GR L 27968; (December 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27968 December 3, 1975
JOSE G. LOPEZ and TOMAS VELASCO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF DAVAO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASAC, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO, SENIOR NBI AGENT OF DAVAO, EARL REYNOLDS, AND/OR ANY OF THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.
FACTS
This special civil action arose from the seizure of 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V Jolo Lema by the Collector of Customs of Davao. The Court of Tax Appeals, in a related case (Nasiad v. Court of Tax Appeals), affirmed the legality of this seizure, finding the goods were smuggled from Indonesia. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, leaving only one issue for resolution in the present petition.
The remaining issue pertains to a separate search conducted on September 19, 1966. A team headed by respondent NBI Senior Agent Earl Reynolds searched the hotel room of petitioner Tomas Velasco without a warrant. Velasco had entered into a contract with co-petitioner Jose Lopez, the awardee of the M/V Jolo Lema, for the vessel’s operation. Petitioners allege this warrantless search violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE
Whether the warrantless search of petitioner Tomas Velasco’s hotel room by government agents is constitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the search was constitutional and dismissed the petition. The legal logic rests on the established exception of a valid consent to a warrantless search. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, while fundamental, is subject to exceptions where the right is waived. A search conducted with the voluntary consent of the individual concerned is a recognized and settled exception to the requirement of a search warrant.
In this case, the defense successfully interposed by the respondents was that petitioner Velasco consented to the search of his hotel room. The Court, after a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and records, found that such consent was indeed present. Consequently, the search was not unreasonable or unlawful. The Court emphasized that while it is vigilant in protecting constitutional rights, it must also uphold lawful governmental efforts against smuggling. Since the search was effected with consent, there was no infringement of the constitutional guarantee.