Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975) FACTS: M/V Jolo Lema, skippered by Capt. Aquilino Pantinople and chartered by Mr.Tomas Velasco.had been under strict surveillance by the of agents of the NBI, PC,RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf inBatjak, Sasa, Davao City. Sometime in the latter part of August to September 18,1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffeebeans. In its trip to Indonesia it brought various merchandise from thePhilippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra and coffee beansand subsequently taken to Davao City. On 19 September 1966 on its a way toTahuna, Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City it was apprehended. On thesame day, the vessel was searched and after Captain Pantinople informed theteam that Velasco, the charterer of the vessel, had other documents showing
that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee, acombined team of Constabulary and Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operativesproceeded to the Velasco's room at the Skyroom Hotel in Davao City, to ask forsaid document but Velasco was not inside the hotel room when they entered theroom. There are different claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibañez orwhether Velasco's wife, who was allegedly inside the room at that time,voluntarily allowed the police officers to enter; and whether the police officers"forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several documents andpapers were found, then seized, confiscated and took away the same," orwhether Mrs. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velascoand delivered the documents and things contained therein to Reynolds. TheCollector of Customs of Davao seized 1,480 sacksof copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema. Theseizure was declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals.ISSUE: WON whether the search conducted without the search warrant for thehotel room of Velasco is violative of such constitutional right againstunreasonable search and seizureHELD: NO.Without the proper search warrant, no public official has the right to enterthe premises of another without his consent for the purpose of search andseizure. It does not admit of doubt therefore that a search or seizure cannot bestigmatized as unreasonable and thus offensive to the Constitution if consent beshown. This immunity from unwarranted intrusion is a personal right whichmay be waived either expressly or impliedly. There was an attempt on the partof petitioners to counteract the force of the above recital by an affidavit of oneCorazon Y. Velasco, 21 who stated that she is the legal wife of petitioner TomasVelasco, and another by such petitioner himself 22 reiterating such a fact andthat the person who was present at his hotel room was one Teofila Ibañez, "amanicurist by occupation ." 23 Their effort appurtenant thereto is doomed tofailure. If such indeed were the case, then it is much more easily understandable
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 10 pages?
criminal law, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Arrest