0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
98 vizualizări8 pagini
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Andre Marti who was convicted of violating the country's Dangerous Drugs Act. The key points are:
1) Marti attempted to ship four gift-wrapped packages from Manila to Switzerland that were discovered to contain marijuana.
2) The packages were inspected by the owner of the shipping company, Job Reyes, who noticed a peculiar odor and found dried marijuana leaves inside.
3) Samples were given to the National Bureau of Investigation which tested positive for marijuana. Marti appealed his conviction arguing his constitutional rights were violated, but the court upheld the conviction.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Andre Marti who was convicted of violating the country's Dangerous Drugs Act. The key points are:
1) Marti attempted to ship four gift-wrapped packages from Manila to Switzerland that were discovered to contain marijuana.
2) The packages were inspected by the owner of the shipping company, Job Reyes, who noticed a peculiar odor and found dried marijuana leaves inside.
3) Samples were given to the National Bureau of Investigation which tested positive for marijuana. Marti appealed his conviction arguing his constitutional rights were violated, but the court upheld the conviction.
This document summarizes a court case from the Philippines involving Andre Marti who was convicted of violating the country's Dangerous Drugs Act. The key points are:
1) Marti attempted to ship four gift-wrapped packages from Manila to Switzerland that were discovered to contain marijuana.
2) The packages were inspected by the owner of the shipping company, Job Reyes, who noticed a peculiar odor and found dried marijuana leaves inside.
3) Samples were given to the National Bureau of Investigation which tested positive for marijuana. Marti appealed his conviction arguing his constitutional rights were violated, but the court upheld the conviction.
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.