335 Phil. 1003
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“That on or about December 26, 1992 at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Pasay City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused WILLIAM BURTON y ROBERT while about to depart abroad, did then and there willfully, feloniously and unlawfully carry and transport without legal authority, 5.6 kilograms, more or less of Marijuana (Hashish), a prohibited drug.Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.[4] After trial, appellant was found guilty by the trial court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:[5]
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“WHEREFORE, accused William Burton y Robert is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempting to transport ‘hashish’, a derivative of marijuana, a prohibited drug, weighing about 5.6 kilograms, in violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.Hence, this appeal.
The ‘hashish’ involved in this case, which is forfeited in favor of the government, is ordered turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal.
SO ORDERED.”
“xxxx At about 9:30 in the evening of December 26, 1992, accused William Burton y Robert, 30 years old, a British national, checked in at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), Pasay City, for his trip to Sydney, Australia, on board Flight No. 209 of the Philippine Airlines. The accused had two pieces of luggage with him which he passed through the x-ray machine at the departure area of the airport. The machine showed certain portions of the sidings of one bag and the bottom of the other to be dark in color, making its operator to suspect that something illegal was inside them. Upon the request of the Customs examiner in the NAIA to whom the x-ray finding was referred, accused Burton removed all his belongings from the travelling bags. The two bags of the accused were then subjected to another x-ray examination. The same finding was revealed.
The accused, together with his two pieces of baggage, was brought to the Customs Office at the NAIA, where, with his consent, the sidings of one bag and the bottom of the other were slashed open. Found inside, sandwiched between thin plastic slabs attached to the upper and lower sides of one bag, and forming the false bottom of the other, were twelve (12) rectangular bricks and one (1) square brick of dark brown materials, each with a thickness of about one-third (1/3) of an inch. Their total weight was five and six-tenths (5.6) kilos.
During his investigation, the accused was observed to be walking in an uneasy manner. Suspecting that there was something hidden in his shoes, the investigator requested Burton to remove his shoes to which the accused consented. Retrieved from inside the shoes, hidden between their soles and the upper covers, were four (4) blocks, each about one-fourth (¼) of an inch thick, of the same dark brown substance shaped according to the contour of the soles of the shoes. The articles taken from the two bags and from the pair of shoes of the accused were suspected to be marijuana or ‘hashish’ by the Customs and the police investigators. Representative samples of the substance were referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination. The NBI Forensic Chemistry Division and the PNP Crime Laboratory Service found the materials to be ‘hashish’, a derivative of marijuana. This substance is a prohibited drug. (Sec. 2(e)(1)(i), Republic Act No. 6425)”
“Weight of specimen before exam. #1=0.4193 gramShe also submitted a Certification (Exh. “D”)[10] stating:
#2=0.8015 gram
Weight of specimen after exam. #1=0.3773 gram
#2=0.7213 gram
Examinations conducted on the above-mentioned specimen gave POSITIVE RESULTS for HASHISH.xxx xxx xxx
REMARKS: HASHISH is a cannabis resin obtained from MARIJUANA. xxxx”
“1. Brown substance contained in a small transparent plastic bag with markings.SPO4 Zuño, team leader of the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command stationed at NAIA, testified that at about 9 p.m. of December 26, 1992, while he was on-duty at the East Pre-Departure Section, he was informed by SPO2 Andres Andal that two pieces of luggage, suspected to contain illegal materials, had passed through the x-ray machine. He went to the x-ray machine where Napuli was conducting a thorough examination of appellant’s luggage, consisting of a suitcase and a traveling bag. At first, appellant was reluctant to comply with Napuli’s request to open them and to remove their contents; then, Zuño heard appellant say, “Patay.” When the two pieces of luggage were passed again through the x-ray machine, Zuño saw on the monitor a dark portion on the side of the suitcase and on the base of the traveling bag. The suitcase and bag were subjected to a thorough examination. Zuño, passing his hand along the interior frame of the suitcase, noticed that the side was thicker than that of an ordinary suitcase. Using a cutter (a bladed instrument), Napuli slashed the outer side and the lining of the suitcase. The hard plastic frame was thicker than the side of an ordinary suitcase and was wrapped with masking tape. When opened, a dark brown substance, shaped into blocks of various sizes and wrapped in masking tape, was concealed between the hard plastic frames.
