Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

138881 December 18, 2000

The prosecution presente four 7itnesses! namel#! N'I >orensic Chemist <eor&e e *ara! SPO$ Re#nal o Embile! ut# frisCer Olivia RamireD! an SPO" RiDalina 'ernal. The efense presente accuse )appellant 7ho testifie in her o7n behalf. The facts are as follo7s4 .ccuse )appellant *eila Re#es +ohnson 7as! at the time of the inci ent! 05 #ears ol ! a 7i o7! an a resi ent of Ocean Si e! California! ;.S... She is a former >ilipino citiDen 7ho 7as naturaliDe as an .merican on +une "-! "%-5 an ha since been 7orCin& as a re&istere nurse! taCin& care of &eriatric patients an those 7ith .lDheimerEs isease! in convalescent homes in the ;nite States.$ On +une "-! "%%5! she arrive in the Philippines to visit her sonEs famil# in Calamba! *a&una. She 7as ue to fl# bacC to the ;nite States on +ul# /-. On +ul# /0! she checCe in at the Philippine Villa&e 9otel to avoi the traffic on the 7a# to the Nino# .6uino International .irport 1N.I.2 an checCe out at 04A( p.m. the neFt a#! +une /-! "%%5.0 .t aroun 34A( p.m. of that a#! Olivia RamireD 7as on ut# as a la # frisCer at <ate "- of the N.I. eparture area. 9er ut# 7as to frisC epartin& passen&ers! emplo#ees! an cre7 an checC for 7eapons! bombs! prohibite ru&s! contraban &oo s! an eFplosives.Bhen she frisCe accuse )appellant *eila +ohnson! a epartin& passen&er boun for the ;nite States via Continental .irlines CS)%"/! she felt somethin& har on the latterEs ab ominal area. ;pon in6uir#! Mrs. +ohnson eFplaine she nee e to 7ear t7o pant# &ir les as she ha 8ust un er&one an operation as a result of an ectopic pre&nanc#.3 Not satisfie 7ith the eFplanation! RamireD reporte the matter to her superior! SPO$ Re#nal o Embile! sa#in& G Sir, hindi po ako naniniwalang panty lang po iyon. G 1GSir! I o not believe that it is 8ust a pant#.G2 She 7as irecte to taCe accuse )appellant to the nearest 7omenEs room for inspection. RamireD tooC accuse )appellant to the rest room! accompanie b# SPO" RiDalina 'ernal. Embile sta#e outsi e.5 Insi e the 7omenEs room! accuse )appellant 7as asCe a&ain b# RamireD 7hat the har ob8ect on her stomach 7as an accuse )appellant &ave the same ans7er she ha previousl# &iven. RamireD then asCe her Gto brin& out the thin& un er her &ir le.G .ccuse )appellant brou&ht out three plastic pacCs! 7hich RamireD then turne over to Embile! outsi e the 7omenEs room.% The confiscate pacCs! marCe as EFhibits C)"! C)/ an C) A! containe a total of 05(./ &rams of a substance 7hich

7as foun b# N'I Chemist <eor&e e *ara to be methamphetamine h# rochlori e or Gshabu.G"( Embile tooC accuse )appellant an the plastic pacCs to the "st Re&ional .viation an Securit# Office 1"st R.SO2 at the arrival area of the N.I.! 7here accuse )appellantEs passport an ticCet 7ere taCen an her lu&&a&e opene . Pictures 7ere taCen an her personal belon&in&s 7ere itemiDe ."" In her efense! accuse )appellant alle&e that she 7as stan in& in line at the last boar in& &ate 7hen she 7as approache b# Embile an t7o female officers. She claime she 7as han cuffe an taCen to the 7omenEs room. There! she 7as asCe to un ress an 7as then sub8ecte to a bo # search. She insiste that nothin& 7as foun on her person. She 7as later taCen to a room fille 7ith boFes! &arba&e! an a chair. 9er passport an her purse containin& H50(.(( an some chan&e 7ere taCen from her! for 7hich no receipt 7as issue to her. .fter t7o hours! she sai ! she 7as transferre to the office of a certain Col. Castillo."/ .fter another t7o hours! Col. Castillo an about ei&ht securit# &uar s came in an thre7 t7o 7hite pacCa&es on the table. The# tol her to a mit that the pacCa&es 7ere hers. 'ut she enie Cno7le &e an o7nership of the pacCa&es. She 7as etaine at the "st R.SO office until noon of +une /5! "%%% 7hen she 7as taCen before a fiscal for in6uest."A She claime that throu&hout the perio of her etention! from the ni&ht of +une /- until +une /5! she 7as never allo7e to talC to counsel nor 7as she allo7e to call the ;.S. Embass# or an# of her relatives in the Philippines."$ On Ma# "$! "%%%! the trial court ren ere ispositive portion of 7hich rea s4"0 a ecision! the

