The possessor of a bag containing illegal items is presumed as its owner

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

One of the casualties of the pandemic is air travel. This columnist recalls that his last plane ride was an inbound flight to Iloilo City from a hearing in Manila sometime in early 2020 about a week before the series of lockdowns would be handed down.

“Travel”, according to Mark Twain, “is fatal to bigotry, prejudice and narrow-mindedness”. It would therefore be interesting to know how the restriction of movement that came as a preventive measure to arrest the spread of Covid-19 had impacted on the psyche of the people who were reined in. For busy people like this columnist who regularly loads up his wheelie bag with his suit, case files and documents, and other ‘secret weapons’ to be used in courtroom battles around the country, travelling by plane had become a ‘comfort zone’ of sorts. Ironically, getting that adrenaline rush during take offs and touchdowns had also become a therapy.

Speaking of the wheelie bag, it comes in different styles, colors, shapes and sizes. But once they are unloaded from the plane to be placed atop the conveyor belt for their respective owners to claim, it would not be an easy thing to do to immediately identify your bag.

Curiously, what if the bag that one picks up, is not his or hers? Worse, what if it is found to contain illegal articles or substances? Will mistake be a valid defense?

In People of the Philippines v. Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan (G.R. No. 252154)  which came down on March 24, 2021,  two people who flew in from Hong Kong arrived in the Philippines and allegedly swapped bags by mistake. According to court records, both passengers claimed to have mistaken each other’s bag as his or hers. When the one carrying the bag containing prohibited drugs was apprehended, she disowned the bag she was caught carrying by claiming that she “mistook” it for her own bag. Refusing to believe her, the Supreme Court observed that:

“It is undisputed that upon her entry into the Philippines from Hong Kong, Veloo was caught in possession of prohibited drugs found inside the Dibola bag. While Veloo claimed that she mistook said bag as hers and that the same belongs to Nadarajan, the Court is not persuaded considering that as testified by the prosecution witnesses and as seen from one of the pictures taken during the inventory, one of the bags is visibly smaller than the other. Veloo even confirmed on cross-examination that while they were of similar height, they looked different. While it is not impossible for one to accidentally take a bag that is not his or hers from the conveyor, it is contrary to human experience for a traveler not to check whether a bag is indeed his or hers, especially in this case where both bags are of different brands, look different, and bear different baggage tags. The fact that she disclaimed ownership thereof only after it was opened in front of the customs officer leads this Court to believe that, at the very least, she intended to possess the same. In People v. Burton, we held that an explanation, standing by itself, which is too trite and hackneyed to be accepted at its face value, since it is obviously contrary to human experience, is insufficient to overcome prima facie evidence that accused had knowledge of his or her possession of prohibited drugs”. 

Indeed, as aptly put by James Bradley Thayer, “Evidence is the creature of experience rather than logic”. And thus when an excuse is put-up as a defense in a trial, courts gauge their believability on common sense and human experience. Besides, continued the Supreme Court, “In the transport of illegal drugs, intent and proof of ownership of the prohibited substances, much less of the receptacles thereof, are not essential elements of the crime. The crime is complete when it is shown that a person brings into the Philippines a regulated drug without legal authority. The crime of transporting illegal drugs being malum prohibitum, the accused’s intent, motive, or knowledge thereof need not be shown.” X x x.

  This is an instance where direct evidence is not necessary. Instead, the trial court can rely on a presumption. Thus: “Under the Rules of Evidence (Sec. 3[j], Rule 131, Rules of Court), “things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her.” Such disputable presumption is based upon the principle that direct proof of facts of this nature is rarely available, except in cases of confession. In several cases, the Court has held that possession of a considerable quantity of marijuana cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell, distribute and deliver said prohibited drug.”

 Tested against man’s common sense and ordinary experience, it would be too convenient for two people who claimed that they did not know each other to have mistaken one another’s bag and were totally unaware of it, and that they were just purportedly going on their respective ways when their booking records show that they had too many similarities- just too many to be considered as coincidental. Still in People of the Philippines v. Tamil Selvi Veloo, it was held that:   

“If we were to give credence to Veloo’s accidental taking of Nadarajan’s Dibola bag, this would also mean that Nadarajan accidentally took Veloo’s Phoenix bag which he, in fact, claimed to be his. For both of them to take each other’s bag despite the above-mentioned differences only shows that they did so on purpose. This concerted effort is further revealed by the fact that their respective e-ticket receipts bore glaring similarities, such as the same reservation code, issuing agent, issuance date, and consecutive ticket number pattern, which can only lead to the conclusion that they were simultaneously booked. Curiously, their respective Booking Sheets/Arrest Reports, which they signed, also indicate a common relative with a common address.”

Mistakes do happen and when it’s an honest one, chances are that the excuse or justification will resonate with the courts. However, when the excuse is flimsy and goes against common sense and experience, then it will not strike a chord with the judge and the presumption of intent to possess will most likely be applied against the accused.

The moral of the story is to be wary of bags that look alike. Lifting a bag at the airport could either be mundane or can pluck one from anonymity to infamy.    

(Atty. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).