Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
ANRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for accused-appellant.

!IIN, J.:p
This is an appeal fro a decision " rendered b! the Special "riinal "ourt of Manila
#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 aended% other0ise 1no0n as the Dan$erous
Dru$s ,ct.
The facts as suari2ed in the brief of the prosecution are as follo0s3
On ,u$ust +-% +456% bet0een +7377 and ++377 a..% the appellant
and his coon-la0 0ife% Shirle! Re!es% 0ent to the booth of the
8Manila Pac1in$ and 9:port ;or0arders8 in the Pistan$ Pilipino
"ople:% 9rita% Manila% carr!in$ 0ith the four #-) $ift 0rapped
pac1a$es. ,nita Re!es #the proprietress and no relation to Shirle!
Re!es) attended to the. The appellant infored ,nita Re!es that
he 0as sendin$ the pac1a$es to a friend in <urich% S0it2erland.
,ppellant filled up the contract necessar! for the transaction%
0ritin$ therein his nae% passport nuber% the date of shipent
and the nae and address of the consi$nee% nael!% 8=,(T9R
;I9R<% Mattac1etr II% 57/* <urich% S0it2erland8 #Decision% p. .)
,nita Re!es then as1ed the appellant if she could e:aine and
inspect the pac1a$es. ,ppellant% ho0ever% refused% assurin$ her
that the pac1a$es sipl! contained boo1s% ci$ars% and $loves and
0ere $ifts to his friend in <urich. In vie0 of appellant>s
representation% ,nita Re!es no lon$er insisted on inspectin$ the
pac1a$es. The four #-) pac1a$es 0ere then placed inside a bro0n
corru$ated bo: one b! t0o feet in si2e #+> : *>). St!ro-foa 0as
placed at the botto and on top of the pac1a$es before the bo:
0as sealed 0ith as1in$ tape% thus a1in$ the bo: read! for
shipent #Decision% p. 5).
&efore deliver! of appellant>s bo: to the &ureau of "ustos and?or
&ureau of Posts% Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor and husband of Anita
(Reyes! follo"ing standard operating procedure! opened the
bo#es for final inspection. $hen he opened appellant%s bo#! a
peculiar odor e&itted therefro&. 'is curiousity aroused! he
s(uee)ed one of the bundles allegedly containing glo*es and felt
dried lea*es inside. +pening one of the bundles! he pulled out a
cellophane "rapper protruding fro& the opening of one of the
glo*es. 'e &ade an opening on one of the cellophane "rappers
and too, se*eral gra&s of the contents thereof #tsn% pp. *4-@7%
October .% +456A 9phasis supplied).
Bob Re!es forth0ith prepared a letter reportin$ the shipent to the
N&I and reCuestin$ a laborator! e:aination of the saples he
e:tracted fro the cellophane 0rapper #tsn% pp. /-.% October .%
+456).
He brou$ht the letter and a saple of appellant>s shipent to the
Narcotics Section of the National &ureau of Investi$ation #N&I)% at
about +3@7 o>cloc1 in the afternoon of that date% i.e.% ,u$ust +-%
+456. He 0as intervie0ed b! the "hief of Narcotics Section. Bob
Re!es infored the N&I that the rest of the shipent 0as still in his
office. Therefore% Bob Re!es and three #@) N&I a$ents% and a
photo$rapher% 0ent to the Re!es> office at 9rita% Manila #tsn% p.
@7% October .% +456).
Job Reyes brought out the bo# in "hich appellant%s pac,ages "ere
placed and! in the presence of the -B. agents! opened the top
flaps! re&o*ed the styro-foa& and too, out the cellophane
"rappers fro& inside the glo*es. Dried ariDuana leaves 0ere
found to have been contained inside the cellophane 0rappers #tsn%
p. @5% October .% +456A 9phasis supplied).
The pac1a$e 0hich alle$edl! contained boo1s 0as li1e0ise
opened b! Bob Re!es. He discovered that the pac1a$e contained
bric1s or ca1e-li1e dried ariDuana leaves. The pac1a$e 0hich
alle$edl! contained tabacalera ci$ars 0as also opened. It turned
1
out that dried ariDuana leaves 0ere neatl! stoc1ed underneath
the ci$ars #tsn% p. @4% October .% +456).
The N&I a$ents ade an inventor! and too1 char$e of the bo: and
of the contents thereof% after si$nin$ a 8Receipt8 ac1no0led$in$
custody of the said effects #tsn% pp. *-@% October 6% +456).