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEILA OHNSON ! RE!ES, accused-appellant. DECISION MENDO"A, J.: This is an appeal from the ecision!" ate Ma# "$! "%%%! of the Re&ional Trial Court! 'ranch ""(! Pasa# Cit#! fin in& accuse )appellant *eila +ohnson # Re#es&uilt# of violation of ,"- of R... No. -$/0 1Dan&erous Dru&s .ct2! as amen e b# R... No. 3-0%! an sentencin& her to suffer the penalt# of reclusion perpetua an to pa# a fine ofP0((!(((.(( an the costs of the suit. The information a&ainst accuse )appellant alle&e 4 That on +une /-! "%%5 insi e the Nino# .6uino International .irport! an 7ithin the 8uris iction of this 9onorable Court! the above)name .ccuse i then an there 7illfull#! unla7full# an feloniousl# possess three plastic ba&s of methamphetamine h# rochlori e! a re&ulate ru&! each ba& 7ei&hin&4 :" ONE 9;NDRED EI<9T= SEVEN POINT >IVE 1"53.02 &rams? :/ONE 9;NDRED NINET= EI<9T POINT @ERO 1"%5.(2 &rams? an :A ONE 9;NDRED NINET= >O;R POINT SEVEN 1"%$.32 &rams! respectivel#! or a total of FI#E HUNDRED EIGHT! POINT T$O %&80.2' (r)m* o+ me,-)m.-e,)m/0e -12roc-3or/2e. That the above)name accuse oes not have the correspon in& license or prescription to possess or use sai re&ulate ru&. CONTR.R= TO *.B./ ;pon bein& arrai&ne ! accuse )appellant plea e &uilt#!A 7hereupon trial 7as hel . not

B9ERE>ORE! 8u &ment is hereb# ren ere fin in& the accuse *EI*. +O9NSON = RE=ES! <;I*T= be#on reasonable oubt of the offense of Violation of Section "- of Republic .ct -$/0 as amen e an hereb# imposes on her the penalt# of REC*;SION PERPET;. an con emns sai accuse to pa# a fine of >IVE 9;NDRED T9O;S.ND PESOS 1P0((!(((.((2 7ithout subsi iar# imprisonment in case of insolvenc# an to pa# the costs of suit. The Methamphetamine 9# rochlori e 1shabu2 havin& a total net 7ei&ht of 05(./ &rams 1EFhibits G<G! GC)/G an GC)AG2 are hereb# confiscate in favor of the &overnment an the 'ranch ClerC of Court is hereb# or ere to cause the transportation thereof to the Dan&erous Dru&s 'oar for isposition in accor ance 7ith la7. The accuse shall be cre ite in full for the perio of her etention at the Cit# +ail of Pasa# Cit#

urin& the pen enc# of this case provi e that she a&ree in 7ritin& to abi e b# an compl# strictl# 7ith the rules an re&ulations of the Cit# +ail. SO ORDERED. .ccuse )appellant conten s that the trial court convicte her4 1"2 G espite failure of the prosecution in provin& the ne&ative alle&ation in the information?G 1/2 G espite failure of the prosecution in provin& the 6uantit# of methamphetamine h# rochlori e?G 1A2 G espite violation of her constitutional ri&hts?G an 1$2 G7hen &uilt 7as not proven be#on reasonable oubt.G"First. .ccuse )appellant claims that she 7as arreste an etaine in &ross violation of her constitutional ri&hts. She ar&ues that the GshabuG confiscate from her is ina missible a&ainst her because she 7as force to affiF her si&nature on the plastic ba&s 7hile she 7as etaine at the "st R.SO office! 7ithout the assistance of counsel an 7ithout havin& been informe of her constitutional ri&hts. 9ence! she ar&ues! the methamphetamine h# rochlori e! or Gshabu!G shoul have been eFclu e from the evi ence."3 The contention has no merit. No statement! if an#! 7as taCen from accuse )appellant urin& her etention an use in evi ence a&ainst her. There is! therefore! no basis for accuse )appellantEs invocation of .rt. III! ,"/1"2 an 1A2. On the other han ! 7hat is involve in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a vali search ma e on her person. The trial court hel 4 The constitutional ri&ht of the accuse 7as not violate as she 7as never place un er custo ial investi&ation but 7as vali l# arreste 7ithout 7arrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 0! Rule ""A of the "%50 Rules of Criminal Proce ure 7hich provi es4 Sec. 0. .rrest 7ithout 7arrant? 7hen la7ful. . peace officer or a private person ma#! 7ithout a 7arrant! arrest a person4 1a2 7hen in his presence! the person to be arreste has committe ! is actuall# committin&! or is attemptin& to commit an offense? 1b2 7hen an offense has in fact 8ust been committe ! an he has personal Cno7le &e of facts in icatin& that the person to be arreste has committe it? an 1;n erscorin& supplie 2 FFFF

