspicion justified asking Sales to empty his pockets. The discovery of marijuana during this search was deemed lawful under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6235, which explicitly states that:

“Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft.”

This statutory provision essentially puts airline passengers on notice that they are subject to search for prohibited materials, and refusal to comply results in denial of boarding. This stance was emphasized in People v. Canton, which underscored that airport security is not limited to searching for weapons but extends to any prohibited substances.

In this context, the Court evaluated Sales’ defense of being framed and extorted. However, the Court found no credible evidence to support his claims. Specifically, the court highlighted that Sales himself admitted that the security and police personnel demanded him to turn over and surrender all his possessions, to wit: cellular phone, pla[n]e ticket and boarding pass, except his money (TSN, April 16, 2008, p. 18). This, to the mind of this Court, strongly belied Sales’ imputation of frame-up by the police to secure monetary gain.”

The Court then addressed the challenge to the chain of custody of the evidence. The chain of custody ensures the integrity of the seized drug from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. The Court stated:

“Chain of Custody’ means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.”

The key is that while adherence to the procedures is important, what is most crucial is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. PO1 Trota-Bartolome identified the items and their markings in court, testifying that the seized marijuana and Sales were promptly turned over to the PDEA team at the airport. She witnessed the marking of the items by the assigned officer, Samuel B. Hojilla, using his own initials. The two rolled papers containing marijuana fruiting tops with markings “SBH-A” and “SBH-B” were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day by SPO2 Rosendo Olandesca.

Thus, while SPO2 Olandesca, the one who delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, was not presented as a witness, the Court found no break in the chain of custody. In People v. Amansec, the Court clarified that not every person who handled the seized drugs needs to testify, as long as the chain of custody is clearly established and the drugs are properly identified. Therefore, the straightforward testimonies of PO1 Trota-Bartolome and NUP Soriano were sufficient to prove Sales’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the warrantless search conducted on Don Djowel Sales at the airport was a violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
What did the police find during the search?	During the search, police found two rolled paper sticks containing 0.23 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops in Sales’ pocket.
Why did the court consider the airport search legal?	The court considered the airport search legal because it was a routine security procedure conducted in an airport, where individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy due to security concerns.
What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases?	The ‘chain of custody’ refers to the process of tracking and documenting the handling of evidence, ensuring that it remains untainted from the point of seizure to its presentation in court.
Did the court find any breaks in the chain of custody?	No, the court did not find any significant breaks in the chain of custody, despite the fact that one officer who handled the evidence was not presented as a witness.
What was Sales’ defense in the case?	Sales claimed that he was a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers involved in his arrest.
Why did the court reject Sales’ defense?	The court rejected Sales’ defense because he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of being framed and extorted.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding Sales guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of marijuana).

This case reaffirms the authority of airport security personnel to conduct reasonable searches to ensure public safety. It serves as a reminder of the balancing act between individual rights and collective security needs in public spaces. The court’s decision underscores that the necessity of preventing potential threats justifies limited intrusions on personal privacy during airport security procedures.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DON DJOWEL SALES Y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 191023, February 06, 2013