Thereupon% the N&I a$ents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. ,ppellant>s stated
address in his passport bein$ the Manila "entral Post Office% the a$ents reCuested
assistance fro the latter>s "hief Securit!. On ,u$ust *6% +456% appellant% 0hile
claiin$ his ail at the "entral Post Office% 0as invited b! the N&I to shed li$ht on
the attepted shipent of the sei2ed dried leaves. On the sae da! the Narcotics
Section of the N&I subitted the dried leaves to the ;orensic "heistr! Section for
laborator! e:aination. It turned out that the dried leaves 0ere ariDuana flo0erin$
tops as certified b! the forensic cheist. #,ppellee>s &rief% pp. 4-++% Rollo% pp. +@*-
+@-).
Thereafter% an Inforation 0as filed a$ainst appellant for violation of R, .-*/%
other0ise 1no0n as the Dan$erous Dru$s ,ct.
,fter trial% the court a (uo rendered the assailed decision.
In this appeal% accused?appellant assi$ns the follo0in$ errors% to 0it3
TH9 (O=9R "OERT 9RR9D IN ,DMITTINF IN 9VID9N"9 TH9
I((9F,((G S9,R"H9D ,ND S9I<9D O&B9"TS "ONT,IN9D IN
TH9 ;OER P,R"9(S.
TH9 (O=9R "OERT 9RR9D IN "ONVI"TINF ,PP9((,NT
D9SPIT9 TH9 ENDISPET9D ;,"T TH,T HIS RIFHTS END9R
TH9 "ONSTITETION =HI(9 END9R "ESTODI,(
PRO"99DINFS =9R9 NOT O&S9RV9D.
TH9 (O=9R "OERT 9RR9D IN NOT FIVINF "R9D9N"9 TO
TH9 9'P(,N,TION O; TH9 ,PP9((,NT ON HO= TH9 ;OER
P,R"9(S ",M9 INTO HIS POSS9SSION #,ppellant>s &rief% p. +A
Rollo% p. //)
+. ,ppellant contends that the evidence subDect of the iputed offense had been
obtained in violation of his constitutional ri$hts a$ainst unreasonable search and
sei2ure and privac! of counication #Sec. * and @% ,rt. III% "onstitution) and
therefore ar$ues that the sae should be held inadissible in evidence #Sec. @ #*)%
,rt. III).
Sections * and @% ,rticle III of the "onstitution provide3
Sec. *. The ri$ht of the people to be secure in their persons%
houses% papers and effects a$ainst unreasonable searches and
sei2ures of 0hatever nature and for an! purpose shall be
inviolable% and no search 0arrant or 0arrant of arrest shall issue
e:cept upon probable cause to be deterined personall! b! the
Dud$e after e:aination under oath or affiration of the
coplainant and the 0itnesses he a! produce% and particularl!
describin$ the place to be searched and the persons or thin$s to
be sei2ed.
Sec. @. #+) The privac! of counication and correspondence
shall be inviolable e:cept upon la0ful order of the court% or 0hen
public safet! or order reCuires other0ise as prescribed b! la0.
#*) ,n! evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin$
section shall be inadissible for an! purpose in an! proceedin$.
Our present constitutional provision on the $uarantee a$ainst unreasonable search
and sei2ure had its ori$in in the +4@/ "harter 0hich% 0orded as follo0s3
The ri$ht of the people to be secure in their persons% houses%
papers and effects a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ures
shall not be violated% and no 0arrants shall issue but upon
probable cause% to be deterined b! the Dud$e after e:aination
under oath or affiration of the coplainant and the 0itnesses he
a! produce% and particularl! describin$ the place to be searched%
and the persons or thin$s to be sei2ed. #Sec. + H@I% ,rticle III)
0as in turn derived alost verbati fro the ;ourth ,endent "" to the Enited
States "onstitution. ,s such% the "ourt a! turn to the pronounceents of the
Enited States ;ederal Supree "ourt and State ,ppellate "ourts 0hich are
considered doctrinal in this Durisdiction.
Thus% follo0in$ the e:clusionar! rule laid do0n in Mapp *. +hio by the /S 0ederal
Supre&e 1ourt #@.6 ES .-@% 5+ S."t. +.5-% . (.9d. +75+ H+4.+I)% this "ourt% in
Stonehill *. 2io,no #*7 S"R, @5@ H+4.6I)% declared as inadissible an! evidence
obtained b! virtue of a defective search and sei2ure 0arrant% abandonin$ in the
process the rulin$ earlier adopted in Moncado *. 3eople%s 1ourt #57 Phil. + H+4-5I)
0herein the adissibilit! of evidence 0as not affected b! the ille$alit! of its sei2ure.
