Salvador v. People GR No. 146706 July 15, 2005 FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by b y accused Tomas Salvador, assailing assailing the decision rendered by the CA, affirming a ffirming the decision of RTC RTC convicting him and his fellow coaccused of violating the Tariff Tariff and Customs Code. On the wee hours of un. !, "##!, Aurelio $andin, %anilo Santos and petitioner Tomas Salvador all aircraft mechanics employed by the &hilippine Air 'ines (&A') (&A') and assigned at at *A+A and $anila %omestic Airport, Airport, were apprehended by intelligence operatives of the &hilippine Air orce (&A) (&A) for possessing " pacets of smuggled watches and /ewelries valuing at more than half a million pesos. The officers were conducting routine surveillance operations at the Airport to act on reports of drug trafficing and smuggling b y &A' &A' personnel. They were eeping a close watch on an airplane pared inside Airport Terminal. Terminal. At around ""01 pm, the officers noticed persons boarding the plane, and eventually they disembared with their abdominal areas bulging, thereafter boarding an airplane tow truc. The officers immediately followed the truc, when they were able to bloc it, they a sed the persons to alight, the accused having pacages covered by girdles, inside their shirts. This prompted the officers to arrest the accused, bringing them to the &AS2CO$ &AS2CO$ office. 3pon e4amination of the pacages, an inventory was made of assorted watches and gold /ewelries. An information was charged against the accused, but they denied committing the offense, alleging that they were framed b y the officers. %espite the defense, the RTC rendered a decision finding them guilty, which the CA affirmed. Only accused Salvador filed this petition assailing the decision. SS!"S: ". 5hether 5hether the the sei6ed sei6ed items items are admissible admissible in evidence. evidence. #"$%: ". 7es. The petitioner contends that the warrantless search and sei6ure conducted was illegal, since they were unaware that a crime was committed co mmitted and the officers /ust engaged in a fishing e4pedition in violation of the petitioner8s right against unlawful search and sei6ure. The Court ruled that one of the e4ceptions in re9uiring a warrant before an arrest is when it amounts to a customs search. The special mission of the officers was to conduct a surveillance, to act on reports of drug trafficing and smuggling by &A' &A' personnel. This is in a nature of a customs search so a warrant may be dispensed with. +n addition to that, the petitioner and his co-accused were on board a moving aircraft tow truc, which is also one of the recogni6ed e4ceptions for a warrant to be dispensed with. +t is impracticable to wait for a warrant to be issued first before a search is conducted for moving vehicles, since they can easily be moved out of the locality or /urisdiction were the warrant is sought. 2stablishing that the search and sei6ure conducted was legal, the pieces of evidence obtained are admissible in court to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. petitioner.
&repared by0 o-Anne %. Colo9uio