Weight of specimen before exam.= 0.4193 gram
2. Brown substance contained in a small transparent plastic bag with markings.
Weight of specimen before exam.=0.8015 gramxxx xxx xxx
examinations conducted on the above-mentioned specimen/s gave POSITIVE RESULTS for HASHISH.”
“x x x should be deemed to have the intention to possess the marijuana or ‘hashish’ confiscated from him, in line with the principle that mere possession x x x raises the presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the possessor to explain the absence of animus possidendi.”Appellant was unable to rebut such presumption arising from his possession of the prohibited drugs. His excuse that he had no knowledge of the hashish was unavailing, as malice or intent to commit the crime is not required in cases of mala prohibita.
“I. x x x failing to consider ‘knowledge or awareness’ of the existence of prohibited drugs as an essential element of the offense charged.The main thesis of the defense is that it was not proven that appellant knew that the bags he had checked in at the airport contained a prohibited drug. Appellant further claims that the trial court misunderstood his defense to be lack of “criminal intent” in carrying the prohibited drug instead of “lack of knowledge” that he was carrying it. Appellant explains that the trial court confused malice or criminal intent, which is unimportant in malum prohibitum, and animus possidendi or intent to possess a prohibited drug, which is an element of illegal transportation of a prohibited drug.
II. x x x ruling that the accused failed to destroy the presumption of ‘unlawful intent’.
III. x x x giving full credence to the testimony of prosecution witness, Mr. Zuno.”
“SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs.--The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x x.”As clearly indicated, said provision penalizes the acts of selling, administering, delivering, giving away to another, distributing, dispatching in transit or transporting any prohibited drug. While sale and delivery are given technical meanings under said Act, transportation, distribution and dispensation are not defined.[14] However, in indictments for violation of said provision, the prosecution must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed any of said unlawful acts at a particular time, date and place.[15]
q On December 26, 1992, where were you between the time 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 in the evening? | a I was assigned at the inspection lane of the Departure Area of the NAIA, sir. |
---|---|
q At 9:30 p.m., where were you on that specific date December 26, 1992? | a At 9:30 in the evening, December 26, 1992, I was assigned at the inspection lane at the Departure Area of the NAIA, sir. |
PROS. VELASCO: | WITNESS: |
q On that specific time and date, do you remember anything unusual, Mr. Napuli? | a There was an unusual incident which (sic) we were able to apprehend William Robert Burton carrying in his luggage suspected hashish, sir. |
q How was he apprehended? Will you relay (sic) it to the Court, Mr. Witness? | a He was apprehended after his luggage had passed through the x-ray and it was found out that there was something red or an unidentified object inside his luggage, so we conducted immediately a thorough examination of his bag and we found out that certain hashish. |
PROS. VELASCO: | WITNESS: |
q You said that the luggage of Mr. Burton passed through the x-ray machine. What happened next, Mr. Witness? | a So, since we already suspected that there was something suspected hashish, we requested Mr. Burton to have his luggage opened. |
PROS. VELASCO: | |
q So, what did you do next? | a Then we approached Mr. Burton and requested him to open his luggage. |
PROS. VELASCO: | WITNESS: |
q Now, after Mr. Burton opened his bag, what happened next? | a I immediately conducted the thorough examination, sir. |
q What happened next? | a I pulled out all his clothes then re-x-ray again the bag. |
q Why did you re-x-ray again the bag? | a To determine thoroughly what was really inside the bag, at the sidings of the bag. |
q Why, Mr. Witness? When you first examined the bag, what did you find inside the bag when you first examined it? | a We found out his personal belongings, sir. |
q So, after the first examination, you did not find any drugs inside the suitcase, Mr. Witness? | WITNESS: a Actually, in the course of the examination, we did not find the hashish but we already suspected that it was being put at the sidings so we decided to re-x-ray it. |
PROS. VELASCO: | |
q During the re-x-ray, what did you find out, Mr. Witness? | a After the re-x-ray of that bag was conducted, we decided (sic) Mr. Burton to slash the sidings of his bag, sir. |
COURT: | |
q What did you find out during the re-x-ray examination? | a We found out that there was something inside the sidings of the bag, sir. |
q What was that something appearing in the x-ray? | a It was red. It appeared in the x-ray a block type, sir. |
q What portion of the luggage? | a It was in the sidings which contained that red and block type appearance in the x-ray. It was in the sidings of the bag concealed at the sidings of the bag. |
q When it was re-x-ray, where were the contents of the bag which you examined upon opening it? | a The contents of the bag were placed on the inspection lane, his dresses, and his personal belongings, during the examination of the bag. |
PROS. VELASCO: | WITNESS: |
q After the bag has been passed again in the x-ray machine, what did you do, Mr. Witness? | a Again, it was passed through the x-ray, we decided to request Mr. Burton to have his luggage slashed in order to open, sir. |
PROS. VELASCO:q What happened next, Mr. Witness? | a So when we slashed the sidings of the bag, it yielded hashish, 12 blocks and one (1) bar. |
q Can you describe these twelve (12) blocks that you have seen? | a It is black in color... |
q xxx These twelve (12) blocks, what was the relation ot (sic) these twelve (12) blocks to the hashish or drugs you are mentioning? | WITNESS:a That is the hashish, your Honor. |
COURT:q How about this bar? What is the relation of this bar to the drugs or hashish you are mentioning? | WITNESS:a It is the hashish, your Honor.” |
Witness Zuño corroborated Napuli’s testimony, saying that: [17] |
|
“STATE PROSECUTOR | |
q So Mr. witness (sic) what happened next after Mr. Burton complied that his bags be opened? | a After complying to have his luggages (sic) re-examined, said luggages (sic) were brought to the customs examination table and have it re-examined by Mr. Napuli, sir. |
q So what happened next, Mr. witness(sic)? | a After these two luggages (sic) were brought to the said examination table, Mr. Burton was again requested to have his luggages (sic) opened by him, in (sic) which he complied and that is the time Mr. Napuli started the thorough examination of the emptied luggages, (sic) sir. |
q What happened next Mr. witness (sic) after the bags were subjected to the thorough examination by Mr. Napuli? | a When the suitcase are (sic) being examined by Mr. Napuli, I notice (sic) that the sidings and the bottom of the said suitcase is (sic) thicker than the ordinary suitcase being subjected for examination, sir. |
q So when you noticed that one of the sidings is (sic) thicker, what happened next Mr. witness? | a With the used (sic) of a cutter or bladed weapon, and in the presence of Mr. Burton, Mr. Napuli slashed one of the sidings, sir. |
q What happened next after this area has been opened? | a After one of the sidings has (sic) been slashed by Mr. Napuli in our presence, I found out that a hard portion thicker than ordinary sidings of the suitcase being examined. It is wrapped with masking tapes, sir. |
q What happened next after that? | a After I discovered the masking tapes wrapped on the sidings, I made another slashed (sic) in the sidings of the hard object found on the sidings of the suitcase. In which it yielded brown substance wrapped with masking tapes. |
STATE PROSECUTOR: | |
Will you please describe to the best of your knowledge what was the substance found inside it? | a When that substance or object conceiled (sic) in between the hard plastic of the suitcase was retrieved by Mr. Napuli, we cut the portion of the said object and we found brown substance. And thorough (sic) physical examination, we suspected that it is hashish, sir. |
STATE PROSECUTOR: | |
Will you please describe this brown substance? | a It is dark brown in color, sir. |
q The appearance? | a It is form (sic) in blocks of various sizes. sir. |
q What are the shapes of the blocks? | a The first one is rectangular in form, sir. |
COURT: | |
How many blocks were they (sic)? | a Ten (10) blocks of various sizes, two (2) blocks also and one (1) small bar, Your Honor. |
STATE PROSECUTOR: | |
Mr. witness (sic) in what specific part of this travelling bag have you found? | a It is on the bottom of the hand travelling bag, sir. |
q Will you please show to us? | a This portion, sir. |
(witness pointing to two (2) pieces of plastic with wood which is placed at the bottom of the bag. It is detachable with a piece of black plastic material in between the two (2) pieces of plastic in effect serves as a false bottom of the bag marked as Exhibit H).
