Lopez vs.

Commissioner ofCustoms [GR L-27968,3 December 1975] Second Division, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 took no part Facts: M/V Jolo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the NBI, PC, RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf inBatjak, Sasa, Davao City. M/V [Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt. Aquilino Pantinopleand chartered by Mr. Tomas Velasco. During the period from the latter part of August toSeptember 18, 1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta, and Mangenito, all of Indonesia. In its trip to Indonesia it broughtvarious merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra andcoffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao City. Said vessel passed Marore, Indonesia on 18 September 1966 on its a way to Tahuna, Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City where it wasapprehended on 19 September 1966. At about 3:00 p.m. of the said day, when the vessel wassearched and after Captain Pantinople informed the team that Velasco, the charterer of the vessel,had other documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra andcoffee, a combined team of Constabulary and Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operativesheaded by Earl Reynolds, Senior NBI Agent of Davao, proceeded to the Velasco s room at theSkyroom Hotel in Davao City, to ask for said document. Velasco was not inside the hotel roomwhen they entered the room. There are conficting claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibaezor whether Velasco s wife, who was allegedly inside the room at that time, voluntarily allowedthe police officers to enter; and whether the police officers forcibly opened luggages and boxesfrom which only several documents and papers were found, then seized, confiscated and took away the same, or whether Mrs. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to Reynolds. The Collector of Customs of Davao seized 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vesselJolo Lema. The seizure was declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals, and its decision wasaffirmed by the Supreme Court on 29 November 1974 in Nasiad vs. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L-29318, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 238). In the present special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; the only question left then is whether the search conducted by a partyheaded by Reynolds without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco, who entered into acontract with Jose G. Lopez, the awardee of such Philippine Reparations Commission vessel, for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing, is violative of such constitutional provision. Issue: Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotelroom then rented by Velasco. Held: There was an attempt on the part of Lopez and Velasco to counteract the force of therecital of the written statement of Teofila Ibaez (allegedly wife of Tomas Velasco) by anaffidavit of one Corazon Y. Velasco, who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco, and another by Velasco himself; reiterating that the person who was present at his hotel room was oneTeofila Ibaez, a manicurist by occupation. If such indeed were the case, then it is much moreeasily understandable why that person, Teofila Ibaez, who could be aptly described as thewrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time, would have signified her consent readilyand immediately. Under the circumstances, that was the most prudent course of action. It wouldsave her and even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Nor could the officers of thelaw be blamed if they would act on the appearances. There was a person inside who from allindications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the circumstances,therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with theneed for a search warrant