People Vs Marte Digested Case

People vs.
Andre Marti
FACTS:
Appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending packages (4 gift

wrapped) to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes then asked the
appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages. Appellant,
however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books,
cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. Before delivery of
appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job
Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. His curiousity
aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt
dried leaves inside. He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers
and took several grams of the contents thereof.
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. 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. J
ob 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
styro-foam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves.
Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the
cellophane wrappers. 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 cigars.
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.
Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had
been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure.
The evidence were primarily discovered and obtained by a private person,

Job Reyes.
ISSUE: W/N Appellants constitutional rights against unreasonable searches
and seizure were violated?
HELD: We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference,

the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State.
The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the
Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the
same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense
charged.
It will be recalled that after Reyes opened the box containing the illicit cargo,
he took samples of the same to the NBI and later summoned the agents to
his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcel containing the rest of
the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI agents.
Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and seizure, much less an illegal
one, contrary to the postulate of accused/appellant
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures

therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
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.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

People Vs Marte Digested Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Marte Digested Case

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 Vs Marte Digested Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

Appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending packages (4 gift

The evidence were primarily discovered and obtained by a private person,

HELD: We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference,

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond

You might also like