By Andrew M.

Navarrete

PEOPLE v. WONG CHUEN MING

256 SCRA 182 (1996)

Topic: Confessions (BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES; ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILT, MUST BE

PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT)
Legend:
2 British nationals = Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung
Customs Collector = Zenaida Bonifacio
NARCOM Officer = Captain Rustico Francisco

Question:
A group of tourists arrived in NAIA (2 were British nationals and 7 were Malaysian nationals) and after
obtaining clearance from immigration officers at the NAIA, they went to the baggage claim area to retrieve
their respective checked-in baggages.

Upon checking, a total of 30 boxes of Alpen Cereals containing white crystalline substance were allegedly
recovered from the baggages of the 11 accused.

A Customs Collector ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from
their respective baggages.

At CAMP Crame, a NARCOM Officer immediately informed the 11 accused that they were under arrest and
were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified them, they were again made
to sign on the plastic bags containing white crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures.

The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; and
sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The 2 British nationals appealed.

Are the signatures of the accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing "shabu" admissible
in evidence?

Suggested Answer:
NO

The law provides that any evidence wrongfully obtained from the accused in violation of their constitutional
rights is inadmissible against them. The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude
application of the "exclusionary rule" because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights
are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.

In the instance case, by affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags,
accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of "shabu" is punished by
law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not
sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12[1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution).
Therefore, the signatures of the accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing "shabu"
admissible in evidence

Case Digest Version

Doctrine:
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES; ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILT, MUST BE
PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; CASE AT BAR.There are other circumstances that militate against the
conviction of accused-appellants. First, accused-appellants are British (Hongkong) nationals while all the
other accused are Malaysians. It is difficult to imagine how accused-appellants could have conspired with
the other accused, who are total strangers, when they do not even speak the same language.Second,
overwhelming evidence consisting of testimonies of accused-appellant Au Wing Cheungs superiors was
presented to show that he was a bona fide employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Third, evidence
showed that accused-appellant Wong Chueng Ming was not originally part of the tour group arranged by
Select Tours but he was only accommodated by the latter at the last minute when his package tour to Cebu
was cancelled by Wing Ann Travel Co. Finally, as testified to by Capt. Francisco, both accused-appellants
adamantly refused to sign on the transparent plastic bags containing shabu. All the foregoing circumstances
taken together with the findings of the Court persuade us to hold that accused-appellants participation in
the illegal transportation of shabu into the country has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. To
paraphrase an admonition expressed by the Court in a recent case, [m]uch as We share the abhorrence of
the disenchanted public in regard to the proliferation of drug pushers (or drug smugglers, as in this case), the
Court cannot permit the incarceration of individuals based on insufficient factual nexus of their participation
in the commission of an offense. (People vs. Melosantos, 245 SCRA 560, 587)

Facts:
On 7 September 1991, at about 1:00 p.m., Philippine Air Lines (PAL) Flight PR 301 from Hongkong arrived at
the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City, Metro Manila. Among the many passengers who
arrived on board said flight were Wong Chuen Ming, Au Wing Cheung ,Tan Soi Tee, Chin Kok Wee, Lim Chan
Fatt, Chin Kin Yong, Yap Boon Ah, Chin Kong Song, Chin Kin Fah, Chai Min Huwa and Lim Nyuk Sun.

Their respective passports showed that Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung are the only British
(Hongkong) nationals in the group while the rest are all Malaysian nationals. Their passports also revealed
that all Malaysians (except Lim Chan Fatt) originally came from Malaysia, traveled to Singapore and
Hongkong before proceeding to Manila. Upon the other hand, Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, as
well as Lim Chan Fatt, directly came from Hongkong to Manila.

Wong Chuen Ming, et. al. arrived in Manila as a tour group arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd.
Au Wing Cheung, an employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. acted as their tour guide. After passing
through and obtaining clearance from immigration officers at the NAIA, the tour group went to the baggage
claim area to retrieve their respective checked-in baggages. They placed the same in one pushcart and
proceeded to Express Lane 5 which at the time was manned by customs examiner Danilo Gomez. Au Wing
Cheung handed to Gomez the tour group's passenger's manifest, their baggage declarations and their
passports. Danilo Gomez instructed the tour group to place their baggages on the examiner's table for
inspection. They were directed to hold on to their respective baggages while they wait for their turn to be
examined. Chin Kong Song's baggage was first to be examined by Gomez.
Gomez put his hand inside the baggage and in the course of the inspection, he found 3 brown colored boxes
similar in size to powdered milk boxes underneath the clothes. The boxes were marked Alpen Cereals and as
he found nothing wrong with them, Gomez returned them inside the baggage and allowed Chin Kong Song
to go. Following the same procedure, Gomez next examined the baggage of Wong Chuen Ming. Gomez again
found and pulled out 2 boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage and like in the previous inspection, he
found nothing wrong with them and allowed Wong Chuen Ming to go. The third baggage to be examined
belonged to Lim Nyuk Sun. When Gomez pulled out another 3 boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage, he
became suspicious and decided to open one of the boxes with his cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag
containing white crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called the attention of Appraiser
Oreganan Palala and Duty Collector Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio to his discovery.

