The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Canton addresses the critical balance between airport security measures and an individual’s constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. The Court affirmed Susan Canton’s conviction for drug possession, ruling that the airport search was a valid exception to the warrant requirement due to routine security procedures. This case clarifies the extent to which airport security can conduct searches without a warrant, highlighting the diminished expectation of privacy in airports and the importance of maintaining safety and preventing crime.

Stripped of Rights? Airport Security, Illegal Drugs, and the Canton Case

Susan Canton was apprehended at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) while attempting to board a flight to Saigon, Vietnam. Upon passing through a metal detector, an alarm was triggered, leading to a pat-down search by a female airport security personnel, Mylene Cabunoc. During the search, Cabunoc felt suspicious bulges around Canton’s abdominal area, genital area, and thighs. A subsequent strip search in a comfort room revealed three packages wrapped in gray tape, later found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The central legal question revolves around whether the warrantless search conducted on Canton was a violation of her constitutional rights, or a legitimate exercise of airport security protocol.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, as stated in Article III, Section 2:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

However, this protection is not absolute. Philippine jurisprudence recognizes several exceptions to the warrant requirement, including searches of moving vehicles, seizures in plain view, customs searches, consented searches, stop-and-frisk situations (Terry searches), and searches incidental to lawful arrests. The Court had to determine if any of these exceptions applied to Canton’s case.

One argument presented was whether the search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The Court clarified that the arrest followed the search, not preceded it. The officers only discovered the illegal drugs during the search. The Supreme Court held that a lawful arrest must come before the search and cannot be used to justify the search retroactively. This means that the search of Susan Canton could not be justified as incidental to a lawful arrest, since the arrest happened after the discovery of the drugs.

The appellant invoked the “Terry search” doctrine, arguing that the search should have been limited to a pat-down of outer garments to check for weapons. The Court noted the unique context of airport security. R.A. No. 6235, Section 9, explicitly states:

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 law allows for broader searches for prohibited materials or substances. This demonstrates the diminished expectation of privacy in airports due to the overriding public interest in preventing hijacking and terrorism. The metal detector triggering the alarm gave authorities reasonable suspicion, and Canton consented to the initial frisk. The discovery of suspicious packages justified the subsequent strip search, as the airport security personnel had the right to ensure no prohibited items were being smuggled onto the plane. It would be detrimental to law enforcement if airport personnel were limited to simply denying entry to suspicious passengers, without the power to further investigate and search for illegal items.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on People v. Johnson, a case with similar facts. In Johnson, a departing passenger was found to be carrying shabu during a routine airport frisk. The Court in Johnson upheld the search, reasoning that:

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.

This underscores the idea that airport security measures reduce the expectation of privacy for travelers. This reduction is justified by the need to ensure the safety of air travel. Canton attempted to distinguish her case from People v. Johnson by citing Katz v. United States, a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with electronic surveillance. However, the Court found Katz inapplicable, as it involved a different set of facts and circumstances related to privacy in a public telephone booth.

The Court also addressed the issue of custodial investigation and the right to counsel. According to Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, a person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. The Court found that Canton’s rights were not violated, as no custodial investigation took place. While she signed a receipt for the seized items, she was informed that she had the option not to sign. The prosecution did not rely on her signature to prove its case, and no statement was taken from her and used against her. Therefore, the right to counsel was not violated because she was not subject to questioning aimed at eliciting incriminating information.

The Court acknowledged that the admission of a medical report containing potentially incriminating statements made by Canton was erroneous because it was not properly identified or presented as evidence. However, this error did not affect the outcome of the case. Her conviction was based on the valid search and seizure of the drugs and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, not the medical report. Despite the error, the evidence was enough to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Canton’s conviction, finding that the warrantless search was justified under airport security procedures and that her constitutional rights were not violated. While the seizure of illegal drugs was lawful, the Court ruled that other items confiscated such as passport, plane ticket and girdles, were unlawfully seized and ordered their return as they were not instruments or fruits of the crime. The court clarified that these items were not subject of the offense and could not be used as evidence. Thus, these items should be returned to the appellant.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in People v. Canton?	The central issue was whether the warrantless search of Susan Canton at the airport violated her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court assessed whether the search fell under any recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Why did the court rule the airport search was legal?	The court ruled that airport searches are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement due to the diminished expectation of privacy in airports. This exception is justified by the need to ensure public safety and prevent acts of terrorism or hijacking.
What is a “Terry search” and why didn’t it apply here?	A “Terry search” or “stop and frisk” is a limited search for weapons based on reasonable suspicion. It didn’t apply because airport security procedures allow for broader searches for prohibited items, not just weapons, as outlined in R.A. No. 6235.
Was Susan Canton under custodial investigation?	No, the court found that Susan Canton was not under custodial investigation. While she signed a receipt for the seized items, she was informed of her right not to sign, and no statements were taken from her or used against her.
What was the significance of People v. Johnson in this case?	People v. Johnson established a precedent for allowing airport security personnel to conduct searches for prohibited items. The Court relied on it to support the legality of the search in Canton’s case due to the similar facts and issues.
Why was the medical report deemed inadmissible?	The medical report was inadmissible because it was not properly identified or presented as evidence during the trial. It violated the hearsay rule, but the Court affirmed the conviction based on other valid evidence.
What items seized from Susan Canton were ordered to be returned?	The court ordered the return of Canton’s passport, plane tickets, and girdles. These items were not considered subject of or instruments of the crime, and thus their seizure exceeded lawful bounds.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for travelers?	This ruling reinforces that travelers have a reduced expectation of privacy at airports. They are subject to searches for prohibited items as part of routine security procedures, which are deemed reasonable for ensuring public safety.

People v. Canton provides important clarification regarding the scope of airport security searches in the Philippines. The decision balances individual rights with the necessity of maintaining safe air travel. It emphasizes the diminished expectation of privacy in airports and upholds the authority of security personnel to conduct thorough searches for prohibited substances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SUSAN CANTON, APPELLANT., G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002