PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

appellee, vs
.
SUSAN CANTON,
appellant
.
Facts:Canton was charged for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972. She was caught in possession of metamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) without prescription or license. Susan was bound
to Saigon, Vietnam. Prior to her flight, she passed through the metal
detector and beeped.A civilian inspector of the airport searched her
and upon frisking, she felt something that is bulging in the abdomen of
Susan. They were able to recover packets that were wrapped
with packing tape.
Issue:Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of regulated
drugs, as well as the arrest ofSusan were violative of her constitutional
rights
Ruling: No, warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the regulated
drugs, as well as the arrest ofSUSAN, were not violative of
her constitutional rights. What was done to Susan was a stop andfrisk
search.
stop and frisk situatio
n refers to a case where a police officer approaches a personwho is
acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal
behavior in line withthe general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection. The search was made pursuantto routine airport
security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act
No. 6235
which states that
Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search
for , and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances
xxx.
This is another exemption in warrantlessarrest and seizure. After the
metal detector alarmed SUSAN consented to be frisked, whichresulted
in the discovery of packages on her body. Persons may lose the
protection of the searchand seizure clause by exposure of their persons
or property to the public in a manner reflecting alack of subjective

expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to

recognize asreasonable.
In People v. Susan Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December
27, 2002, it was held that a search made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure is allowed under R.A. 6235, which provides that every airline ticket shall
contain a condition that hand-carried luggage, etc., shall be subject to search, and
this condition shall form part of the contract betweenthe passenger and the air carrier. To limit the action of the
airport security
personnel to simply refusing the passenger entry into the aircraft and sending her
home (as suggested by the appellant), and thereby depriving the security
personnel of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search
without warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence
and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. Thus, in this
case, the strip search in the ladies room was justified under the circumstances.