In one of her trips here, Mai Li was required by the customs examiner at the airport to undergo the mandatory customs inspection of baggages of arriving passengers. Following the usual procedure, the customs examiner, Ms. Benedicto required Mai Li to present her passport, plane tickets boarding pass, claim tags and baggage declaration. Mai Li complied as requested. While Ms. Benedicto was inspecting Mai Li’s travelling bag. She noticed what appeared to be a false bottom. This prompted her to have the bag thoroughly examined at the customs collector’s office.
The false bottom of the bag was then forced open and found therein concealed were five plastic plastic packages containing white substance which appeared to be shabu weighing approximately 5.5 kilograms. The white powder in one of the packages weighing about 1.1 kilograms were field tested by two customs agents. The results of the tests indicated that the contents of the packages were indeed shabu.
Thus when charged and tried for transporting shabu in violation of section 14, RA 6425 as amended, Mai Li was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, she questioned the court decision. She contended among others that the tests were unreliable and incomplete as they were not done for the entire amount of drugs allegedly found inside the bags. Laboratory tests, not just field test should have been conducted for the entire amount since the law imposes a penalty dependent on the amount or quantity of the drugs seized or taken.
Was Mai Li correct?
No.
A sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by Mai Li. There is no law or rule of evidence requiring the forensic chemist to test the entire quantity of seized drugs to determine whether the whole lot is really prohibited or regulated drugs as suspected. On the contrary, it has always been the standard procedure in the PNP Crime laboratory to test only samples of the drugs submitted for laboratory examination.
Moreover, chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug. The ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without any knowledge of chemistry to such an extent that the testimony of a witness on the point may be entitled to great weight. Such technical knowledge is not required, and the degree of familiarity of a witness with such drugs only affects the weight and not the competency of his testimony. This is the ruling in case of Pp vs. Che Chun Ting 328,SCRA 592, 603-604 citing the cases of People vs.Tang Wai Lan G.R. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 and Pp vs.Bandin G.R. 104494 Sept. 10,1993.