THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:p
This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the Special riminal ourt of !anila "Re#ional Trial
ourt$ %ranch &'I&( convictin# accused-appellant of violation of Section )* "b($ +rticle IV in relation
to Section ,$ +rticle ** and Section ) "e( "i($ +rticle * of Republic +ct -,).$ as amended$ other/ise
0no/n as the Dan#erous Dru#s +ct.
The facts as summari1ed in the brief of the prosecution are as follo/s2
On +u#ust *,$ *345$ bet/een *6266 and **266 a.m.$ the appellant and his common-
la/ /ife$ Shirley Reyes$ /ent to the booth of the 7!anila 8ac0in# and 9:port
;or/arders7 in the 8istan# 8ilipino omple:$ 9rmita$ !anila$ carryin# /ith them four
",( #ift /rapped pac0a#es. +nita Reyes "the proprietress and no relation to Shirley
Reyes( attended to them. The appellant informed +nita Reyes that he /as sendin#
the pac0a#es to a friend in <urich$ S/it1erland. +ppellant filled up the contract
necessary for the transaction$ /ritin# therein his name$ passport number$ the date of
shipment and the name and address of the consi#nee$ namely$ 7=+'T9R ;I9R<$
!attac0etr II$ 46.) <urich$ S/it1erland7 "Decision$ p. -(
+nita Reyes then as0ed the appellant if she could e:amine and inspect the
pac0a#es. +ppellant$ ho/ever$ refused$ assurin# her that the pac0a#es simply
contained boo0s$ ci#ars$ and #loves and /ere #ifts to his friend in <urich. In vie/ of
appellant>s representation$ +nita Reyes no lon#er insisted on inspectin# the
pac0a#es. The four ",( pac0a#es /ere then placed inside a bro/n corru#ated bo:
one by t/o feet in si1e "*> : )>(. Styro-foam /as placed at the bottom and on top of
the pac0a#es before the bo: /as sealed /ith mas0in# tape$ thus ma0in# the bo:
ready for shipment "Decision$ p. 4(.
%efore delivery of appellant>s bo: to the %ureau of ustoms and?or %ureau of
8osts$ Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor and husband of Anita (Reyes! follo"ing standard
operating procedure! opened the bo#es for final inspection. $hen he opened
appellant%s bo#! a peculiar odor e&itted therefro&. 'is curiousity aroused! he
s(uee)ed one of the bundles allegedly containing glo*es and felt dried lea*es
inside. +pening one of the bundles! he pulled out a cellophane "rapper protruding
fro& the opening of one of the glo*es. 'e &ade an opening on one of the cellophane
"rappers and too, se*eral gra&s of the contents thereof "tsn$ pp. )3-@6$ October -$
*345A 9mphasis supplied(.
Bob Reyes forth/ith prepared a letter reportin# the shipment to the N%I and
reCuestin# a laboratory e:amination of the samples he e:tracted from the cellophane
/rapper "tsn$ pp. .--$ October -$ *345(.
He brou#ht the letter and a sample of appellant>s shipment to the Narcotics Section
of the National %ureau of Investi#ation "N%I($ at about *2@6 o>cloc0 in the afternoon of
that date$ i.e.$ +u#ust *,$ *345. He /as intervie/ed by the hief of Narcotics
Section. Bob Reyes informed the N%I that the rest of the shipment /as still in his
office. Therefore$ Bob Reyes and three "@( N%I a#ents$ and a photo#rapher$ /ent to
the Reyes> office at 9rmita$ !anila "tsn$ p. @6$ October -$ *345(.
Job Reyes brought out the bo# in "hich appellant%s pac,ages "ere placed and! in
the presence of the -B. agents! opened the top flaps! re&o*ed the styro-foa& and
too, out the cellophane "rappers fro& inside the glo*es. Dried mariDuana leaves
/ere found to have been contained inside the cellophane /rappers "tsn$ p. @4$
October -$ *345A 9mphasis supplied(.
The pac0a#e /hich alle#edly contained boo0s /as li0e/ise opened by Bob Reyes.
He discovered that the pac0a#e contained bric0s or ca0e-li0e dried mariDuana leaves.
The pac0a#e /hich alle#edly contained tabacalera ci#ars /as also opened. It turned
out that dried mariDuana leaves /ere neatly stoc0ed underneath the ci#ars "tsn$ p.
