4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We note that Nzenza was apprehended merely on the basis of Williams' statement that he had a companion, another black man who was also carrying prohibited drugs, even though Williams did not give the name and distinguishing characteristics of this black man[66] and despite the fact that there were about two other black men in the NAIA departure area in the afternoon of December 19, 1992.[67] With regard to the passenger manifest, the trial court justified its reliance thereon by stating that not only was said document uncontroverted, it was also produced by the PAL employee immediately after the same was requested by the follow-up team, and that the absence of any time gap between the request for and the production of the passenger manifest negates the possibility of any conspiracy on the part of the PAL employee and the members of the follow-up team to frame Nzenza.[68] However, the passenger manifest, standing alone, and without the testimony of the employee who recorded the seat number, sequence number and number of checked-in luggage, is hearsay. Although said evidence was correctly admitted by the RTC since no objection was made by the accused,[69] the absence of such objection does not confer on said passenger manifest any more probative value than it actually has. Whether objected to or not, hearsay evidence has no probative value[70] because there was no opportunity to check the veracity of the information contained therein.[71] Its nature and quantity remain the same, so far as it is inherent weakness and incompetency to satisfy the mind are concerned.[72] Anent the discovery of the heroin in the bag with baggage identification number SR 91 2058 allegedly belonging to Nzenza, we find merit in the latter's argument that in the natural course of events, when several pieces of luggage of other passengers for the same flight are checked-in, the baggage identification tags of a passenger's bags would be numbered successively, or at least, not very far from one another. Nzenza correctly pointed out that the first four digits of the baggage identification tags attached to his two checked-in luggages, SR 450229 and SR 4502246 are identical: "4502". On the other hand, the baggage containing the heroin had a different serial number "SR 91 2058". This number had its first two numerical digits separated from the last four digits by one space. In contrast, the other two baggage identification numbers had six consecutive numbers and were not very far in sequence from each other. If it were true that the bag containing the heroin was his, the same would have a baggage identification number similar to the numbers of his two pieces of luggage which were checked-in.[73] It must also be considered that Nzenza had consistently denied ownership of the bag tag numbered SR 91 2058 which was found to contain 11.15 kilograms of heroin. He maintained that he only had three pieces of luggage: the bag which he hand-carried, and the two pieces of luggage which were tag numbered SR 450229 and SR 450246: ATTY. BORJA: Q: Now, showing to you this xerox copy of Swiss Air Ticket No. 2421 431 046-6, Mr. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52099 9/15