. custo ial investi&ation has been efine in People. v. .#son "30 SCR. /A( as Gthe 6uestionin& initiate b# la7 enforcement officers after a person has been taCen IinJ custo # or other7ise eprive of his free om in an# si&nificant 7a#. This presupposes that he is suspecte of havin& committe an offense an that the investi&ator is tr#in& to elicit information or IaJ confession from him.G The circumstances surroun in& the arrest of the accuse above falls in either para&raph 1a2 or 1b2 of the Rule above cite ! hence the alle&ation that she has been sub8ecte to custo ial investi&ation is far from bein& accurate."5 The methamphetamine h# rochlori e seiDe from her urin& the routine frisC at the airport 7as ac6uire le&itimatel# pursuant to airport securit# proce ures. Persons ma# lose the protection of the search an seiDure clause b# eFposure of their persons or propert# to the public in a manner reflectin& a lacC of sub8ective eFpectation of privac#! 7hich eFpectation societ# is prepare to reco&niDe as reasonable."% Such reco&nition is implicit in airport securit# proce ures. Bith increase concern over airplane hi8acCin& an terrorism has come increase securit# at the nationEs airports. Passen&ers attemptin& to boar an aircraft routinel# pass throu&h metal etectors? their carr#)on ba&&a&e as 7ell as checCe lu&&a&e are routinel# sub8ecte to F)ra# scans. Shoul these proce ures su&&est the presence of suspicious ob8ects! ph#sical searches are con ucte to etermine 7hat the ob8ects are. There is little 6uestion that such searches are reasonable! &iven their minimal intrusiveness! the &ravit# of the safet# interests involve ! an the re uce privac# eFpectations associate 7ith airline travel./( In ee ! travelers are often notifie throu&h airport public a ress s#stems! si&ns! an notices in their airline ticCets that the# are sub8ect to search an ! if an# prohibite materials or substances are foun ! such 7oul be sub8ect to seiDure. These announcements place passen&ers on notice that or inar# constitutional protections a&ainst 7arrantless searches an seiDures o not appl# to routine airport proce ures. The pacCs of methamphetamine h# rochlori e havin& thus been obtaine throu&h a vali 7arrantless search! the# are a missible in evi ence a&ainst the accuse )appellant herein. Corollaril#! her subse6uent arrest! althou&h liCe7ise 7ithout 7arrant! 7as 8ustifie since it 7as effecte upon the iscover# an recover# of GshabuG in her person in flagrante delicto. .nent her alle&ation that her si&nature on the sai pacCs 1EFhibits C)"! C)/ an C)A herein2 ha been obtaine 7hile she 7as in the custo # of the airport authorities 7ithout the assistance of counsel! the Solicitor <eneral correctl# points out that no7here in the recor s is it in icate that accuse ) appellant 7as re6uire to affiF her si&nature to the pacCs. In fact! onl# the si&natures of Embile an RamireD thereon!

alon& 7ith their testimon# to that effect! 7ere presente b# the prosecution in provin& its case. There is! ho7ever! no 8ustification for the confiscation of accuse )appellantEs passport! airline ticCet! lu&&a&e! an other personal effects. The pictures taCen urin& that time are also ina missible! as are the &ir le taCen from her! an her si&nature thereon. Rule "/-! ,/ of the Revise Rules of Criminal Proce ure authoriDes the search an seiDure onl# of the follo7in&4 Personal property to be seized . AK$ . search 7arrant ma# be issue for the search an seiDure of personal propert#4 1a2 Sub8ect of the offense? 1b2 Stolen or embeDDle fruits of the offense? an an other procee s or

