89 People V Marti.docx

People v Marti [G.R. No. 81561. January 18, 1991.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant Topic: Searches & seizures Ponente: Bidin, J: Doctrine: In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

unlawful searches and seizures facilitated by the State. However, in the case at bar, the inspection was carried out by a private entity in his capacity as an administrator of the establishment to which appellant availed a service. As such, it was part of the standard operating procedures of the said establishment, and that the cited provision of the Constitution does not cover this. Villanueva v. Querubin: The constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure refers to the immunity of one's person … from interference by government.

RELEVANT FACTS Andre Marti and common law wife Shirley Reyes went to a shipping company to send package to a friend in Switzerland. Marti did not allow its examination, assuring that they all contain books, cigars and gloves as “gifts.” Before delivery to Bureau of Customs, proprietor of shipping company, Mr. Job Reyes, opened the box for final inspection. Upon opening, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one bundle and felt dried leaves inside. He pulled out a cellophane wrapper and made an opening on it. He took several grams of its contents. He brought a sample to NBI. Then NBI came to inspect. In the presence of NBI, Job Reyes opened the box and took out the cellophane wrappers. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the wrappers. Job Reyes opened another box and it contained bricks or cake-like marijuana leaves. An information was filed against appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti claims he met a German national. In the course of their 30-min. conversation, the German requested him to ship packages because he (German) was about to leave PH the next day. ISSUES Was the evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication, thus inadmissible in evidence? RATIO DECIDENDI NO VIOLATION. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. Section 2 and 3 of the Article III of the Constitution protects the individual from

Walker v. State: Search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals. Bernas v. US: The Fourth Amendment and the case law applying it do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment only prescribes governmental action. DISPOSITIVE Premises considered, we see no error committed by the trial court in rendering the assailed judgment. WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs