People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 193 SCRA 57, January 18, 1991 [FULL CASE DIGEST]

People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 193 SCRA 57, January 18, 1991

"Package of marijuana to be sent abroad"

The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.

It’s a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.

It could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint is imposed.

• Andre Marti and his wife Shirley wanted to send packages to their friend in Switzerland and contracted the services of Manila Packing and Export Forwarders.
• When asked by the forwarder if they could examine and inspect the packages, Marti refused, assuring that the packages simply contained books and cigars.
• However, the proprietor opened the boxes for final inspection as part of their SOP. Upon opening, they suspected that the contents were illegal drugs.
• The proprietor reported the incident to NBI which confirmed that the suspected content were marijuana.
• In the presence of the NBI agents, the boxes were opened and found dried marijuana leaves inside.
• After Marti was traced by NBI, he was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Marti assailed the admissibility of the drugs as evidence against him, which, according to him, is obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication.

May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked against the State? NO.

• The Court ruled that in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties granted by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government. Its protection is directed only to governmental action.
• This right do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen.
• In this case, the evidence was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention of State authorities. Therefore, there is no reason why it should not be admitted to prosecute him.
• Marti, however, alleged that the NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence.
• The Court pointed out that: a) It was the proprietor who made a reasonable search of the packages in compliance with SOP AND b) the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected into a warrantless search and seizure. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
• Marti further argued that since the Constitution expressly declares as inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seizure, it matters not whether the evidence was procured by police authorities or private individuals.
• The Court answered that the Constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals.

Additional notes:

When a private individual violates another person’s right to privacy, the evidence obtained therefrom is admissible; however the violator could be held civilly liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code.