People vs. O - Cochlain
People vs. O - Cochlain
People vs. O - Cochlain
An airport search remains a valid administrative search only so long as the scope
December 10, 2018 | Peralta, J. | Searches and Seizures of administrative search exception is not exceeded; once a search is conducted for
a criminal investigatory purpose, it can no longer be justified as an administrative
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES search rationale. Where an action is taken that cannot serve the administrative
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: EANNA O’COCHLAIN purpose, either because the threat necessitating the administrative search has been
SUMMARY: O’Cochlain was found in possession of marijuana in the airport. dismissed or because the action is simply unrelated to the administrative goal, the
RTC found the accused guilty. CA affirmed the decision. SC upheld the same as action clearly exeeds the scope for the permissible search.
the sticks of marijuana were obtained through a valid warrantless search and were 4. The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
admissible in evidence against the accused. personal right which may be waived. A person may voluntarily consent to have
government officials conduct a search or seizure that would be otherwise be barred
DOCTRINE: Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the by the Constitution. Similar to the Fourth Amendment, Section 2, Article III of the
evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) Constitution does not proscribe voluntary cooperation.
search incidental to lawful arrest; (2) search of moving motor vehicle; (3) customs 5. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred but shown by clear and
search; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) consented warrantless search; (6) convincing evidence. The government bears the burdent of proving consent.
stop and frisk search; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstance. 6. In this case, the Court finds that there is a valid warrantless search based on express
consent. When Security Screening Officer Suguitan requested to conduct a pat
FACTS: down search on Eanna, the latter readily agreed. Record is devoid of any evidence
1. July 14, 2013: In the City of Laoag and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable that he manifested objection or hesitation on the body search. The request to frisk
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and him was orally articulated to him in such language that left no room for doubt that
feloniously had in his possession, custody and control: two (2) sticks of dried he fully understood what was requested. Unpertubed, he verbally replied to the
Marijuana Leaves, a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight of 0.3824 grams, request demonstrating that he also undersood the nature and the consequences of
without any license or authority to possess, in violation of the aforesaid law. the request. He voluntarily raised his hands by stretching sideward to the level of
2. RTC: Found the accused guilty of violating Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165. his shoulders with palms open. His affirmative reply and action cannot be viewed
3. CA: Affirmed the decision of the trial court hence, this petition. as merely an implied acquiescence or a passive conformity to an authority
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search was valid – YES (based on express consent). considering that Suguitan is not even a police officer and cannot be said to have
acted with a coercive or intimidating stance.
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 9, 2016 Decision and 7. Further, it is reasonable to assume that Eanna is an educated and intelligent man.
the July 21, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36412, which He is a 53-year old working professional (claimed to be employed or attached to a
affirmed the November 22,2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, drugaddiction center) and a well-travelled man (said to have been in 22 different
Laoag City, in Criminal Case No. 15585-13, finding accused-appellant Eanna countries and spent hours in customs). Indubitably, he knew, actually or
O'Cochlain guilty for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, are constructively, his right against unreasonable searches or that he intentionally
AFFIRMED. conceded the same.
RATIO: 8. Having been obtained through a valid warrantless search, the sticks of marijuana
1. While the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and are admissible in evidence against him. Corollarily, his subsequent arrest, although
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by Section 2, likewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, a routine security check being conducted in and recovery of an illegal drug in his person inflagrante delicto.
air and sea ports has been a recognized exception.
2. Searches and seizures are ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized
suspicicion of wrongdoing. However, because administrative searches primarily
ensure public safety instead of detecting criminal wrongdoing, they do not require
individual suspicion. Where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket
suspisionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as reasonable. In particular,
airport searches have received judicial saction essentially because of the magnitude
and pervasiveness of the danger to the public safety and the overriding concern has
been the threat of death or serious bodily injury to members of the public posed by
the introduction of inherently lethal weapons or bombs.