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.