The +46@ "harter #Sec. - H*I% ,rt. IV) constitutionali2ed the Stonehill rulin$ and is
carried over up to the present 0ith the advent of the +456 "onstitution.
In a nuber of cases% the "ourt strictl! adhered to the e:clusionar! rule and has
struc1 do0n the adissibilit! of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional
safe$uard a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ures. #&ache J "o.% #Phil.)% Inc.% v.
Rui2% @6 S"R, 5*@ H+46+IA (i v. Ponce de (eon% .. S"R, *44 H+46/IA People v.
2
&ur$os% +-- S"R, + H+45.IA Roan v. Fon2ales% +-/ S"R, .56 H+456IA See also
Sala2ar v. Hon. ,chacoso% et al.% FR No. 5+/+7% March +-% +447).
It ust be noted% ho0ever% that in all those cases adverted to% the evidence so
obtained 0ere invariabl! procured b! the State actin$ throu$h the ediu of its la0
enforcers or other authori2ed $overnent a$encies.
On the other hand% the case at bar assues a peculiar character since the evidence
sou$ht to be e:cluded 0as priaril! discovered and obtained b! a private person%
actin$ in a private capacit! and 0ithout the intervention and participation of State
authorities. Ender the circustances% can accused?appellant validl! clai that his
constitutional ri$ht a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ure has been violatedK
Stated other0ise% a! an act of a private individual% alle$edl! in violation of
appellant>s constitutional ri$hts% be invo1ed a$ainst the StateK
=e hold in the ne$ative. In the absence of $overnental interference% the liberties
$uaranteed b! the "onstitution cannot be invo1ed a$ainst the State.
,s this "ourt held in 4illanue*a *. 5uerubin #-5 S"R, @-/ H+46*I3
+. This constitutional right #a$ainst unreasonable search and
sei2ure) refers to the i&&unity of one%s person! "hether citi)en or
alien! fro& interference by go*ern&ent% included in 0hich is his
residence% his papers% and other possessions. . . .
. . . There the state% ho0ever po0erful% does not as such have the
access e:cept under the circustances above noted% for in the
traditional forulation% his house% ho0ever huble% is his castle.
Thus is outla"ed any un"arranted intrusion by go*ern&ent! "hich
is called upon to refrain fro& any in*asion of his d"elling and to
respect the pri*acies of his life. . . . #"f. Schererber v. "alifornia%
@5- ES 6/6 H+4..I and &o!d v. Enited States% ++. ES .+. H+55.IA
9phasis supplied).
In Burdeau *. Mc2o"ell #*/. ES -./ #+4*+)% -+ S "t. /-6A ./ (.9d. +7-5)% the "ourt
there in construin$ the ri$ht a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ures declared
that3
#t)he ;ourth ,endent $ives protection a$ainst unla0ful
searches and sei2ures% and as sho0n in previous cases% its
protection applies to $overnental action. Its ori$in and histor!
clearl! sho0 that it 0as intended as a restraint upon the activities
of soverei$n authorit!% and 0as not intended to be a liitation upon
other than $overnental a$enciesA as a$ainst such authorit! it 0as
the purpose of the ;ourth ,endent to secure the citi2en in the
ri$ht of unolested occupation of his d0ellin$ and the possession
of his propert!% subDect to the ri$ht of sei2ure b! process dul!
served.
The above rulin$ 0as reiterated in State *. Bryan #-/6 P.*d ..+ H+4.5I) 0here a
par1in$ attendant 0ho searched the autoobile to ascertain the o0ner thereof found
ariDuana instead% 0ithout the 1no0led$e and participation of police authorities% 0as
declared adissible in prosecution for ille$al possession of narcotics.
,nd a$ain in the +4.4 case of $al,er *. State #-*4 S.=.*d +*+)% it 0as held that the
search and sei2ure clauses are restraints upon the $overnent and its a$ents% not
upon private individuals #citing People v. Potter% *-7 "al. ,pp.*d .*+% -4 "ap. Rptr%
54* #+4..)A State v. &ro0n% Mo.% @4+ S.=.*d 47@ #+4./)A State v. Olsen% Or.% @+6
P.*d 4@5 #+4/6).
