That on June 26, 1998 inside the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, and within the jurisdiction of this

onora!le "ourt, the a!o#e$na%ed Accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess three plastic !a&s of %etha%pheta%ine hydrochloride, a re&ulated dru&, each !a& wei&hin&' a total of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT TWO (580.2) grams of me !am"!e am#$e !%&ro'!(or#&e( That the a!o#e$na%ed accused does not ha#e the correspondin& license or prescription to possess or use said re&ulated dru&( ")NT*A*+ T) ,A-(
.2/

The facts are as follows' Accused$appellant ,eila *eyes Johnson was, at the ti%e of the incident, 08 years old, a widow, and a resident of )cean 1ide, "alifornia, 2(1(A( 1he is a for%er 3ilipino citi4en who was naturali4ed as an A%erican on June 16, 1968 and had since !een wor5in& as a re&istered nurse, ta5in& care of &eriatric patients and those with Al4hei%er6s disease, in con#alescent ho%es in the 2nited 1tates(
.7/

)n June 16, 1998, she arri#ed in the 8hilippines to #isit her son6s fa%ily in "ala%!a, ,a&una( 1he was due to fly !ac5 to the 2nited 1tates on July 26( )n July 20, she chec5ed in at the 8hilippine 9illa&e otel to a#oid the traffic on the way to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport :NAIA; and chec5ed out at 0'<= p(%( the ne>t day, June 26, 1998(
.0/

At around ?'<= p(%( of that day, )li#ia *a%ire4 was on duty as a lady fris5er at @ate 16 of the NAIA departure area( er duty was to fris5 departin& passen&ers, e%ployees, and crew and chec5 for weapons, !o%!s, prohi!ited dru&s, contra!and &oods, and e>plosi#es(
.6/

-hen she fris5ed accused$appellant ,eila Johnson, a departin& passen&er !ound for the 2nited 1tates #ia "ontinental Airlines "1$912, she felt so%ethin& hard on the latter6s a!do%inal area( 2pon inquiry, Ars( Johnson e>plained she needed to wear two panty &irdles as she had just under&one an operation as a result of an ectopic pre&nancy(
.?/

Not satisfied with the e>planation, *a%ire4 reported the %atter to her superior, 18)7 *eynaldo B%!ile, sayin& CSir, hindi po ako naniniwalang panty lang po iyon. D :C1ir, I do not !elie#e that it is just a panty(D; 1he was directed to ta5e accused$appellant to the nearest wo%en6s roo% for inspection( *a%ire4 too5 accused$appellant to the rest roo%, acco%panied !y 18)1 *i4alina Eernal( B%!ile stayed outside(
.8/

Inside the wo%en6s roo%, accused$appellant was as5ed a&ain !y *a%ire4 what the hard o!ject on her sto%ach was and accused$appellant &a#e the sa%e answer she had pre#iously &i#en( *a%ire4 then as5ed her Cto !rin& out the thin& under her &irdle(D Accused$appellant !rou&ht out three plastic pac5s, which *a%ire4 then turned o#er to B%!ile, outside the wo%en6s roo%(
.9/

The confiscated pac5s, %ar5ed as B>hi!its "$1, "$2 and "$<, contained a total of 08=(2 &ra%s of a su!stance which was found !y NEI "he%ist @eor&e de ,ara to !e %etha%pheta%ine hydrochloride or Csha!u(D
.1=/

B%!ile too5 accused$appellant and the plastic pac5s to the 1st *e&ional A#iation and 1ecurity )ffice :1st *A1); at the arri#al area of the NAIA, where accused$appellant6s passport and tic5et were ta5en and her lu&&a&e opened( 8ictures were ta5en and her personal !elon&in&s were ite%i4ed(
.11/

In her defense, accused$appellant alle&ed that she was standin& in line at the last !oardin& &ate when she was approached !y B%!ile and two fe%ale officers( 1he clai%ed she was handcuffed and ta5en to the wo%en6s roo%( There, she was as5ed to undress and was then su!jected to a !ody search( 1he insisted that nothin& was found on her person( 1he was later ta5en to a roo% filled with !o>es, &ar!a&e, and a chair( er passport and her purse containin& F80=(== and so%e chan&e were ta5en fro% her, for which no receipt was issued to her( After two hours, she said, she was transferred to the office of a certain "ol( "astillo(
.12/