Upon learning about the boxes containing the white crystalline substance, Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio (Chief of
the Collection Division and Acting Duty Collector of the Customs Office at the NAIA) immediately ordered the
tour group to get their baggages and proceed to the district collector's office. Chin Kong Song and Wong
Chuen Ming, who were previously cleared by Gomez, were also brought inside together with the rest of the
group. Inside the collector's office, Gomez continued to examine the baggages of the other members of the
tour group. He allegedly found that each baggage contained 1, 2 or 3 boxes similar to those previously found
in the baggages of Chin Kong Song, Wong Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk Sun. A total of 30 boxes of Alpen Cereals
containing white crystalline substance were allegedly recovered from the baggages of the 11 accused.

As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their respective baggages, he bundled said boxes by putting masking
tape around them and handed them over to Bonifacio. Upon receipt of these bundled boxes, Bonifacio called
out the names of accused as listed in the passengers' manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape
placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from their respective baggages. Also present at this time were Capt.
Rustico Francisco and his men, agents of the Bureau of Customs and several news reporters. A few minutes
later, District Collector Antonio Marquez arrived with General Job Mayo and then NBI Deputy Director
Mariano Mison.

Shortly, after all boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered, Capt. Rustico Francisco, Officer in Charge (OIC) of
the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command Detachment at the NAIA, conducted a field test on a
sample of the white crystalline substance. His test showed that the substance was indeed "shabu." Capt.
Francisco immediately informed the 11 accused that they were under arrest. Thereafter, all accused, as well
as the Alpen Cereals boxes which were placed inside a big box, were brought to Camp Crame. At Camp
Crame, accused were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified them, they
were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing
their signatures.

The examination by Elizabeth Ayonon, a forensic chemist at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
at Camp Crame, confirmed that the white crystalline substance recovered from accused was "shabu." The
total weight of "shabu" recovered was placed at 34.45 kilograms. 11 separate criminal informations were
filed against all of the accused individually. The counsel of Au Wing Cheung earlier filed a petition for
reinvestigation and deferment of his arraignment but the same was denied by the trial court for lack of merit.
At their respective arraignments, all accused with the assistance of their counsels, including Au Wing Cheung
pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial court conducted a joint and/or consolidated trial of all the cases
upon motion by the prosecution considering that the State had common testimonial and documentary
evidence against all accused.
On 29 November 1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City, found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.
Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung appealed.

Issue:
Whether the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing "shabu", are
admissible in evidence.

Held:
The Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing "shabu",
are inadmissible in evidence. A careful study of the records reveals that accused were never informed of
their fundamental rights during the entire time that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused were
not informed of their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any
statement they might make could be used against them, when they were made to affix their signatures on
the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already
taken in custody at Camp Crame.

By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, accused in effect made a
tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of "shabu" is punished by law. These signatures of
accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of
Rights (Section 12[1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any
admission wrong from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The
fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the "exclusionary rule" because
the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens
and citizens.
By Andrew M. Navarrete

Gravador V Mamigo
Topic: Pedigree (Section 39 of Rule 130) DATE OF BIRTH; CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENCING THE SAME
Legend:
A – Petitioner Pedro Gravador
B – Respondent Supervisor Teodulfo E. Davao
C – Respondent District Supervisor Eutiquio Mamigo

Question:
A, School Principal was advised of his separation, effective immediately, unless he can show valid proof in
the form of a baptismal or birth certificate that he is below 65 years of age.

According to the pre-war records and Employee's Record Card, which had just been found in connection with
the verification of the services of all school officials, A was born on November 26, 1897.

A wrote the Director of Public Schools protesting his forced retirement with attached affidavit of 2 affiants
who declared that they knew that A was born on December 11, 1901 instead of November 26, 1897 because
they were neighbors of A’s parents.

