Lopez and Velasco v.

Commissioner of Customs

December 03, 1975

Facts: The Supreme Court in the case of Nasiad v. Court of Tax Appeals, ruled against the petitioner in
the herein case and made it clear that there was no failure to comply with the requirements of the law
in effecting the search and seizure of 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from M/V Jolo Lema.
However, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus which arose from the
seizure made on the hotel room of the latter. When the vessel was searched by the government
operatives, Reynolds raided the hotel rented by Velasco without any search warrant in the absence of
the latter or any other person except Ibanez the alleged wife of Velasco. Petitioner contends that such
search and seizure is violative under the Constitution. The respondents answered that it such actions are
valid because after Reynolds identify himself as a police officer and explaining his purpose, he was
allowed to enter the room by Ibanez who subsequently volunteered to open the suitcase and baggages
of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein.

Issue: Whether or not consent given by Ibanez is sufficient in law to dispense warrantless search and
seizure?

Ruling: Yes, such consent is enough in law to dispense warrantless search and seizure. The Supreme
Court held that although there was an attempt on the part of petitioner to counteract the force of
recital of facts by an affidavit by Corazon Velasco, who stated that she is the legal wife of the petitioner
and Ibanez was a manicurist by occupation, their effort appurtenant thereto is doomed to failure. If such
were indeed the case, then it is much more easily to understand why Ibanez who could be aptly describe
as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time would have signified her consent readily
and immediately. Under the circumstances, that was the most prudent course of action nor could the
officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. There was a person inside who from
all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would preclude them
from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the circumstances, therefore, it can readily
be conclude that there was consent suffient in the law to dispense with the need for a search warrant.