@3$ October -$ *345(.
The N%I a#ents made an inventory and too0 char#e of the bo: and of the contents
thereof$ after si#nin# a 7Receipt7 ac0no/led#in# custody of the said effects "tsn$ pp.
)-@$ October 5$ *345(.
Thereupon$ the N%I a#ents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. +ppellant>s stated address in his
passport bein# the !anila entral 8ost Office$ the a#ents reCuested assistance from the latter>s
hief Security. On +u#ust )5$ *345$ appellant$ /hile claimin# his mail at the entral 8ost Office$ /as
invited by the N%I to shed li#ht on the attempted shipment of the sei1ed dried leaves. On the same
day the Narcotics Section of the N%I submitted the dried leaves to the ;orensic hemistry Section
for laboratory e:amination. It turned out that the dried leaves /ere mariDuana flo/erin# tops as
certified by the forensic chemist. "+ppellee>s %rief$ pp. 3-**$ Rollo$ pp. *@)-*@,(.
Thereafter$ an Information /as filed a#ainst appellant for violation of R+ -,).$ other/ise 0no/n as
the Dan#erous Dru#s +ct.
+fter trial$ the court a (uo rendered the assailed decision.
In this appeal$ accused?appellant assi#ns the follo/in# errors$ to /it2
TH9 'O=9R OERT 9RR9D IN +D!ITTINF IN 9VID9N9 TH9 I''9F+''G
S9+RH9D +ND S9I<9D O%B9TS ONT+IN9D IN TH9 ;OER 8+R9'S.
TH9 'O=9R OERT 9RR9D IN ONVITINF +889''+NT D9S8IT9 TH9
ENDIS8ET9D ;+T TH+T HIS RIFHTS END9R TH9 ONSTITETION =HI'9
END9R ESTODI+' 8RO99DINFS =9R9 NOT O%S9RV9D.
TH9 'O=9R OERT 9RR9D IN NOT FIVINF R9D9N9 TO TH9
9&8'+N+TION O; TH9 +889''+NT ON HO= TH9 ;OER 8+R9'S +!9 INTO
HIS 8OSS9SSION "+ppellant>s %rief$ p. *ARollo$ p. ..(
*. +ppellant contends that the evidence subDect of the imputed offense had been obtained in
violation of his constitutional ri#hts a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure and privacy of
communication "Sec. ) and @$ +rt. III$ onstitution( and therefore ar#ues that the same should be
held inadmissible in evidence "Sec. @ ")($ +rt. III(.
Sections ) and @$ +rticle III of the onstitution provide2
Sec. ). The ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and
effects a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei1ures of /hatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable$ and no search /arrant or /arrant of arrest shall issue
e:cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dud#e after
e:amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the /itnesses he may
produce$ and particularly describin# the place to be searched and the persons or
thin#s to be sei1ed.
Sec. @. "*( The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
e:cept upon la/ful order of the court$ or /hen public safety or order reCuires
other/ise as prescribed by la/.
")( +ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin# section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedin#.
Our present constitutional provision on the #uarantee a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure had
its ori#in in the *3@. harter /hich$ /orded as follo/s2
The ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects
a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei1ures shall not be violated$ and no /arrants
shall issue but uponprobable cause$ to be determined by the Dud#e after e:amination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the /itnesses he may produce$ and
particularly describin# the place to be searched$ and the persons or thin#s to be
sei1ed. "Sec. * H@I$ +rticle III(
/as in turn derived almost verbatim from the ;ourth +mendment to the Enited States onstitution.
+s such$ the ourt may turn to the pronouncements of the Enited States ;ederal Supreme ourt
and State +ppellate ourts /hich are considered doctrinal in this Durisdiction.
Thus$ follo/in# the e:clusionary rule laid do/n in Mapp *. +hio by the /S 0ederal Supre&e
1ourt "@-5 ES -,@$ 4* S.t. *-4,$ - '.9d. *64* H*3-*I($ this ourt$ in Stonehill *. 2io,no ")6 SR+
@4@ H*3-5I($ declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search and
sei1ure /arrant$ abandonin# in the process the rulin# earlier adopted in Moncado *. 3eople%s
1ourt "46 8hil. * H*3,4I( /herein the admissibility of evidence /as not affected by the ille#ality of its
sei1ure. The *35@ harter "Sec. , H)I$ +rt. IV( constitutionali1ed the Stonehill rulin# and is carried
over up to the present /ith the advent of the *345 onstitution.
