CASE NAME PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ANDRE MARTI,
accused-appellant.
TOPIC Judicial Perspective on the Bill of Rights
CASE DATE G.R. NO. 81561 JANUARY 18, 1991
NO.
PONENTE BIDIN, J.
CASE
SUMMARY On August 14, 1987, between 10:00am to 11:00am, appellant and his
common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders booth located at Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, to
ship 4 parcels.

The two told the proprietress of the shipping company, Anita Reyes, that
the parcels are to be sent to Walter Fierz of Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich,
Switzerland, and that the package need not be inspected as they only
contained books, cigars, and gloves. However, Job Reyes, proprietor and
husband of Anita Reyes, upon conducting final inspection of the contents
of the parcel, found dried leaves, took samples, and sent them to NBI
requesting a laboratory examination. Forensic chemist’s examination
affirmed that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops.

The appellant was tried and convicted of violations of several provisions of

RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

As such, the appellant alleged the following errors of the lower court
(Manila RTC Branch 49) in his appeal:

1) The lower court erred in admitting in evidence the illegally searched

and seized objects contained in the four parcels.
2) The lower court erred in convicting appellant despite the
undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution while under
custodial proceedings were not observed.
3) The lower court erred in not giving credence to the explanation of
the appellant on how the four parcels came into his possession.

However, CA AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court. No costs.

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

the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
 RELEVANT FACTS

On August 14, 1987, between 10:00am to 11:00am, appellant and his common-law wife,
Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packing and Export Forwarders booth located at Pistang
Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, to ship 4 parcels.

Appellant field up the contract necessary for transaction with the following information:
o His name – Andre Marti
o His Passport #
o Date of Shipment
o Name and Address of Consignee - Walter Fierz of Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich,
Switzerland.

Appellant refused Anita Reyes’ request to examine and inspect the packages, claiming they
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves, and were gifts to his aforesaid friend in Zurich.
The packages were then placed in a 1 foot by 2 feet (1ft x 2ft) brown corrugated box with
Styrofoam at the top and bottom for shipping.

Job Reyes, the proprietor and husband of Anita conducted a final inspection of the parcel
before it is sent to Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Postal. He noticed that it emitted a
‘peculiar’ odor. Upon squeezing one of the bundles where the gloves were supposed to
be, he felt dry leaves.

Reyes sampled the contents of a cellophane wrapper protruding from one of the gloves
and, in the same day, sent said sample and a letter to the NBI for forensic examination.

Reyes informed the Chief of the Narcotics Section that the rest of the samples were still in
his office. Thus, Reyes, 3 agents, and 1 photographer went to Reyes’ office. As he opened
the package in front of the agents, Reyes and Co. discovered that the package contained
bricks of dried marijuana leaves while the supposed cigars likewise have dried marijuana
leaves stocked underneath them.

NBI sought the help of the Chief Security of the Manila Central Post Office to locate
appellant, and, on August 27, 1987, while claiming his mail at the Post Office, appellant
was invited by NBI to discuss the discovery of the contraband.

The appellant alleged the following errors of the lower court (Manila RTC Branch 49) in his
appeal:

1) The lower court erred in admitting in evidence the illegally searched and seized objects
contained in the four parcels.
 a. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

2) The lower court erred in convicting appellant despite the undisputed fact that his rights
under the constitution while under custodial proceedings were not observed.
a. The contention is without merit since law enforcement officers testified that
accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. Meanwhile, the
records clearly show that the appellant refused to provide any written
statement while under investigation.

3) The lower court erred in not giving credence to the explanation of the appellant on
how the four parcels came into his possession.
a. Appellant held that Michael, a German national whom he met in a pub along
Ermita, requested him to ship the packages and gave him Php 2,000.00 after a
30-minute conversation.
i. This claim is incredulous, self-serving and contrary to human
experience. It can easily be fabricated.

RATIO DECIDENDI

ISSUE W/N the procurement of the evidence used against the appellant constitute a
violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizure
and should hence not have been held admissible against him?

NO – The search and seizure conducted by Job Reyes, a private individual, does not equate to
the search and seizure of the evidence by the State or law enforcement agencies acting on
behalf of the state.

1) Sections 2 and 3 of Article III (thereafter “Bill of Rights”) of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines cannot be invoked in the case at bar since the evidence sought was primarily
discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without
the intervention and participation of State authorities.

In State v. Bryan, the marijuana found by a parking attendant who searched an

automobile to ascertain its owner was declared admissible in prosecution for illegal
possession of narcotics.

In the case of Walker v. State, it was held that the search and seizure clauses are
restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals.
Likewise, in Bernas vs. US, the Court held:

“The search of which appellant complains, however, was made by a

private citizen – the owner of a motel in which appellant stayed
overnight and in which he left behind a travel case containing the
evidence complained of. The search was made on the motel owner’s
own initiative. Because of it, he became suspicious, called the police,
informed them of the bag’s contents, and made it available to the
authorities.

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 proscribes
governmental action.”

a) It will be recalled that it was Reyes who opened the box containing the
contraband, took samples of the same to the NBI, and later summoned
agents to his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcels
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.

b) The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the
Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight
is not a search.

The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against
acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must
always be subject to protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in
his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he himself posed,
as follows:

“First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental

liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection
against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights
governs the relationship between the individual and the state.
Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to
declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible
 to any power holder.” (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner
Bernas; Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July
17, 1986; Italics supplied).

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.

RULING

Premises considered, we see no error committed by the trial court in rendering assailed judgment.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crim charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.