1c2 ;se or inten e to be use as the means of committin& an offense. .ccor in&l#! the above items seiDe from accuse )appellant shoul be returne to her. Second. .ccuse )appellant ar&ues that the prosecution faile to full# ascertain the 6uantit# of methamphetamine h# rochlori e to 8ustif# the imposition of the penalt# of reclusion perpetua. Section /( of R... No. -$/0! as amen e b# R... No. 3-0%! states4 Section /( - Application Of Penalties, Confiscation And Forfeiture Of he Proceeds or !nstru"ent Of he Cri"e L The penalties for offenses un er Section A! $! 3! 5 an % of .rticle II an Sections "$! "$).! "0 an "- of .rticle III of this .ct! shall be applie if the an&erous ru&s involve is in an# of the follo7in& 6uantities4 ". $( &rams or more of opium? /. $( &rams or more of morphine? 3. 200 (r)m* or more o+ *-)b4, me,-13)m.-e,)m/0e -12roc-3or/2e5 $. $( &rams or more of heroin? 0. 30( &rams or more of in ian hemp of mari8uana? -. 0( &rams of mari8uana resin or mari8uana resin oil? or

3. $( &rams or more of cocaine or cocaine h# rochlori e? or 5. In case of other an&erous ru&s! the 6uantit# of 7hich is far be#on therapeutic re6uirements as etermine an promul&ate b# the Dan&erous Dru&s 'oar ! after public consultationKhearin&s con ucte for the purpose. Other7ise! if the 6uantit# involve is less than the fore&oin& 6uantities! the penalt# shall ran&e from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua epen in& upon the 6uantit#. ;n er this provision! accuse )appellant therefore stan s to suffer the penalt# of reclusion perpetua to eath for her possession of 05(./ &rams of shabu. .ccuse )appellant attempts to istin&uish bet7een a 6uantitative an a 6ualitative eFamination of the substance containe in EFhibits C)"! C)/ an C)A. She ar&ues that the eFamination con ucte b# the N'I forensic chemist 7as a 6ualitative one 7hich merel# #iel e positive fin in&s for shabu! but faile to establish its purit#? hence! its eFact 6uantit# remains in eterminate an unprove . This contention is liCe7ise 7ithout merit. The eFpert 7itness! <eor&e De *ara! state that the tests con ucte 7oul have in icate the presence of impurities if there 7ere an#. 9e testifie 4 PROS. VE*.SCO '# miFin& it t7ice! Mr. Bitness! if there are an# a ulterants or impurities! it 7ill be iscovere b# 8ust miFin& itM BITNESS If some ru&s or a itives 7ere present! it 7ill appear in a thin la#er chromato&raphic eFamination. PROS. VE*.SCO Di other ru&s or other a Mr. BitnessM itives appear

issolve. In m# eFamination! all the specimens reacte the re)a&ents! sir.

on

PROS. VE*.SCO .n 7hat is potassium aluminum sulfate in la#manEs termM BITNESS It is onl# a ta7as. .... CO;RT In this particular case! i sulfate or ta7as in the specimenM BITNESS None! #our 9onor. .... .TT=. .<OOT I 7ill cite an eFample! supposin& ten &rams of Methamphetamine 9# rochlori e is miFe 7ith /(( &rams of ta7as! #ou 7ill submit that to 6ualitative eFamination! 7hat 7ill be #our fin in&s! ne&ative or positive! Mr. BitnessM BITNESS It 7ill &ive a positive result for Methamphetamine 9# rochlori e. .TT=. .<OOT That is 6ualitative eFamination. BITNESS .n also positive for aluminum sulfate./" . 6ualitative etermination relates to the i entit# of the material! 7hereas a 6uantitative anal#sis re6uires the etermination of the percenta&e combination of the components of a miFture. 9ence! a 6ualitative i entification of a po7 er ma# reveal the presence of heroin an 6uinine! for instance! 7hereas a 6uantitative anal#sis ma# conclu e the presence of "( percent heroin an %( percent 6uinine.// De *ara testifie that he use a chromato&raph# test to etermine the contents of EFhibits C)"! C)/ an C)A. Chromato&raph# is a means of separatin& an tentativel# i entif#in& the components of a miFture. It is particularl# useful for anal#Din& the multicomponent specimens that are fre6uentl# receive in a crime lab. >or eFample! illicit ru&s sol on the street ma# be ilute 7ith practicall# an# material that is at the isposal of the ru& ealer to increase the 6uantit# of the pro uct that is ma e available to prospective customers. 9ence! the tasC of i entif#in& an illicit ru& preparation 7oul be an ar uous one 7ithout the ai of chromato&raphic metho s to first separate the miFture into its components./A The testimon# of De *ara establishe not onl# that the tests 7ere thorou&h! but also that the scientificall# correct metho of obtainin& an accurate representative sample ha been #ou fin an# aluminum