In a number of cases$ the ourt strictly adhered to the e:clusionary rule and has struc0 do/n the
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safe#uard a#ainst unreasonable
searches and sei1ures. "%ache J o.$ "8hil.($ Inc.$ v. Rui1$ @5 SR+ 4)@ H*35*IA 'im v. 8once de
'eon$ -- SR+ )33 H*35.IA 8eople v. %ur#os$ *,, SR+ * H*34-IA Roan v. Fon1ales$ *,. SR+
-45 H*345IA See also Sala1ar v. Hon. +chacoso$ et al.$ FR No. 4*.*6$ !arch *,$ *336(.
It must be noted$ ho/ever$ that in all those cases adverted to$ the evidence so obtained /ere
invariably procured by the State actin# throu#h the medium of its la/ enforcers or other authori1ed
#overnment a#encies.
On the other hand$ the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sou#ht to be
e:cluded /as primarily discovered and obtained by a private person$ actin# in a private capacity and
/ithout the intervention and participation of State authorities. Ender the circumstances$ can
accused?appellant validly claim that his constitutional ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and
sei1ure has been violatedK Stated other/ise$ may an act of a private individual$ alle#edly in violation
of appellant>s constitutional ri#hts$ be invo0ed a#ainst the StateK
=e hold in the ne#ative. In the absence of #overnmental interference$ the liberties #uaranteed by
the onstitution cannot be invo0ed a#ainst the State.
+s this ourt held in 4illanue*a *. 5uerubin ",4 SR+ @,. H*35)I2
*. This constitutional right "a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure( refers to the
i&&unity of one%s person! "hether citi)en or alien! fro& interference by go*ern&ent$
included in /hich is his residence$ his papers$ and other possessions. . . .
. . . There the state$ ho/ever po/erful$ does not as such have the access e:cept
under the circumstances above noted$ for in the traditional formulation$ his house$
ho/ever humble$ is his castle. Thus is outla"ed any un"arranted intrusion by
go*ern&ent! "hich is called upon to refrain fro& any in*asion of his d"elling and to
respect the pri*acies of his life. . . . "f. Schermerber v. alifornia$ @4, ES 5.5
H*3--I and %oyd v. Enited States$ **- ES -*- H*44-IA 9mphasis supplied(.
In Burdeau *. Mc2o"ell ").- ES ,-. "*3)*($ ,* S t. .,5A -. '.9d. *6,4($ the ourt there in
construin# the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei1ures declared that2
"t(he ;ourth +mendment #ives protection a#ainst unla/ful searches and sei1ures$
and as sho/n in previous cases$ its protection applies to #overnmental action. Its
ori#in and history clearly sho/ that it /as intended as a restraint upon the activities
of soverei#n authority$ and /as not intended to be a limitation upon other than
#overnmental a#enciesA as a#ainst such authority it /as the purpose of the ;ourth
+mendment to secure the citi1en in the ri#ht of unmolested occupation of his
d/ellin# and the possession of his property$ subDect to the ri#ht of sei1ure by process
duly served.
The above rulin# /as reiterated in State *. Bryan ",.5 8.)d --* H*3-4I( /here a par0in# attendant
/ho searched the automobile to ascertain the o/ner thereof found mariDuana instead$ /ithout the
0no/led#e and participation of police authorities$ /as declared admissible in prosecution for ille#al
possession of narcotics.
+nd a#ain in the *3-3 case of $al,er *. State ",)3 S.=.)d *)*($ it /as held that the search and
sei1ure clauses are restraints upon the #overnment and its a#ents$ not upon private individuals
"citing 8eople v. 8otter$ ),6 al. +pp.)d -)*$ ,3 ap. Rptr$ 43) "*3--(A State v. %ro/n$ !o.$ @3*
S.=.)d 36@ "*3-.(A State v. Olsen$ Or.$ @*5 8.)d 3@4 "*3.5(.
'i0e/ise appropos is the case of Bernas *. /S "@5@ ;.)d .*5 "*3-5(. The ourt there said2
The search of /hich appellant complains$ ho/ever$ /as made by a private citi1en L
the o/ner of a motel in /hich appellant stayed overni#ht and in /hich he left behind
a travel case containin# the evidence complained of. The search /as made on the motel o/ner>s o/n
initiative. %ecause of it$ he became suspicious$ called the local police$ informed them of the ba#>s contents$ and made it
available to the authorities.
