Sales vs. People of the Philippines

A warrantless search conducted on an airline passenger at an airport pre-departure area is valid pursuant to routine security procedures, even absent a prior metal detector alarm, provided the frisker develops reasonable suspicion based on feeling a bulging item and observing the passenger's nervous demeanor; and the non-presentation of every person who handled the seized drugs is not fatal to the prosecution's case as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Petitioner Don Djowel Sales y Abalahin was apprehended on May 24, 2003, at the Manila Domestic Airport pre-departure area while preparing to board a flight to Kalibo, Aklan. During a routine frisking by a non-uniformed PNP personnel, a slightly bulging item was felt inside petitioner's right pocket. Petitioner initially refused to open his hands after taking the item out, prompting the frisker to call a supervisor. Upon instruction, petitioner revealed two rolled paper sticks containing dried marijuana fruiting tops, leading to his immediate arrest and investigation by airport security and PDEA personnel.

• The Incident: On May 24, 2003, petitioner arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport for a Cebu Pacific flight to Kalibo, Aklan. At the pre-departure area, he passed through the Walk-Thru Metal Detector Machine without triggering an alarm. He was subsequently frisked by NUP Daniel M. Soriano, who felt a slightly bulging item in petitioner's right pocket. When asked to bring the item out, petitioner obliged but refused to open his hands, appearing nervous. Soriano called PO1 Cherry Trota-Bartolome, who instructed petitioner to open his hand. Petitioner revealed two rolled paper sticks containing dried marijuana fruiting tops.
• Petitioner's Version: Petitioner claimed he was frisked twice. After emptying his pockets the first time (revealing cigarettes and P8,000 cash), he was stopped near the comfort room by a male frisker who asked him to empty his pockets again. The frisker initially said it was "okay" but then called petitioner back, claiming two small white wrappings fell from him. Petitioner denied owning the items.
• Custody and Examination: PO1 Trota-Bartolome brought petitioner and the seized items to the 2nd PCAS and turned them over to the PDEA. Investigating officer POII Samuel B. Hojilla marked the items "SBH-A" and "SBH-B." On the same day, SPO2 Rosendo Olandesca submitted the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemical Officer P/Insp. Sandra Decena-Go received them and confirmed positive results for marijuana.

• Validity of the Search: Petitioner argued that the meticulous bodily search was unnecessary and irregular because he successfully passed through the metal detector without triggering any alarm, giving the security personnel no reason to conduct a thorough search.
• Chain of Custody: Petitioner maintained that there was no competent evidence establishing that the items taken from him were the very same items that reached the chemist for analysis, emphasizing that SPO2 Olandesca (who delivered the items to the lab) and PO2 Hojilla (who marked them) were not presented as witnesses.
• Frame-up and Extortion: Petitioner claimed he was a victim of frame-up and extortion by the security personnel.

• Validity of the Search: Respondent countered that the warrantless search was valid as part of routine airport security procedures authorized by law and jurisprudence, with the frisker developing reasonable suspicion upon feeling the bulging item and observing petitioner's nervous demeanor.
• Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that the chain of custody was unbroken and the identity, integrity, and probative value of the seized marijuana were adequately preserved, with the chemist confirming the items were the same ones marked and submitted.
• Credibility of Apprehending Officers: Respondent maintained that the apprehending officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and the frame-up defense was belied by petitioner's own admission that the officers did not take his money.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted on petitioner at the airport pre-departure area was valid despite the absence of a prior metal detector alarm.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug despite the non-presentation of certain witnesses who handled the specimen.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: The warrantless search was valid. Routine airport security procedures allow frisking and physical searches of passengers, whose expectation of privacy is reduced. Pursuant to R.A. No. 6235, the scope of such searches is not limited to weapons but extends to prohibited materials or substances. The frisker's reasonable belief that the bulging item was illegal, coupled with petitioner's nervous demeanor and reluctance to show the contents of his pocket, justified the search.
• Chain of Custody: The chain of custody was not broken. Non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The non-presentation of every person who handled the drugs is not indispensable. PO1 Trota-Bartolome identified the marked items in court, and the chemist confirmed receiving them in the same condition on the same day, establishing an unbroken chain.

• Warrantless Search in Airports — Routine airport security procedures constitute a valid warrantless search. Passengers have reduced privacy expectations and are notified that they are subject to search. The scope of such searches is not confined to weapons (Terry search) but extends to prohibited materials or substances. A more extensive search is justified when the frisker discovers a suspicious item and observes the passenger's apprehensiveness.
• Chain of Custody in Drug Cases — The chain of custody rule requires monitoring the movements of seized drugs from the accused to the court. However, strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The non-presentation of every person who came into contact with the drugs is not indispensable as long as the chain remains unbroken.

• "Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures."
• "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected."
• "[T]here is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."

• People v. Johnson, 401 Phil. 734 (2000) — Applied. Ruled that evidence obtained from a routine frisk at an airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures, as passengers have reduced privacy expectations.
• People v. Canton, 442 Phil. 743 (2002) — Applied. Held that the scope of an airport security search is not confined to weapons but extends to prohibited substances, and a more extensive search is justified by the discovery of packages and the passenger's apprehensiveness.
• People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011 — Followed. Held that the non-presentation of every person who came into contact with the seized drugs is not fatal as long as the chain of custody is unbroken.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Criminalizes the possession of dangerous drugs, specifically marijuana. Applied to convict petitioner for possessing 0.23 gram of dried marijuana fruiting tops.
• Section 9, Republic Act No. 6235 — Provides that every airline ticket contains the condition that the holder and their luggage are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances, and refusal to be searched prevents boarding. Applied to justify the warrantless search at the airport.
• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines "chain of custody" as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to presentation in court for destruction. Cited to explain the concept of chain of custody.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Outlines the procedural requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. The Court clarified that non-compliance is not fatal if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Reyes