(1) Hadji Socor Cadidia was caught transporting two sachets of shabu during an airport frisking at Manila Domestic Airport. She claimed it was her sanitary napkin but further inspection found the drugs.
(2) She was found guilty by the trial court and appealed, claiming inconsistencies in witness testimony and a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the witness testimony credible overall and the chain of custody was sufficiently established.
(3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that airport frisking is an authorized form of search given safety interests, and the prosecution had successfully shown the integrity of evidence was preserved through the proper chain of
(1) Hadji Socor Cadidia was caught transporting two sachets of shabu during an airport frisking at Manila Domestic Airport. She claimed it was her sanitary napkin but further inspection found the drugs.
(2) She was found guilty by the trial court and appealed, claiming inconsistencies in witness testimony and a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the witness testimony credible overall and the chain of custody was sufficiently established.
(3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that airport frisking is an authorized form of search given safety interests, and the prosecution had successfully shown the integrity of evidence was preserved through the proper chain of
(1) Hadji Socor Cadidia was caught transporting two sachets of shabu during an airport frisking at Manila Domestic Airport. She claimed it was her sanitary napkin but further inspection found the drugs.
(2) She was found guilty by the trial court and appealed, claiming inconsistencies in witness testimony and a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the witness testimony credible overall and the chain of custody was sufficiently established.
(3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that airport frisking is an authorized form of search given safety interests, and the prosecution had successfully shown the integrity of evidence was preserved through the proper chain of
(1) Hadji Socor Cadidia was caught transporting two sachets of shabu during an airport frisking at Manila Domestic Airport. She claimed it was her sanitary napkin but further inspection found the drugs.
(2) She was found guilty by the trial court and appealed, claiming inconsistencies in witness testimony and a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the witness testimony credible overall and the chain of custody was sufficiently established.
(3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that airport frisking is an authorized form of search given safety interests, and the prosecution had successfully shown the integrity of evidence was preserved through the proper chain of
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Airport frisking
G.R. No. 191263 October 16, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA, Accused-Appellant. FACTS: On 31 July 2002, Hadji Socor Cadidia upon entry at the departure area of Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I in Pasay City was noticed by two non-uniformed female personnel of PNP. The two PNP personnel who are assigned frisker, frisked Hadji and found that something was unusual and thick in the area of Hadji’s buttocks. Upon inquiry, Hadji answered that it was only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness.Not convinced with the explanation, the PNP female personnel brought the accused to the comfort room inside the domestic airport to check. The PNP female personnel asked Hadji to remove her underwear, they discovered that inside were two sachets of shabu. The shabu and sanitary napkin was confiscated by the friskers. It was transferred to their police supervisor SPO3 Appang as well as the sanitary napkin as evidence then it was transferred to Intelligence and Investigation Office of the 2nd Regional Aviation Security Office (RASO), Domestic International Airport. The seized items were then turned over to SPO4 Rudy Villaceran of NAIA-DITG. SP03 Appang placed his initials on the confiscated items at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Office (PDEA) located at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The specimens in turn were referred by PO2 Samuel B. Cobilla (PO2 Cobilla) of the NAIA-DITG to Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes (Forensic Chemist Reyes) of the Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City for examination. After the arrest, the Information was filed in Criminal Case No. 02-1464 for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165. The following defenses were raised by the accused. a.) She told the friskers that she is having her menstrual period that is why there is something bulking in her private part. b.) She was ordered to remove her underwear and nothing was found by the friskers but they alleged that they have found two sachets of shabu. c.) She told her relatives to bring P200,000 to be paid to the police however the relatives only managed to bring P6,000. This was rejected by the police and as a consequence a case was filed against her. RTC found the accused guilty of the crime. On appeal, the accused contended that there is inconsistencies with the testimonies of the police officers who frisked her. Appellant likewise argued against her conviction by the trial court despite the fact that the identity of the illegal drugs allegedly seized was not proven with moral certainty due to the broken chain of custody of evidence. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the inconsistencies of the prosecution’s witnesses did not touch on material points. Hence, they can be disregarded for they failed to affect the credibility of the evidence as a whole. The alleged inconsistencies failed to diminish the fact that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto at the departure area of the domestic airport transporting shabu. The defenses of frame-up and alibi cannot stand against the positive testimonies of the witnesses absent any showing that they were impelled with any improper motive to implicate her of the offense charged. Finally, the OSG posited that the integrity of evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is any showing of bad faith, and accused-appellant failed to overcome this presumption. CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. It emphasized that the more important matter was the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drug. It upheld the trial court’s ruling that the prosecution satisfactorily preserved the chain of custody of evidence over the seized drugs as well as the integrity of the specimen confiscated from the accused- appellant. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (2) Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated drug. HELD: (1) NO. In affirming the lower court decision the Supreme Court discussed that in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.
Upon review of the records, SC found no conflict in the narration of events of the prosecution witnesses. In her direct testimony, One of the friskers testified that both of them asked Hadji to remove what was inside her underwear when they brought the accused to the comfort room to check what was hidden inside. However, in her re-direct, she clarified that it was really the other frisker who particularly made the request but she was then also inside the cubicle with the accused. This clarification is sufficient for the Court to conclude that the two of them were inside the cubicle when the request to bring out the contents of the underwear was made and the concealed illegal drug was discovered.
The other inconsistency alleged by the accused pertains to what happened during the confiscation of the illegal drug at the cubicle. The statements can be harmonized as a continuous and unbroken recollection of events.
The SC pointed out that minor inconsistencies do not negate the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole presented a coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would still be upheld. What is essential is that the witnesses’ testimonies corroborate one another on material details surrounding the commission of the crime.
(2) NO. The duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, defines the chain of custody as: "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody was of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition
In Mallillin v. People, the requirements to establish chain of custody were laid down by this Court. First, testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence. Second, witnesses should describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the item. The prosecution in this case was able to prove, through the testimonies of its witnesses, that the integrity of the seized item was preserved every step of the process. From the friskers it was properly transferred to first link SPO3 Appang then to second link RASO of the Domestic International Airport then third link SPO4 Rudy Villaceran of the NAIA-DITG then referred to PO2 Cobilla of the NAIA-DITG to Forensic Chemist Reyes of the Crime Laboratory for examination. The same specimens contained in the two plastic sachets previously marked were identified by two female friskers in open court as the same ones confiscated from the accused. As to non-compliance of all the requirements laid down by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 states that non- compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. What is important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The successful presentation of the prosecution of every link of chain of custody as discussed above is sufficient to hold the accused liable for the offense charged. On a final note, SC held that airport frisking is an authorized form of search and seizure. Passengers attempting to hoard an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors: their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage arc routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects. physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity or the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed. travellers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that the are subject to search and. if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would he subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.