(i1e0ise appropos is the case of Bernas *. /S #@6@ ;.*d /+6 #+4.6). The "ourt there
said3
The search of 0hich appellant coplains% ho0ever% 0as ade b! a
private citi2en L the o0ner of a otel in 0hich appellant sta!ed
overni$ht and in 0hich he left behind a travel case containin$ the
evidence""" coplained of. The search 0as ade on the otel
o0ner>s o0n initiative. &ecause of it% he becae suspicious% called
the local police% infored the of the ba$>s contents% and ade it
available to the authorities.
The fourth aendent and the case la0 appl!in$ it do not reCuire
e:clusion of evidence obtained throu$h a search b! a private
citi2en. Rather% the aendent onl! proscribes $overnental
action.8
The contraband in the case at bar havin$ coe into possession of the Fovernent
0ithout the latter trans$ressin$ appellant>s ri$hts a$ainst unreasonable search and
sei2ure% the "ourt sees no co$ent reason 0h! the sae should not be aditted
a$ainst hi in the prosecution of the offense char$ed.
,ppellant% ho0ever% 0ould li1e this court to believe that N&I a$ents ade an ille$al
search and sei2ure of the evidence later on used in prosecutin$ the case 0hich
resulted in his conviction.
The postulate advanced b! accused?appellant needs to be clarified in t0o da!s. In
both instances% the ar$uent stands to fall on its o0n 0ei$ht% or the lac1 of it.
;irst% the factual considerations of the case at bar readil! foreclose the proposition
that N&I a$ents conducted an ille$al search and sei2ure of the prohibited
erchandise. Records of the case clearl! indicate that it 0as Mr. Bob Re!es% the
3
proprietor of the for0ardin$ a$enc!% 0ho ade search?inspection of the pac1a$es.
Said inspection 0as reasonable and a standard operatin$ procedure on the part of
Mr. Re!es as a precautionar! easure before deliver! of pac1a$es to the &ureau of
"ustos or the &ureau of Posts #TSN% October . J 6% +456% pp. +/-+5A pp. 6-5A
Ori$inal Records% pp. ++4-+**A +.6-+.5).
It 0ill be recalled that after Re!es opened the bo: containin$ the illicit car$o% he too1
saples of the sae to the N&I and later suoned the a$ents to his place of
business. Thereafter% he opened the parcel containin$ the rest of the shipent and
entrusted the care and custod! thereof to the N&I a$ents. "learl!% the N&I a$ents
ade no search and sei2ure% uch less an ille$al one% contrar! to the postulate of
accused?appellant.
Second% the ere presence of the N&I a$ents did not convert the reasonable search
effected b! Re!es into a 0arrantless search and sei2ure proscribed b! the
"onstitution. Merel! to observe and loo1 at that 0hich is in plain si$ht is not a search.
Havin$ observed that 0hich is open% 0here no trespass has been coitted in aid
thereof% is not search #"had0ic1 v. State% -*4 S=*d +@/). =here the contraband
articles are identified 0ithout a trespass on the part of the arrestin$ officer% there is
not the search that is prohibited b! the constitution #ES v. (ee *6- ES //4% 6+ (.9d.
+*7* H+4*6IA Mer v. State of "alifornia @6- ES *@% +7 (.9d.*d. 6*. H+4.@IA Moore v.
State% -*4 S=*d +** H+4.5I).
In Gandy *. $at,ins #*@6 ;. Supp. *.. H+4.-I)% it 0as li1e0ise held that 0here the
propert! 0as ta1en into custod! of the police at the specific reCuest of the ana$er
and 0here the search 0as initiall! ade b! the o0ner there is no unreasonable
search and sei2ure 0ithin the constitutional eanin$ of the ter.
That the &ill of Ri$hts ebodied in the "onstitution is not eant to be invo1ed
a$ainst acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the
"onstitutional "oission. True% the liberties $uaranteed b! the fundaental la0 of
the land ust al0a!s be subDect to protection. &ut protection a$ainst 0hoK
"oissioner &ernas in his sponsorship speech in the &ill of Ri$hts ans0ers the
Cuer! 0hich he hiself posed% as follo0s3
;irst% the $eneral reflections. The protection of fundaental
liberties in the essence of constitutional deocrac!. Protection
a$ainst 0hoK 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. $hat the Bill of Rights does is to
declare so&e forbidden )ones in the pri*ate sphere inaccessible to
any po"er holder. #Sponsorship Speech of "oissioner &ernas %
Record of the "onstitutional "oission% Vol. +% p. .6-A Bul! +6%
+45.A 9phasis supplied)
The constitutional proscription a$ainst unla0ful searches and sei2ures therefore
applies as a restraint directed onl! a$ainst the $overnent and its a$encies tas1ed
0ith the enforceent of the la0. Thus% it could onl! be invo1ed a$ainst the State to
0ho the restraint a$ainst arbitrar! and unreasonable e:ercise of po0er is iposed.
