G.R. No. 191023 ; February 06, 2013
Don Djowel Sales y Abalahin, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Don Djowel Sales was charged with illegal possession of marijuana under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 . On May 24, 2003, at the Manila Domestic Airport, he underwent a routine security check. Non-uniformed personnel Daniel Soriano, while frisking Sales, felt a bulge in his pocket. When asked to produce the item, Sales was reluctant. Soriano called his supervisor, PO1 Trota-Bartolome, who then instructed Sales to open his hand, revealing two rolled paper sticks containing marijuana. The items were marked, and subsequent chemical analysis confirmed they were marijuana.
Sales presented a different version, claiming that after an initial frisk, a male person without an ID stopped him again. After he emptied his pockets, this person later claimed two marijuana sticks “fell” from him. He alleged a frame-up, stating his companions, including a local mayor, were present but left him. The RTC found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted at the airport was valid, and whether the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were preserved.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The search was a valid warrantless search under airport security procedures. Routine inspections at airports, where passengers are on notice that they and their belongings are subject to search, are reasonable and necessary for public safety. This falls under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, akin to a “stop and frisk” for protective purposes, as the search was conducted to prevent the carrying of weapons or contraband aboard aircraft.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established. The prosecution presented testimonial and documentary evidence showing an unbroken chain from seizure to laboratory examination. PO1 Trota-Bartolome immediately took custody, the investigating officer marked the items at the airport, and they were delivered to the crime laboratory on the same day. The forensic chemist confirmed the integrity of the specimens received. Minor discrepancies in the testimony, such as the exact sequence of who held the drugs first, did not create reasonable doubt about the identity of the corpus delicti. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, as mere denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the apprehending officers.