Papa vs Mago

Q. Upon reliable information elements of the Anti-Smuggling Team of the Manila PD under Ricardo Papa, Manila Chief of Police, duly deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs JPE intercepted two trucks owned by Lanopa which contained goods owned by Mago. Said goods were alleged to have been under declared for purposes of evading Tariff and Customs Law. Upon interception outside the port, the truck was searched and the goods were seized. Mago brought the case, ex-parte, to the CFI invoking his right against warrantless searches and seizures. CFI ruled ordering the release of the seized articles. Was the seizure valid?A. Yes, the seizure was valid. The Tariff and Customs Code empowers the Bureau of Customs to seize, inspect, examine, detain or arrest persons in enforcement of the tariff and customs law. The Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Bureau in the enforcement of the provisions of the code, excluding all other courts. The CFI had no jurisdiction to order the release of the seized articles. Jurisdiction of the Bureau begins upon the entry of the articles in port, and ends only upon full payment of all custom duties taxes charges and fees.

Pacis vs Pamaran

Q. Santos bought a car from Hatch, a tax exempt citizen, one automobile. Santos only paid 311 pesos as customs duty and taxes. The Land Transportation Commission informed Pacis, Acting Customs Collector, that the automobile was a “hot car”, pursuant to this Pacis through his subordinates looked into the files of his office and found out that although Santos paid 311 pesos, what was actually collectible upon the car was 2500 pesos. Pacis instituted seizure proceedings over the car and issued a warrant of seizure and detention. Pursuant to this warrant the car was taken in a parking lot. Santos now sent a letter to Pacis threatening the latter of a suit for usurpation of judicial functions, for under the Constitution only judges can issue warrants of such nature. Was there usurpation of judicial function?A. None. The Tariff and Customs Code, specifically Art. 2205, grants the Collector of Customs(or Acting Collector of Customs in this case) the plentitude of competence in issuing warrants for seizure and detention over articles which are in violation of tariff and customs laws. The remedy of prohibition sought by the Collector of Customs against the respondent owner and the Prosecutor is granted.

People vs Gatward

Q. Accused Gatward was a passenger of KLM flight No. 806. Upon inspection of his luggage, after surveillance was conducted identifying said accused as a drug courier accused was asked to step down the plane and accompany police officers and customs police of the NAIA. When his luggage was checked, powdery substance was found and was identified by chemists as heroin. The evidence from his luggage was used against him in trial wherein he was found guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Gatward challenges the inadmissibility of the evidence used against him as the same was taken from his personal luggage without the benefit of a search warrant. Was the search valid?A. Yes, the search was valid. While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose, when appellant checked in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of KLM Flight No. 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and regulations, an international

practice of strict observance, and waived any objection to a warrantless search. His subsequent arrest, although likewise without a warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of the heroin in his bag, or in flagrante delicto.People vs Susan Canton

Q. The metal detector booth alarmed as SUSAN passed through, this prompted the frisker on duty to conduct a stop and frisk upon SUSAN. The frisker felt rice like granules on the thigh, lower abdomen and near the genital area of SUSAN, upon inquiry SUSAN alleged that what was felt was only money. This grew suspicion prompting the frisker to call her police supervisor which ordered her to call the customs agent for NAIA for purposes of conducting a thorough physical examination. In the ladies comfort room, upon a strip search three sachets covered in grey tape was found, and after which an examination was conducted where in it was found that the contents of the sachet were shabu. SUSAN was arrested and was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. SUSAN assails the validity of the evidence presented against her on the ground that said shabu exceeded the scope of a warrantless arrest under the Terry Doctrine as espoused in Terry v. Ohio as it is limited to weapons. Was the search and seizure of the shabu valid?A. Yes. The Terry Doctrine is not limited to such weapons. The search in this case was made pursuant to a routine airport security procedure, which is allowed under Sec. 9 of RA 6235 SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed thereon: 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, which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier. This constitutes another exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures.

People vs Johnson

Q. Johnson was a departing passenger bound for the US via Continental Airlines CS-912. Olivia Ramirez was then the frisker on duty, whose task was to frisk departing passengers, employees and crew to check for weapons, bombs, prohibited drugs, contraband goods and explosives. When Olivia frisked Leila, the former felt something hard on the latters abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Leila explained that 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, Olivia reported the matter to her superior, who then directed her to take Leila to the nearest womens room for inspection. In the comfort room, Leila was asked to bring out the thing under her girdle. She acceded and brought out three plastic packs which contained a total of 580.2 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.A. This Court ruled that the packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride seized during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures and are therefore admissible in evidence against Leila. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified, since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person flagrante delicto. (this case is the basis for the decision in the case of People vs. SUSAN CANTON)