The fourth amendment and the case la/ applyin# it do not reCuire e:clusion of
evidence obtained throu#h a search by a private citi1en. Rather$ the amendment only
proscribes #overnmental action.7
The contraband in the case at bar havin# come into possession of the Fovernment /ithout the latter
trans#ressin# appellant>s ri#hts a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure$ the ourt sees no co#ent
reason /hy the same should not be admitted a#ainst him in the prosecution of the offense char#ed.
+ppellant$ ho/ever$ /ould li0e this court to believe that N%I a#ents made an ille#al search and
sei1ure of the evidence later on used in prosecutin# the case /hich resulted in his conviction.
The postulate advanced by accused?appellant needs to be clarified in t/o days. In both instances$
the ar#ument stands to fall on its o/n /ei#ht$ or the lac0 of it.
;irst$ the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that N%I a#ents
conducted an ille#al search and sei1ure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly
indicate that it /as !r. Bob Reyes$ the proprietor of the for/ardin# a#ency$ /ho made
search?inspection of the pac0a#es. Said inspection /as reasonable and a standard operatin#
procedure on the part of !r. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of pac0a#es to the
%ureau of ustoms or the %ureau of 8osts "TSN$ October - J 5$ *345$ pp. *.-*4A pp. 5-4A Ori#inal
Records$ pp. **3-*))A *-5-*-4(.
It /ill be recalled that after Reyes opened the bo: containin# the illicit car#o$ he too0 samples of the
same to the N%I and later summoned the a#ents to his place of business. Thereafter$ he opened the
parcel containin# the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the N%I
a#ents. learly$ the N%I a#ents made no search and sei1ure$ much less an ille#al one$ contrary to
the postulate of accused?appellant.
Second$ the mere presence of the N%I a#ents did not convert the reasonable search effected by
Reyes into a /arrantless search and sei1ure proscribed by the onstitution. !erely to observe and
loo0 at that /hich is in plain si#ht is not a search. Havin# observed that /hich is open$ /here no
trespass has been committed in aid thereof$ is not search "had/ic0 v. State$ ,)3 S=)d *@.(.
=here the contraband articles are identified /ithout a trespass on the part of the arrestin# officer$
there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution "ES v. 'ee )5, ES ..3$ 5* '.9d. *)6)
H*3)5IA Mer v. State of alifornia @5, ES )@$ *6 '.9d.)d. 5)- H*3-@IA !oore v. State$ ,)3 S=)d *))
H*3-4I(.
In Gandy *. $at,ins ")@5 ;. Supp. )-- H*3-,I($ it /as li0e/ise held that /here the property /as
ta0en into custody of the police at the specific reCuest of the mana#er and /here the search /as
initially made by the o/ner there is no unreasonable search and sei1ure /ithin the constitutional
meanin# of the term.
That the %ill of Ri#hts embodied in the onstitution is not meant to be invo0ed a#ainst acts of private
individuals finds support in the deliberations of the onstitutional ommission. True$ the liberties
#uaranteed by the fundamental la/ of the land must al/ays be subDect to protection. %ut protection
a#ainst /homK ommissioner %ernas in his sponsorship speech in the %ill of Ri#hts ans/ers the
Cuery /hich he himself posed$ as follo/s2
;irst$ the #eneral reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence
of constitutional democracy. 8rotection a#ainst /homK 3rotection against the
state. The Bill of Rights go*erns the relationship bet"een the indi*idual and the
state. .ts concern is not the relation bet"een indi*iduals! bet"een a pri*ate indi*idual
and other indi*iduals. $hat the Bill of Rights does is to declare so&e forbidden
)ones in the pri*ate sphere inaccessible to any po"er holder. "Sponsorship Speech
of ommissioner %ernas $ Record of the onstitutional ommission$ Vol. *$ p. -5,A
Buly *5$ *34-A 9mphasis supplied(
The constitutional proscription a#ainst unla/ful searches and sei1ures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only a#ainst the #overnment and its a#encies tas0ed /ith the enforcement of the
la/. Thus$ it could only be invo0ed a#ainst the State to /hom the restraint a#ainst arbitrary and
unreasonable e:ercise of po/er is imposed.