If the search is ade upon the reCuest of la0 enforcers% a 0arrant ust $enerall! be
first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionalit!. Ho0ever% if the search is ade
at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishent for its o0n and
private purposes% as in the case at bar% and 0ithout the intervention of police
authorities% the ri$ht a$ainst unreasonable search and sei2ure cannot be invo1ed for
onl! the act of private individual% not the la0 enforcers% is involved. In su% the
protection a$ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ures cannot be e:tended to acts
coitted b! private individuals so as to brin$ it 0ithin the abit of alle$ed unla0ful
intrusion b! the $overnent.
,ppellant ar$ues% ho0ever% that since the provisions of the +4@/ "onstitution has
been odified b! the present phraseolo$! found in the +456 "harter% e:pressl!
declarin$ as inadissible an! evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional
prohibition a$ainst ille$al search and sei2ure% it atters not 0hether the evidence
0as procured b! police authorities or private individuals #,ppellant>s &rief% p. 5% Rollo%
p. .*).
The ar$uent is untenable. ;or one thin$% the constitution% in la!in$ do0n the
principles of the $overnent and fundaental liberties of the people% does not
$overn relationships bet0een individuals. Moreover% it ust be ephasi2ed that the
odifications introduced in the +456 "onstitution #re3 Sec. *% ,rt. III) relate to the
issuance of either a search 0arrant or 0arrant of arrest *is-a-*is the responsibilit! of
the Dud$e in the issuance thereof #See Soliven v. Ma1asiar% +.6 S"R, @4@ H+455IA
"ircular No. +@ HOctober +% +45/I and "ircular No. +* HBune @7% +456I. The
odifications introduced deviate in no anner as to 0ho the restriction or inhibition
a$ainst unreasonable search and sei2ure is directed a$ainst. The restraint sta!ed
0ith the State and did not shift to an!one else.
"orolarill!% alle$ed violations a$ainst unreasonable search and sei2ure a! onl! be
invo1ed a$ainst the State b! an individual unDustl! traduced b! the e:ercise of
soverei$n authorit!. To a$ree 0ith appellant that an act of a private individual in
violation of the &ill of Ri$hts should also be construed as an act of the State 0ould
result in serious le$al coplications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution.
Siilarl!% the adissibilit! of the evidence procured b! an individual effected throu$h
private sei2ure eCuall! applies% in pari passu% to the alle$ed violation% non-
$overnental as it is% of appellant>s constitutional ri$hts to privac! and
counication.
4
*. In his second assi$nent of error% appellant contends that the lo0er court erred in
convictin$ hi despite the undisputed fact that his ri$hts under the constitution 0hile
under custodial investi$ation 0ere not observed.
,$ain% the contention is 0ithout erit% =e have carefull! e:ained the records of the
case and found nothin$ to indicate% as an 8undisputed fact8% that appellant 0as not
infored of his constitutional ri$hts or that he $ave stateents 0ithout the assistance
of counsel. The la0 enforcers testified that accused?appellant 0as infored of his
constitutional ri$hts. It is presued that the! have re$ularl! perfored their duties
#See. /#)% Rule +@+) and their testionies should be $iven full faith and credence%
there bein$ no evidence to the contrar!. =hat is clear fro the records% on the other
hand% is that appellant refused to $ive an! 0ritten stateent 0hile under investi$ation
as testified b! ,tt!. (astioso of the N&I% Thus3
;iscal ;oroso3
Gou said that !ou investi$ated Mr. and Mrs. Bob Re!es. =hat
about the accused here% did !ou investi$ate the accused to$ether
0ith the $irlK
=ITN9SS3
Ges% 0e have intervie0ed the accused to$ether 0ith the $irl but the
accused availed of his constitutional ri$ht not to $ive an! 0ritten
stateent% sir. #TSN% October 5% +456% p. .*A Ori$inal Records% p.
