People vs Marti

By maechmedina

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ANDRE MARTI

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
LawPhils Full text
link:http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jan1991/gr_81561_1991.html

FACTS:
August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the
Manila Packing and Export Forwarders carrying Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita
Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the
packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.

Before the delivery of appellants box to the Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes
(Proprietor), following the standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the gloves contain dried leaves. He prepared a letter and
reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were
found to have contained inside the cellophane wrappers.

The accused appellant assigns the following errors: The lower court erred in admitting in evidence
the illegality of search and seized objects contained in the four (4) parcels.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?

HELD:

Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIONALE:
Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution

Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective

search warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs Peoples Court.

The case at the 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. Under the circumstances, can accused / appellant
validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the latter
transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent
reason whty the same should not be admitted.

FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS Readily foreclose the proportion that NBI agents conducted an
illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise, clearly that the NBI agents made no search
and seizure much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of accused / appellant.

CHADWICK vs STATE, having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been
committed in aid thereof

BILL OF RIGHTS
The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy, protection
against whom, protection against the STATE.