Later, A asked for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the issues posed thereby had become moot
with his retirement from the service on December 11, 1966 and the payment to him of the corresponding
retirement benefits.

Is the court correct in placing full reliance on the post-war records to establish the date of birth of A?

Suggested Answer:
Yes

Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree
within the intendment and meaning of section 39 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

In the instant case, the court gave three cogent reasons:

1. Although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he may testify as to his
age as he had learned it from his parents and relatives, and his testimony in such case is an assertion
of family tradition.

2. The import of the declaration of the petitioner’s brother, contained in a verified pleading in a
cadastral case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old, cannot be
ignored.

3. The parties are agreed that the petitioner has a brother, Constantino, who was born on June 10,
1898 and who retired on June 10, 1963 with full retirement pay. The petitioner then could not have
been born earlier than Constantino, say in 1897 as pre-war records indicate, because Constantino is
admittedly older than he.

Therefore, the court is correct in placing full reliance on the post-war records to establish the date of birth
of A.
Case Digest

Doctrine:
ID.; EVIDENCE; DATE OF BIRTH; CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENCING THE SAME. — Although a person can have no
personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents
and relatives, and his testimony in such case is an assertion of family tradition. Indeed, even in his application
for backpay, filed through the Office of the Superintendent of Schools, on October 7, 1948, the petitioner
stated that the date of his birth is December 11, 1901. He repeated the same assertion in 1956 and again in
1960 when he asked the Government Service Insurance System and the Civil Service Commission to correct
the date of his birth to December 11, 1901. Again the import of the declaration of the petitioner's brother,
contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was
then 23 years old, cannot be ignored. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative, this statement is at
once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of section 39 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. Thus, December 11, 1901 is established as the date of birth of the petitioner not only by
evidence of family tradition but also by the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative.

Facts:
The petitioner Pedro Gravador was the principal of the Sta. Catalina Elementary School in Sta. Catalina,
Negros Oriental on August 15, 1964 when he was advised by the then Superintendent of Schools Angel
Salazar, Jr., through the respondent Supervisor Teodulfo E. Dayao, of his separation from the service on the
ground that he had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 according to his pre-war records as a
teacher in the public schools, including his Employee’s Record Card. He was advised of his separation from
service “effective immediately unless you can show valid proof in the form of a baptismal or birth certificate
that you are below 65 years of age today” (excerpt from the advice given).

On August 31, 1964 the petitioner wrote the Director of Public Schools, protesting his forced retirement on
the ground that the date of his birth is not November 26, 1897 but December 11, 1901. Attached to his letter
was the affidavit, executed on July 26, 1962, of Lazaro Bandoquillo and Pedro A. Sienes both of Amlan Negros
Oriental, in which these two affiants declared that they knew that the petitioner "was born on December 11,
1901, in the Municipality of Amlan formerly known as New Ayuquitan Province of Negros Oriental,
Philippines" because, "we were the neighbors of the late spouses, NEPOMUCENO GRAVADOR and AGUEDA
REGOROSA [petitioner's parents], and we were present when said PEDRO GRAVADOR was born;
furthermore,we were also invited during the baptismal party a few weeks after the birth of said PEDRO
GRAVADOR."

On July 6, 1967 the petitioner asked for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the issues posed
thereby had become moot with his retirement from the service on December 11, 1966 and the payment to
him of the corresponding retirement benefits. We deem it necessary, however, to review the trial court's
decision on the merits, considering that the computation of retirement annuities is based among other
things, on the number of years of service of a retiree, and that payment of benefits already made to the
petitioner on the basis of December 11, 1901 as the date of his birth would not exempt him from the
obligation to make a refund should this Court ultimately rule that he was actually born November 26, 1897,
as the respondents claim.

Issue:
WON the trial court erred in placing full reliance on the post-war records to establish the date of birth of the
petitioner.

Held:
No

The court gave three cogent reasons:

1. As Moran states, although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he may
testify as to his age as he learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is
an assertion of a family tradition.

2. The import of the declaration of the petitioner’s brother, contained in a verified pleading in a
cadastral case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old, cannot be
ignored. Made ante litem motam by a deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration
regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court.

3. The parties are agreed that the petitioner has a brother, Constantino, who was born on June 10,
1898 and who retired on June 10, 1963 with full retirement pay. The petitioner then could not have
been born earlier than Constantino, say in 1897 as pre-war records indicate, because Constantino is
admittedly older than he.