*-7)
The above testion! of the 0itness for the prosecution 0as not contradicted b! the
defense on cross-e:aination. ,s borne out b! the records% neither 0as there an!
proof b! the defense that appellant $ave uncounselled confession 0hile bein$
investi$ated. $hat is &ore! "e ha*e e:ained the assailed Dud$ent of the trial
court and no0here is there an! reference ade to the testion! of appellant 0hile
under custodial investi$ation 0hich 0as utili2ed in the findin$ of conviction.
,ppellant>s second assi$nent of error is therefore isplaced.
@. "oin$ no0 to appellant>s third assi$nent of error% appellant 0ould li1e us to
believe that he 0as not the o0ner of the pac1a$es 0hich contained prohibited dru$s
but rather a certain Michael% a Feran national% 0ho appellant et in a pub alon$
9rita% Manila3 that in the course of their @7-inute conversation% Michael reCuested
hi to ship the pac1a$es and $ave hi P*%777.77 for the cost of the shipent since
the Feran national 0as about to leave the countr! the ne:t da! #October +/% +456%
TSN% pp. *-+7).
Rather than $ive the appearance of veracit!% 0e find appellant>s disclaier as
incredulous% self-servin$ and contrar! to huan e:perience. It can easil! be
fabricated. ,n acCuaintance 0ith a coplete stran$er struc1 in half an hour could not
have pushed a an to entrust the shipent of four #-) parcels and shell out
P*%777.77 for the purpose and for appellant to readil! accede to copl! 0ith the
underta1in$ 0ithout first ascertainin$ its contents. ,s stated b! the trial court% 8#a)
person 0ould not sipl! entrust contraband and of considerable value at that as the
ariDuana flo0erin$ tops% and the cash aount of P*%777.77 to a coplete stran$er
li1e the ,ccused. The ,ccused% on the other hand% 0ould not sipl! accept such
underta1in$ to ta1e custod! of the pac1a$es and ship the sae fro a coplete
stran$er on his ere sa!-so8 #Decision% p. +4% Rollo% p. 4+). ,s to 0h! he readil!
a$reed to do the errand% appellant failed to e:plain. Denials% if unsubstantiated b!
clear and convincin$ evidence% are ne$ative self-servin$ evidence 0hich deserve no
0ei$ht in la0 and cannot be $iven $reater evidentiar! 0ei$ht than the testion! of
credible 0itnesses 0ho testif! on affirative atters #People v. 9sCuillo% +6+ S"R,
/6+ H+454IA People vs. Sariol% +6- S"R, *@6 H+454I).
,ppellant>s bare denial is even ade ore suspect considerin$ that% as per records
of the Interpol% he 0as previousl! convicted of possession of hashish b! the Mleve
"ourt in the ;ederal Republic of Feran! on Banuar! +% +45* and that the
consi$nee of the frustrated shipent% =alter ;ier2% also a S0iss national% 0as
li1e0ise convicted for dru$ abuse and is Dust about an hour>s drive fro appellant>s
residence in <urich% S0it2erland #TSN% October 5% +456% p. ..A Ori$inal Records% p.
*--A Decision% p. *+A Rollo% p. 4@).
9vidence to be believed% ust not onl! proceed fro the outh of a credible 0itness%
but it ust be credible in itself such as the coon e:perience and observation of
an1ind can approve as probable under the circustances #People v. ,lto% *. S"R,
@-* H+4.5I% citing Da$$ers v. Van D!1e% @6 N.B. 9$. +@7A see also People v. Sarda%
+6* S"R, ./+ H+454IA People v. Sun$a% +*@ S"R, @*6 H+45@I)A "astaNares v. ",%
4* S"R, /.6 H+464I). ,s records further sho0% appellant did not even bother to as1
Michael>s full nae% his coplete address or passport nuber. ;urtherore% if
indeed% the Feran national 0as the o0ner of the erchandise% appellant should
have so indicated in the contract of shipent #9:h. 8&8% Ori$inal Records% p. -7). On
the contrar!% appellant si$ned the contract as the o0ner and shipper thereof $ivin$
ore 0ei$ht to the presuption that thin$s 0hich a person possesses% or e:ercises
acts of o0nership over% are o0ned b! hi #Sec. / HDI% Rule +@+). ,t this point%
appellant is therefore estopped to clai other0ise.
Preises considered% 0e see no error coitted b! the trial court in renderin$ the
assailed Dud$ent.
=H9R9;OR9% the Dud$ent of conviction findin$ appellant $uilt! be!ond reasonable
doubt of the crie char$ed is hereb! ,;;IRM9D. No costs.
SO ORD9R9D.
5