PP v. Bongcarawan Defense against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure FACTS March 13, 1999: Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon, without authority of law, i then an there willfully, unlawfully, unlawfully, an feloniously ha!e in his "ossession eight #$% "ac&s of Metham"hetamine Metham"hetamine 'yrochlorie, a regulate rug commonly &nown as Shabu, Shabu, weighing a""ro(imately )** grams, without the corres"oning license or "rescri"tion in !iolation of Section 1+, Article of -A +)./, +)./, otherwise &nown as the 0angerous 0rugs Act of 19., as amene by -A +/92 Bongcarawan "leae not guilty2 Trial ensue2 Prosecution's side:
Bongcarawan's side:
March 11, 1999:
March 11, 1999:
M4 Su"er Ferry / saile from Manila to ligan City2 At 3AM of March 13, 1999 !essel was about to oc& at the "ort of ligan when its security officer recei!e a com"laint from "assenger 5orena Canoy about her missing 6ewelry2
'e was in ?uia"o, Manila where he met Maca"ui an was re
Canoy sus"ecte one of her co7"assengers in Cabin 1*+ as cul"rit2 Security officer an ) other members of !essel security force accom"anie Ms2 Canoy to search for sus"ect whom they later foun in economy section2
As the !essel was about to oc&, he too& his baggage Sus"ect was ientifie as Basher Bongcarawan2 an "ositione himself at economy section to Bongcarawan Bongcarawan was informe of the com"laint an was isembar& ahea of other "assengers an while in!ite to go bac& to Cabin 1*+2 8ith his consent, he con!ersing with a frien, / members of !essel security was boily searche, searche, but no 6ewelry 6ewelry was foun2 'e was was force an a woman he recogni;e as his co7"assenger then escorte by . security agents bac& to economy at cabin 1*+ came an tol him he was sus"ecte of section to get his baggage2 Bongcarawan Bongcarawan too& a stealing 6ewelry2 6ewelry2 'e was as&e to get his baggage so Samsonite suitcase, re!ealing a brown bag an small he too& his big luggage an Maca"ui@s Samsonite "lastic "ac&s containing white crystalline substance suitcase e(cluing the small suitcase containing sus"ecte to be shabu2 Security "ersonnel immeiately sunglasses an watches for fear of it being confiscate2 re"orte the matter to the shi" ca"tain an too& 'e !oluntarily o"ene the big luggage but refuse to o "ictures of Bongcarawan together with the suitcase an the same with the Samsonite suitcase which he claime contents2 Also calle the Coast uar for assistance2 was not his an has has security loc&2 Security forcibly o"ene the suitcase an foun "ac&s of crystalline substance sus"ecte to be shabu2 Members of the hili""ine Coast uar arri!e an too& custoy of Bongcarawan Bongcarawan an the sei;e items: 7Samsonite suitcase 7brown bag 7$ small "lastic "ac&s of crystalline substance2 8hen as&e by the contraban articles, Bongcarawan Bongcarawan e("laine he was 6ust re
Maca"ui to bring the suitcase to Maca"ui@s brother in ligan City2 Bongcarawan an the sei;e items were then turne o!er to resiential Anti7rgani;e Crime an Tas& Force #ACTF%2 Bongcarawan was brought to the hea2
They too& "ictures of him together with the baggage an as&e him to sign a turno!er recei"t later turne o!er to Coast uar then to ACTF2
RTC: fins the accuse Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon 5TD beyon reasonable oubt as "rinci"al of the offense of !iolation of Section 1+, Art2 , -2A2 o2 +)./ as amene by -2A2 o2 +/9 an hereby im"oses u"on him the "enalty of -EC5S E-ETA an a fine of F4E '0-E0 T'SA0 #/**,***2**% ESS, without subsiiary im"risonment in case of insol!ency2 'ence, this a""eal2 SSES 12 8 the rug confiscate is amissible in e!ience .2 8 Bongcarawan owne the confiscate e!ience an therefore amissible e!ience against him 'E50 1. YES, the confiscated drugs are admissi!e evidence. C"#TE#T$"#S "% B"#&CR(# 7Samsonite suitcase containing the
metham"hetamine hyrochlorie or shabu was forcibly o"ene an searche without his consent, an hence, in !iolation of his constitutional right against unreasonable search an sei;ure2 Any e!ience ac
)E*"$) "% +ER$T.
7 People v. Marti is not a""licable in this case because a !essel security "ersonnel is eeme to "erform the uties of a "oliceman2
)E*"$) "% +ER$T
-ight against unreasonable search an sei;ure is a funamental right "rotecte by the Constitution2 Evidence acuired in vio!ation of this right sha!! e inadmissi!e for an- urose in anroceeding2 8hene!er this right is challenge, an ini!iual may choose between in!o&ing the constitutional "rotection or wai!ing his right by gi!ing consent to the search an sei;ure2 $t shou!d e
stressed, however, that rotection is against transgression committed - the government or its agent. People v. Marti:
“absence of governmental interference, liberties guaranteed by the onstitution cannot be invo!ed against the State." Constitutional "roscri"tion against unlawful searches an sei;ures a""lies as a restraint irecte only against the go!ernment an its agencies tas&e with the enforcement of the law2 Thus, it coul only be in!o&e against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary an unreasonable e(ercise of "ower is im"ose2 n this case, aggage of Bongcarawan was searched - the vesse! securit- ersonne!. nly after they foun shabu insie the suitcase that they calle the hili""ine Coast uar for assistance2 The search an sei;ure of the suitcase an the contraban items was therefore carrie out without go!ernment inter!ention, an hence, the constitutional "rotection against unreasonable searches an sei;ure oes not a""ly2 o merit in the contention of the accuse7a""ellant that the search an sei;ure "erforme by the !essel security "ersonnel shoul be consiere as one conucte by the "olice authorities for li&e the latter, the former are arme an tas&e to maintain "eace an orer2 The !essel security officer in the case at bar is a "ri!ate em"loyee an oes not ischarge any go!ernmental function2 n contrast, o!ice officers are agents of the state tas/ed with the sovereign function of enforcement of the !aw. 0istorica!!- and unti! now, it is against them and other agents of the state that the rotection against unreasona!e searches and seiures ma- e invo/ed. 2. YES, he is the owner of the Samsonite suitcase and therefore admissi!e evidence against him. C"#TE#T$"#S "% B"#&CR(# 7'e oes not own the suitcase an ha no
&nowlege that it containe =shabu>2 7Submits that without &nowlege or intent to "ossess the angerous rug, he cannot be con!icte of crime charge2
C"3RT #"T PERS3)E).
rosecution for illegal "ossession of angerous rugs, the following facts must be "ro!en beyon reasonable oubt: 7that the accuse is in "ossession of the ob6ect ientifie as a "rohibite or a regulate rug 7 such "ossession is not authori;e by law 7 accuse freely an consciously "ossesse the sai rug2
%irst two e!ements were sufficient!- roven in this case, and were in fact undisuted. (e are !eft with the third.
United States v. #an Misa: ourt has ruled that to $arrant conviction, the possession of dangerous drugs must be $ith !no$ledge of the accused, or that animus possidendi e%isted together $ith the possession or control of such articles. &as been ruled, ho$ever, that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of !no$ledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory e%planation of such possession. '( &ence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to e%plain the absence of !no$ledge or animus possidendi. n this case, Bongcarawan utterly faile2 'is testimony, uncorroborate, self7ser!ing an increulous, was not gi!en creence by the trial court2 (e!!4sett!ed is the ru!e that in the asence of a!a!e error or grave ause of discretion on the art of the tria! 5udge, the tria! court's eva!uation of the credii!itof witnesses wi!! not e distured on aea!. +oreover, evidence must e credi!e in itse!f to deserve credence and weight in !aw 2 n this case, Bongcarawan amits that when he was as&e to get his baggage, he &new it woul be ins"ecte2 8hy he got the Samsonite suitcase allegely not owne by him an which ha a combination loc& &nown only to the owner remains unclear2 'e also claims that he i not "resent his small suitcase "maleta" for ins"ection for fear that its contents consisting of e("ensi!e sunglasses an brushes woul be confiscate, but he brought the Samsonite suitcase which is not his an also containe e("ensi!e sunglasses, an e!en watches2 Things in ossession of a erson are resumed - !aw to e owned - him. To o!ercome this "resum"tion, it is necessary to "resent clear an con!incing e!ience to the contrary2 n this case, the accuse "oints to a certain Alican Ale( Maca"ui as the owner of contraban, but "resente no e!ience to su""ort his claim2 “&e says that )le% Macap*u+di is a friend and a fello$ businessman $ho has a stall selling sunglasses in Mara$i ity. ut no $itnesses $ere presented to prove that there is such a living, breathing, flesh and blood person named )le% Macap*u+di $ho entrusted the Samsonite to the accused. Surely, if he does e%ist, he has friends, fello$ businessmen and ac-uaintances $ho could testify and support the claim of the accused."
Mere enial of ownershi" will not suffice es"ecially if, as in the case at bar, it is the &eystone of the efense of the accuse7a""ellant2 Stories can easily be fabricate2 t will ta&e more than bare7bone allegations to con!ince this Court that a courier of angerous rugs is not its owner an has no &nowlege or intent to "ossess the same2
FA5 0SST4E -T: 0ecision of -TC7ligan con!icting Basher Bongcarawan !iolating Sec2 1+, Article 3 of -A +)./ is AFF-ME02
