PEOPLE VS MARTI

People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti

G.R. No. 81561, January 18 1991

Facts:

The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress, Anita Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he could examine and expect the packages however appellant refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted. Before delivery of appellant’s box to the bureau of Customs and or bureau of Post, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following standard procedure opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting laboratory examination sample he extracted from the cellophane. Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a photographer went to the Reyes’ office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants’ packages were places and in the presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps, removed the Styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves are found inside the cellophane.

Issue:

Whether or not there is violation of appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made search and inspection of the said packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Custom or Post. If the search is made upon the request of law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured first if it to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcer, is involved.

In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts committed by private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise by the sovereign authority.