You are on page 1of 3

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)