After another two hours, "ol( "astillo and a!out ei&ht security &uards ca%e in and threw two white pac5a&es on the ta!le( They told her to ad%it that the pac5a&es were hers( Eut she denied 5nowled&e and ownership of the pac5a&es( 1he was detained at the 1st *A1) office until noon of June 28, 1999 when she was ta5en !efore a fiscal for inquest( 1he clai%ed that throu&hout the period of her detention, fro% the ni&ht of June 26 until June 28, she was ne#er allowed to tal5 to counsel nor was she allowed to call the 2(1( B%!assy or any of her relati#es in the 8hilippines(
.1</ .17/

)n Aay 17, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositi#e portion of which reads'

.10/

- B*B3)*B, jud&%ent is here!y rendered findin& the accused ,BI,A J) N1)N + *B+B1, @2I,T+ !eyond reasona!le dou!t of the offense of 9iolation of 1ection 16 of *epu!lic Act 6720 as a%ended and here!y i%poses on her the penalty of *B",21I)N 8B*8BT2A and conde%ns said accused to pay a fine of 3I9B 2NG*BG T )21ANG 8B1)1 :80==,===(==; without su!sidiary i%prison%ent in case of insol#ency and to pay the costs of suit( The Aetha%pheta%ine ydrochloride :sha!u; ha#in& a total net wei&ht of 08=(2 &ra%s :B>hi!its C@D, C"$2D and C"$<D; are here!y confiscated in fa#or of the &o#ern%ent and the Eranch "ler5 of "ourt is here!y ordered to cause the transportation thereof to the Gan&erous Gru&s Eoard for disposition in accordance with law( The accused shall !e credited in full for the period of her detention at the "ity Jail of 8asay "ity durin& the pendency of this case pro#ided that she a&reed in writin& to a!ide !y and co%ply strictly with the rules and re&ulations of the "ity Jail( 1) )*GB*BG(
Accused$appellant contends that the trial court con#icted her' :1; Cdespite failure of the prosecution in pro#in& the ne&ati#e alle&ation in the infor%ationHD :2; Cdespite failure of the prosecution in pro#in& the quantity of %etha%pheta%ine hydrochlorideHD :<; Cdespite #iolation of her constitutional ri&htsHD and :7; Cwhen &uilt was not pro#en !eyond reasona!le dou!t(D
.16/

First( Accused$appellant clai%s that she was arrested and detained in &ross #iolation of her constitutional ri&hts( 1he ar&ues that the Csha!uD confiscated fro% her is inad%issi!le a&ainst her !ecause she was forced to affi> her si&nature on the plastic !a&s while she was detained at the 1 *A1) office, without the assistance of counsel and without ha#in& !een infor%ed of her constitutional ri&hts( ence, she ar&ues, the %etha%pheta%ine hydrochloride, or Csha!u,D should ha#e !een e>cluded fro% the e#idence(
st .1?/

The contention has no %erit( No state%ent, if any, was ta5en fro% accused$appellant durin& her detention and used in e#idence a&ainst her( There is, therefore, no !asis for accused$appellant6s in#ocation of Art( III, I12:1; and :<;( )n the other hand, what is in#ol#ed in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a #alid search %ade on her person(

The trial court held'

The constitutional ri&ht of the accused was not #iolated as she was ne#er placed under custodial in#esti&ation !ut was #alidly arrested without warrant pursuant to the pro#isions of 1ection 0, *ule 11< of the 1980 *ules of "ri%inal 8rocedure which pro#ides'
1ec( 0( Arrest without warrantH when lawful( A peace officer or a pri#ate person %ay, without a warrant, arrest a person' :a; :!; when in his presence, the person to !e arrested has co%%itted, is actually co%%ittin&, or is atte%ptin& to co%%it an offenseH when an offense has in fact just !een co%%itted, and he has personal 5nowled&e of facts indicatin& that the person to !e arrested has co%%itted itH and

:2nderscorin& supplied;
>>>>

A custodial in#esti&ation has !een defined in 8eople( #( Ayson 1?0 1"*A 2<= as Cthe questionin& initiated !y law enforce%ent officers after a person has !een ta5en .in/ custody or otherwise depri#ed of his freedo% in any si&nificant way( This presupposes that he is suspected of ha#in& co%%itted an offense and that the in#esti&ator is tryin& to elicit infor%ation or .a/ confession fro% hi%(J The circu%stances surroundin& the arrest of the accused a!o#e falls in either para&raph :a; or :!; of the *ule a!o#e cited, hence the alle&ation that she has !een su!jected to custodial in#esti&ation is far fro% !ein& accurate(
.18/