obtaine ./$ .t an# rate! as the Solicitor)<eneral has pointe out! if accuse )appellant 7as not satisfie 7ith the results! it 7oul have been a simple matter for her to asC for an in epen ent eFamination of the substance b# another chemist. This she i not o. hird. .ccuse )appellant ar&ues that the prosecution faile to prove the ne&ative alle&ation in the information that she i not have a license to possess or use methamphetamine h# rochlori e or Gshabu.G .rt. III of Republic .ct No. -$/0! as amen e b# Republic .ct No. 3-0% provi es4 SEC. "-. Possession or #se of $egulated %rugs. ) The penalt# of reclusion perpetua to eath an a fine ran&in& from five hun re thousan pesos to ten million pesos shall be impose upon an# person 7ho shall possess or use an# re&ulate ru& 7ithout the correspon in& license or prescription! sub8ect to the provisions of Section /( hereof.&'wphi& .ccuse )appellant claims that possession or use of methamphetamine h# rochlori e or Gshabu!Ga re&ulate ru&! is not unla7ful unless the possessor or user oes not have the re6uire license or prescription. She points out that since the prosecution faile to present an# certification that she is not authoriDe to possess or use re&ulate ru&s! it therefore falls short of the 6uantum of proof nee e to sustain a conviction. The contention has no merit. The 6uestion raise in this case is similar to that raise in #nited States (. Chan oco./0 The accuse in that case 7as char&e 7ith smoCin& opium 7ithout bein& ul# re&istere . 9e emurre to the information on the &roun that it faile to alle&e that the use of opium ha not been prescribe as a me icine b# a ul# license an practicin& ph#sician. This Court enie the motion an sai 4 The evi ent interest an purpose of the statute is to prohibit an to penaliDe &enerall# the smoCin& of opium in these Islan s. 'ut the le&islator esire to 7ith ra7 from the operation of the statute a limite class of smoCers 7ho smoCe un er the a vice an b# prescription of a license an practicin& ph#sician . . . . 9ence 7here one is char&e 7ith a violation of the &eneral provisions of the Opium *a7! it is more lo&ical as 7ell as more practical an convenient! if he i in fact smoCe opium un er the a vice of a ph#sician! that he shoul set up this fact b# 7a# of efense! than that the prosecution shoul be calle upon to prove that ever# smoCer! char&e 7ith a violation of the la7! oes so 7ithout such a vice or prescription. In ee ! 7hen it is consi ere

BITNESS In m# thin la#er chromato&raphic plate! it onl# appears one spot 7hich resembles or the same as the Methamphetamine 9# rochlori e sample .... PROS. VE*.SCO So! Mr. Bitness! if there are an# a ulterants present in the chemicals #ou have eFamine ! in chemical eFamination! 7hat color it 7ill re&ister! if an#M BITNESS In sample! it containe a potassium aluminum sulfate! it 7ill not react 7ith the rea&ent! therefore it 7ill not

that un er the la7 an# person ma#! in case of nee an at an# time! procure the a vice of a ph#sician to use opium or some of its erivatives! an that in the nature of thin&s no public recor of prescriptions of this Cin is or can be re6uire to be Cept! it is manifest that it 7oul be 7holl# impracticable an absur to impose on the prosecution the bur en of alle&in& an provin& the fact that one usin& opium oes so 7ithout the a vice of a ph#sician. To prove be#on a reasonable oubt! in a particular case! that one usin& opium oes so 7ithout the a vice or prescription of a ph#sician 7oul be in most cases a practical impossibilit# 7ithout the ai of the efen ant himself! 7hile a efen ant char&e 7ith the ille&al use of opium shoul fin little ifficult# in establishin& the fact that he use it un er the a vice an on the prescription of a ph#sician! if in fact he i so./.n accuse person sometimes o7es a ut# to himself if not to the State. If he oes not perform that ut# he ma# not al7a#s eFpect the State to perform it for him. If he fails to meet the obli&ation 7hich he o7es to himself! 7hen to meet it is an eas# thin& for him to o! he has no one but himself to blame. Moreover! as correctl# pointe out b# the Solicitor <eneral! there is nothin& in R... No. -$/0 or the Dan&erous Dru&s .ct! as amen e ! 7hich re6uires the prosecution to present a certification that accuse )appellant has no license or permit to possess shabu. Mere possession of the prohibite substance is a crime per se an the bur en of proof is upon accuse )appellant to sho7 that she has a license or permit un er the la7 to possess the prohibite ru&. Fourth. *astl#! accuse )appellant conten s that the evi ence presente b# the prosecution is not sufficient to support a fin in& that she is &uilt# of the crime char&e . This contention must liCe7ise be re8ecte . Cre ence 7as properl# accor e to the testimonies of the prosecution 7itnesses! 7ho are la7 enforcers.&'wphi& Bhen police officers have no motive to testif# falsel# a&ainst the accuse ! courts are incline to uphol this presumption. In this case! no evi ence has been presente to su&&est an# improper motive on the part of the police enforcers in arrestin& accuse )appellant. This Court accor s &reat respect to the fin in&s of the trial court on the matter of cre ibilit# of the 7itnesses in the absence of an# palpable error or arbitrariness in its fin in&s./3 It is note7orth# that! asi e from the enial of accuse ) appellant! no other 7itness 7as presente in her behalf. 9er enial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution 7itnesses./5 .s has been hel ! enial as a rule is a 7eaC form of efense! particularl# 7hen it is not substantiate b# clear an convincin& evi ence. The

