PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 Facts

PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No.
81561 January 18, 1991
FACTS:
l The appellant Andre Marti, together with his common-law wife went to Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders to send four (4) parcels of boxes alleged to
contained books, cigars, and gloves for his friend Waltier Fierz living in Zurich,
Switzerland.
l The attendant, Anita Reyes, received their package and asked the appellant if she
could examine and inspect the packages. The appellant refused and Anita Reyes
no longer insists on examining the packages.
l Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts,
Mr. Job Reyes and husband of Anita Reyes, following standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection.
l When Job Reyes opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His
curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and
felt dried leaves inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane
wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening
on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof.
l Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and
requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the
cellophane wrapper.
l He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in the
afternoon of that date, (August 14, 1987).
l Job Reyes was interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section.
l Job Reyes informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his office.
Therefore, Job Reyes and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer went to the
Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila.
l Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in the
presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styrofoam and
took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves
were found to have been contained inside the cellophane wrappers.
l The package which allegedly contained books was likewise opened by Job Reyes.
He discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana
leaves. The package which allegedly contained Tabacalera cigars was also
opened. It turned out that dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath
the cigar.
l The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents
thereof, after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects.
l The NBI agents tried to locate appellant but to no avail.
l The NBI agents asked for assistance to Manila Central Post Office’s Chief Security,
where the appellants passport addressed was indicated.
l Appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was invited by the NBI
to shed light on the attempted shipment of the seized dried leaves.
l On the same day the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the
Forensic Chemistry Section for laboratory examination. It turned out that the
dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist.
l An Information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
l Trial court convicted him for violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to
Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
l Accused appealed to the court averring that his constitutional right to illegal searches
and seizures is violated when his parcels were opened without his permission.
ISSUE:
WON an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional

rights, be invoked against the State?
HELD:
1. NO. The court ruled in the negative.
In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the exclusionary rule and has struck
down the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional
safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, on the cases cited by
the SC, the evidence so obtained were invariably procured by the State acting through
the medium of its law enforcers or other authorized government agencies.
The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded
was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private
capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities.
Therefore, In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the

Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be
first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made
at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for
only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended
to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.
Facts:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to
return documents and papers taken by her from private respondent's clinic without the
latter's knowledge and consent.

Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March
26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the
presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened
the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of
private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings
cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The
documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation
and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed
against her husband.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in

evidence;
Held:
(1) No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.

The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and
correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife
(who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against
whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding."
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking
the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence
of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity
or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making
it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing
is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share
what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity
that each owes to the other.

The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V. ANDRE MARTI G.R. No.

81561 January 18, 1991

WON an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional

1. NO. The court ruled in the negative.

Therefore, In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the

(1) Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in

(1) No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.

You might also like