q I have noticed Mr. witness (sic) that the false bottom is exposed, was this the condition also of this bag when it was inspected at the time of the arrest of Mr. Burton? | a No, sir, it was neatly revetted (sic) or there were revets (sic). |
---|---|
q Can you please explain to the Honorable Court how you came upon this present state Mr. witness(sic)? | a The bladed weapon was also used by Mr. Napuli, and when I found the (sic) difficulty in opening the revetted (sic) portion, I used a screw driver, sir.” |
He also testified on how he found blocks of the same substance inside appellant’s shoes. He said: [18] | |
“STATE PROSECUTOR: | |
What happened next after the investigation of Mr. Burton? | a While thereat, I observed Mr. Burton to be uneasy on his shoes, so my suspicion arose (sic) that he is conceiling (sic) may be (sic) a deadly weapon or some more illegal items. So I requested him to untie his white Reebok shoes, which (sic) he complied. While he was untying his shoes, I took shme (sic) pictures, sir. |
q So what happened next after Mr. Burton untie (sic) his shoes, Mr. witness(sic)? | a When he untied his shoes, I requested custom (sic) police Elpidio Manuel to examine the said shoes, and inside the shoes we found out (sic) four (4) blocks of various sizes, sir. |
q Four blocks of various sizes of what, Mr. witness(sic)? | a Suspected hashish, sir. |
q Can you please describe briefly to the Court the appearance of these blocks of various sizes of hashish? | a Well, .. I mean the form follows the forms of the inner portion of the sole of the shoes, but it was not cut into two, and we found four (4) blocks in the shoes he is wearing, sir. |
COURT | |
So it was sandwich (sic) between the upper sole or the cover and the sole proper? | a Yes, Your Honor. |
STATE PROSECUTOR: | |
Then after you have discovered something were (sic) hidden inside the shoes of Mr. Burton what happened next, Mr. witness(sic)? | a And since he was denying knowledge on the suspected hashish that were earlier discovered from his luggages(sic), when I asked him what he can say about the four (4) blocks that were recovered in his shoes, and he said ‘I have nothing to say’.” |
“SEC. 21. Attempt and Conspiracy.--The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy to commit the same in the following cases:The foregoing testimony amply demonstrates that appellant committed an act punishable by said law. We agree with the following discussion of the trial court on the crime committed by appellant:x x x x x x x x x
(b) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs;x x x x x x x x x”
“x x x To transport means ‘to transfer or convey from one person or place to another.’ (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). The accused came from a hotel in Parañaque, Metro Manila, where he stayed before he checked in at the NAIA and was bound for Sydney, Australia. It is therefore apparent that he wanted to bring the prohibited drug from Parañaque to Sydney. However, because he was not able to pursue his trip, he should be considered only to have attempted to transport the prohibited drug to Sydney. Under Section 21 of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the same penalty prescribed by the said Act for the commission of the offense of transporting dangerous drugs shall be imposed in case of any attempt to commit the same crime.Upholding the Assessment of Witness by the Trial Courtx x x x x x x x x
The act of accused Burton in attempting to transport the ‘hashish’ in question clearly constitutes a violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21, of Republic Act No. 6425, since it does not appear that the accused had any legal authority to transfer or convey the said prohibited drug from the Philippines to Australia.”
“First, the wealth of jurisprudence in cases wherein ‘life imprisonment’ is imposed is to the effect that said penalty, unlike reclusión perpetua, does not carry accessory penalties. In the event that Republic Act No. 7659 is applied retrospectively to appellant, he has to suffer not only reclusión perpetua but also the accessory penalties.In line with current jurisdiction, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon appellant.[32]
Second, the fine imposed upon appellant is the minimum imposable of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), whereas if he were penalized under the new law, he would have to bear the minimum fine of P500,000.00. Thus, retrospective application of Republic Act No. 7659, the ‘heinous crimes law,’ in cases wherein the penalty of ‘life imprisonment’ has been imposed by the trial court, would prove more burdensome upon the appellant and would contradict the basic principle that all penal laws shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.”