efense of enial or frame)up! liCe alibi! has been invariabl# vie7e b# the courts 7ith isfavor for it can 8ust as easil# be concocte an is a common an stan ar efense plo# in most prosecutions for violation of the Dan&erous Dru&s .ct./% The Court is convince that the re6uirements of the la7 in or er that a person ma# be vali l# char&e 7ith an convicte of ille&al possession of a an&erous ru& in violation of R... No. -$/0! as amen e ! have been complie 7ith b# the prosecution in this case. The ecision of the trial court must accor in&l# be uphel . .s re&ar s the fine impose b# the trial court! it has been hel that courts ma# fiF an# amount 7ithin the limits establishe b# la7.A( Consi erin& that five hun re ei&ht# point t7o 105(./2 &rams of shabu 7ere confiscate from accuse )appellant! the fine impose b# the trial court ma# properl# be re uce to P0(!(((.((. $HEREFORE! the ecision of the Re&ional Trial Court of Pasa# Cit#! 'ranch ""(! fin in& accuse )appellant &uilt# of violation of ,"- of R... No. -$/0! as amen e ! an imposin& upon her the penalt# of reclusion perpetua is hereb# .>>IRMED 7ith the MODI>IC.TION that the fine impose on accuse )appellant is re uce to P0(!(((.((. Costs a&ainst appellant. The passport! airline ticCet! lu&&a&e! &ir le an other personal effects not #et returne to the accuse )appellant are hereb# or ere returne to her. SO ORDERED. 'ellosillo! 1Chairman2! Nuisumbin&! 'uena! an +r.! ++.! concur. De *eon!

!d., pp. -! /(. !d.! p. /A. !d.! p. 3. TSN! pp. "-)"A! Sept. "0! "%%5. !d.! pp. A%)$A. TSN! pp.5)"A! >eb. /A! "%%%. !d., p. $0. !d., pp. 05)-". Recor s! p. "AA. 'rief for the .ppellant! p."? $ollo! p. A5. !d.! p. "0? !d.! p. 0". Recor s! p. "A".

"(

""

"/

"A

"$

"0

"-

"3

"5

"%

OatD (. ;nite States! A5% ;.S. A$3! "% *. E . / 03- 1"%-32.

/(

+ohn M. Scheb an +ohn M. Scheb II! Criminal *a7 an Proce ure A3- 1"%%%2.
/"

TSN! pp. /")/0! Sept. "0! "%%5.

//

Richar Saferstein! Criminalistics4 .n Intro uction to >orensic Science! "/0)"/- 1/(((2.

/A

!d. TSN! pp. "%)//! Sept. "0! "%%5. "/ Phil /-/ 1"%(52. !d.! pp. /-%)/3(. People v. Ohor, A(3 SCR. /%0 1"%%%2. People (. Tan&liben! "5$ SCR. //( 1"%%(2. People S# 'in& =oC! A(% SCR. /5 1"%%%2. People v. Ohor! supra, p. A/%.

Foo,0o,e*
"

/$

Per +u &e Porfirio <. Macarae&. $ollo! p.". Recor s! p. $/. TSN! p. $! >eb. /A! "%%%. !d., pp. $)-. TSN! pp. A)$! Sept. /A! "%%5.

/0

/-

/3

/5

/%

A(