If the search is made upon the reCuest of la/ enforcers$ a /arrant must #enerally be first secured if
it is to pass the test of constitutionality. Ho/ever$ if the search is made at the behest or initiative of
the proprietor of a private establishment for its o/n and private purposes$ as in the case at bar$ and
/ithout the intervention of police authorities$ the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure
cannot be invo0ed for only the act of private individual$ not the la/ enforcers$ is involved. In sum$ the
protection a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei1ures cannot be e:tended to acts committed by
private individuals so as to brin# it /ithin the ambit of alle#ed unla/ful intrusion by the #overnment.
+ppellant ar#ues$ ho/ever$ that since the provisions of the *3@. onstitution has been modified by
the present phraseolo#y found in the *345 harter$ e:pressly declarin# as inadmissible any
evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition a#ainst ille#al search and sei1ure$ it
matters not /hether the evidence /as procured by police authorities or private individuals
"+ppellant>s %rief$ p. 4$ Rollo$ p. -)(.
The ar#ument is untenable. ;or one thin#$ the constitution$ in layin# do/n the principles of the
#overnment and fundamental liberties of the people$ does not #overn relationships bet/een
individuals. !oreover$ it must be emphasi1ed that the modifications introduced in the *345
onstitution "re2 Sec. )$ +rt. III( relate to the issuance of either a search /arrant or /arrant of
arrest *is-a-*is the responsibility of the Dud#e in the issuance thereof "SeeSoliven v. !a0asiar$ *-5
SR+ @3@ H*344IA ircular No. *@ HOctober *$ *34.I and ircular No. *) HBune @6$ *345I. The
modifications introduced deviate in no manner as to /hom the restriction or inhibition a#ainst
unreasonable search and sei1ure is directed a#ainst. The restraint stayed /ith the State and did not
shift to anyone else.
orolarilly$ alle#ed violations a#ainst unreasonable search and sei1ure may only be invo0ed a#ainst
the State by an individual unDustly traduced by the e:ercise of soverei#n authority. To a#ree /ith
appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the %ill of Ri#hts should also be construed
as an act of the State /ould result in serious le#al complications and an absurd interpretation of the
constitution.
Similarly$ the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected throu#h private sei1ure
eCually applies$ in pari passu$ to the alle#ed violation$ non-#overnmental as it is$ of appellant>s
constitutional ri#hts to privacy and communication.
). In his second assi#nment of error$ appellant contends that the lo/er court erred in convictin# him
despite the undisputed fact that his ri#hts under the constitution /hile under custodial investi#ation
/ere not observed.
+#ain$ the contention is /ithout merit$ =e have carefully e:amined the records of the case and
found nothin# to indicate$ as an 7undisputed fact7$ that appellant /as not informed of his
constitutional ri#hts or that he #ave statements /ithout the assistance of counsel. The la/ enforcers
testified that accused?appellant /as informed of his constitutional ri#hts. It is presumed that they
have re#ularly performed their duties "See. ."m($ Rule *@*( and their testimonies should be #iven full
faith and credence$ there bein# no evidence to the contrary. =hat is clear from the records$ on the
other hand$ is that appellant refused to #ive any /ritten statement /hile under investi#ation as
testified by +tty. 'astimoso of the N%I$ Thus2
;iscal ;ormoso2
Gou said that you investi#ated !r. and !rs. Bob Reyes. =hat about the accused
here$ did you investi#ate the accused to#ether /ith the #irlK
=ITN9SS2
Ges$ /e have intervie/ed the accused to#ether /ith the #irl but the accused availed
of his constitutional ri#ht not to #ive any /ritten statement$ sir. "TSN$ October 4$
*345$ p. -)A Ori#inal Records$ p. ),6(
The above testimony of the /itness for the prosecution /as not contradicted by the defense on
cross-e:amination. +s borne out by the records$ neither /as there any proof by the defense that
appellant #ave uncounselled confession /hile bein# investi#ated. $hat is &ore! "e ha*e e:amined
the assailed Dud#ment of the trial court and no/here is there any reference made to the testimony of
appellant /hile under custodial investi#ation /hich /as utili1ed in the findin# of conviction.
+ppellant>s second assi#nment of error is therefore misplaced.
