Title
People vs. Suzuki
Case
G.R. No. 120670
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2003
Japanese national convicted for illegal possession of 1.9 kg marijuana at Bacolod Airport; Supreme Court affirmed conviction, modified penalty to reclusion perpetua, reduced fine to P1,000,000.00.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47494)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Prosecution evidence
  • November 1993: PNP Narcotics Command directs regional units to cover domestic airports; coordinates with PASCOM and local airport authorities.
  • April 12, 1994: Appellant and a companion enter Bacolod Airport pre-departure area carrying a box marked “Bongbong’s piaya.” Metal detector alarmed; box taken to inspection table; appellant initially resists but consents to opening. Inside are eighteen foil-wrapped packs of dried fruiting tops. Weighed at 1.9 kg; appellant refused to sign confiscation receipt; specimens sent to PNP Crime Laboratory and tested positive for marijuana.
  • Appellant arraigned, pleads not guilty, tried before the RTC, convicted of illegal possession of marijuana (>750 g) and sentenced to death plus a ₱10 million fine.
  • Appellant’s defense
  • Arrived from Osaka to collect a debt; stayed in Bacolod; received the box as a “pasalubong” from a woman stranger; claims ignorance of contents.
  • At airport, misunderstood English instructions; learned of marijuana only after opening; denies intent to possess.
  • Alleges frame-up by companion and police officers; refused to sign receipt; challenges validity of search, seizure, and arrest.

Issues:

  • Search and seizure authority
  • Did PASCOM/NARCOM have legal authority under RA 6235, LOI 399, and related MOUs to inspect appellant’s box?
  • Was appellant’s consent to search voluntary and valid?
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Does the seizure fall under constitutional exceptions (plain view, incident to arrest)?
  • Was there probable cause to open the box and arrest appellant?
  • Burden and sufficiency of proof
  • Does possession of 1,900 g of marijuana give rise to a prima facie presumption of wrongful possession, placing burden on appellant to prove lawful license?
  • Did appellant’s frame-up allegations and testimony create reasonable doubt?
  • Penalty assessment
  • Was the death penalty properly imposed under RA 6425, as amended?
  • Was the ₱10 million fine within statutory limits?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.