The %etha%pheta%ine hydrochloride sei4ed fro% her durin& the routine fris5 at the airport was acquired le&iti%ately pursuant to airport security procedures( 8ersons %ay lose the protection of the search and sei4ure clause !y e>posure of their persons or property to the pu!lic in a %anner reflectin& a lac5 of su!jecti#e e>pectation of pri#acy, which e>pectation society is prepared to reco&ni4e as reasona!le( 1uch reco&nition is i%plicit in airport security procedures( -ith increased concern o#er airplane hijac5in& and terroris% has co%e increased security at the nation6s airports( 8assen&ers atte%ptin& to !oard an aircraft routinely pass throu&h %etal detectorsH their carry$on !a&&a&e as well as chec5ed lu&&a&e are routinely su!jected to >$ray scans( 1hould these procedures su&&est the presence of suspicious o!jects, physical searches are conducted to deter%ine what the o!jects are( There is little question that such searches are reasona!le, &i#en their %ini%al intrusi#eness, the &ra#ity of the safety interests in#ol#ed, and the reduced pri#acy e>pectations associated with airline tra#el( Indeed, tra#elers are often notified throu&h airport pu!lic address syste%s, si&ns, and notices in their airline tic5ets that they are su!ject to search and, if any prohi!ited %aterials or su!stances are found, such would !e su!ject to sei4ure( These announce%ents place passen&ers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections a&ainst warrantless searches and sei4ures do not apply to routine airport procedures(
.19/ .2=/

The pac5s of %etha%pheta%ine hydrochloride ha#in& thus !een o!tained throu&h a #alid warrantless search, they are ad%issi!le in e#idence a&ainst the accused$appellant herein( "orollarily, her su!sequent arrest, althou&h li5ewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the disco#ery and reco#ery of Csha!uD in her person in flagrante delicto.

Anent her alle&ation that her si&nature on the said pac5s :B>hi!its "$1, "$2 and "$< herein; had !een o!tained while she was in the custody of the airport authorities without the assistance of counsel, the 1olicitor @eneral correctly points out that nowhere in the records is it indicated that accused$appellant was required to affi> her si&nature to the pac5s( In fact, only the si&natures of B%!ile and *a%ire4 thereon, alon& with their testi%ony to that effect, were presented !y the prosecution in pro#in& its case( Fourth( ,astly, accused$appellant contends that the e#idence presented !y the prosecution is not sufficient to support a findin& that she is &uilty of the cri%e char&ed( This contention %ust li5ewise !e rejected( "redence was properly accorded to the testi%onies of the prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers( -hen police officers ha#e no %oti#e to testify falsely a&ainst the accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presu%ption( In this case, no e#idence has !een presented to su&&est any i%proper %oti#e on the part of the police enforcers in arrestin& accused$appellant( This "ourt accords &reat respect to the findin&s of the trial court on the %atter of credi!ility of the witnesses in the a!sence of any palpa!le error or ar!itrariness in its findin&s(
.2?/

It is noteworthy that, aside fro% the denial of accused$appellant, no other witness was presented in her !ehalf( er denial cannot pre#ail o#er the positi#e testi%onies of the prosecution witnesses( As has !een held, denial as a rule is a wea5 for% of defense, particularly when it is not su!stantiated !y clear and con#incin& e#idence( The defense of denial or fra%e$up, li5e ali!i, has !een in#aria!ly #iewed !y the courts with disfa#or for it can just as easily !e concocted and is a co%%on and standard defense ploy in %ost prosecutions for #iolation of the Gan&erous Gru&s Act(
.28/ .29/

The "ourt is con#inced that the require%ents of the law in order that a person %ay !e #alidly char&ed with and con#icted of ille&al possession of a dan&erous dru& in #iolation of *(A( No( 6720, as a%ended, ha#e !een co%plied with !y the prosecution in this case( The decision of the trial court %ust accordin&ly !e upheld( As re&ards the fine i%posed !y the trial court, it has !een held that courts %ay fi> any a%ount within the li%its esta!lished !y law( "onsiderin& that fi#e hundred ei&hty point two :08=(2; &ra%s of sha!u were confiscated fro% accused$appellant, the fine i%posed !y the trial court %ay properly !e reduced to 80=,===(==(
.<=/

WHEREFORE, the decision of the *e&ional Trial "ourt of 8asay "ity, Eranch 11=, findin& accused$appellant &uilty of #iolation of I16 of *(A( No( 6720, as a%ended, and i%posin& upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua is here!y A33I*ABG with the A)GI3I"ATI)N that the fine i%posed on accused$appellant is reduced to 80=,===(==( "osts a&ainst appellant( The passport, airline tic5et, lu&&a&e, &irdle and other personal effects not yet returned to the accused$appellant are here!y ordered returned to her( )O ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and e !eon, "r., ""., concur(