@. omin# no/ to appellant>s third assi#nment of error$ appellant /ould li0e us to believe that he /as
not the o/ner of the pac0a#es /hich contained prohibited dru#s but rather a certain !ichael$ a
Ferman national$ /hom appellant met in a pub alon# 9rmita$ !anila2 that in the course of their @6-
minute conversation$ !ichael reCuested him to ship the pac0a#es and #ave him 8)$666.66 for the
cost of the shipment since the Ferman national /as about to leave the country the ne:t day
"October *.$ *345$ TSN$ pp. )-*6(.
Rather than #ive the appearance of veracity$ /e find appellant>s disclaimer as incredulous$ self-
servin# and contrary to human e:perience. It can easily be fabricated. +n acCuaintance /ith a
complete stran#er struc0 in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four
",( parcels and shell out 8)$666.66 for the purpose and for appellant to readily accede to comply
/ith the underta0in# /ithout first ascertainin# its contents. +s stated by the trial court$ 7"a( person
/ould not simply entrust contraband and of considerable value at that as the mariDuana flo/erin#
tops$ and the cash amount of 8)$666.66 to a complete stran#er li0e the +ccused. The +ccused$ on
the other hand$ /ould not simply accept such underta0in# to ta0e custody of the pac0a#es and ship
the same from a complete stran#er on his mere say-so7 "Decision$ p. *3$ Rollo$ p. 3*(. +s to /hy he
readily a#reed to do the errand$ appellant failed to e:plain. Denials$ if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincin# evidence$ are ne#ative self-servin# evidence /hich deserve no /ei#ht in la/ and cannot
be #iven #reater evidentiary /ei#ht than the testimony of credible /itnesses /ho testify on
affirmative matters "8eople v. 9sCuillo$ *5* SR+ .5* H*343IA 8eople vs. Sariol$ *5, SR+ )@5
H*343I(.
+ppellant>s bare denial is even made more suspect considerin# that$ as per records of the Interpol$
he /as previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Mleve ourt in the ;ederal Republic of
Fermany on Banuary *$ *34) and that the consi#nee of the frustrated shipment$ =alter ;ier1$ also a
S/iss national$ /as li0e/ise convicted for dru# abuse and is Dust about an hour>s drive from
appellant>s residence in <urich$ S/it1erland "TSN$ October 4$ *345$ p. --A Ori#inal Records$ p. ),,A
Decision$ p. )*A Rollo$ p. 3@(.
9vidence to be believed$ must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible /itness$ but it must be
credible in itself such as the common e:perience and observation of man0ind can approve as
probable under the circumstances "8eople v. +lto$ )- SR+ @,) H*3-4I$ citing Da##ers v. Van Dy0e$
@5 N.B. 9#. *@6A see also 8eople v. Sarda$ *5) SR+ -.* H*343IA 8eople v. Sun#a$ *)@ SR+ @)5
H*34@I(A astaNares v. +$ 3) SR+ .-5 H*353I(. +s records further sho/$ appellant did not even
bother to as0 !ichael>s full name$ his complete address or passport number. ;urthermore$ if indeed$
the Ferman national /as the o/ner of the merchandise$ appellant should have so indicated in the
contract of shipment "9:h. 7%7$ Ori#inal Records$ p. ,6(. On the contrary$ appellant si#ned the
contract as the o/ner and shipper thereof #ivin# more /ei#ht to the presumption that thin#s /hich a
person possesses$ or e:ercises acts of o/nership over$ are o/ned by him "Sec. . HDI$ Rule *@*(. +t
this point$ appellant is therefore estopped to claim other/ise.
8remises considered$ /e see no error committed by the trial court in renderin# the assailed
Dud#ment.
=H9R9;OR9$ the Dud#ment of conviction findin# appellant #uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime char#ed is hereby +;;IR!9D. No costs.
SO ORD9R9D.
0ernan! 1.J.! Gutierre)! Jr. and 0eliciano! JJ.! concur.

Foo!no!"#
O 8enned by Bud#e Romeo B. alleDo.
OO It reads2 7The ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and
effects$ a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei1ures$ shall not be violated$ and no
/arrants shall issue$ but upon probable cause$ supported by oath or affirmation$ and
particularly describin# the place to be searched$ and the persons or thin#s to be
sei1ed.7
OOO ;or#ed chec0s.