Scribd
Upload
3K views2 pages

People vs. Andre Marti G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

This case involves a private individual named Job Reyes, who opened packages sent by the appellant that contained marijuana. Reyes reported this to the NBI, who inspected the packages and took custody of the marijuana. The appellant claimed his constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure were violated. However, the court held that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures only apply to actions by the government, not private individuals. Since Reyes was not a government agent, the appellant's rights were not violated by the search and seizure. The protections in the Bill of Rights are meant to constrain the government, not regulate actions between private parties.

Uploaded by

lennon tapiador
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views2 pages

People vs. Andre Marti G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

This case involves a private individual named Job Reyes, who opened packages sent by the appellant that contained marijuana. Reyes reported this to the NBI, who inspected the packages and took custody of the marijuana. The appellant claimed his constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure were violated. However, the court held that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures only apply to actions by the government, not private individuals. Since Reyes was not a government agent, the appellant's rights were not violated by the search and seizure. The protections in the Bill of Rights are meant to constrain the government, not regulate actions between private parties.

Uploaded by

lennon tapiador
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People vs. Andre Marti G.R. No.

81561,
January 18, 1991 193 SCRA 57 (1991)

Fact: In 1987, the appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending
the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Appellant filled up the
contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his name,
passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of
the consignee, namely, “WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 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. In view of appellant’s
representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the
packages. 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. When he opened appellant’s box, a peculiar
odor emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused, 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. He brought the
letter and a sample of appellant’s shipment to the Narcotics Section of
the NBI and informed the them that the rest of the shipment was still
in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three NBI agents, and a
photographer, went to the Reyes’ office at Ermita. 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 .
Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of
RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Issue: Whether the search and seizure committed by the private


individual inviolate the constitutional right of the accused against
unlawful searches and seizures?

Held: No, 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. Corolarilly, alleged violations against
unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the
State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign
authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in
violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the
State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd
interpretation of the constitution. That 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.

You might also like