People vs. Marti 193 SCRA 57

Facts :

Andre Marti and his wife went to Manila Packing and Export Forwarders, carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to be delivered to his friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes (wife of the proprietor) asked if she could inspect the packages, however, Marti refused assuring that it only contained books, cigars and gloves as gift to his friend.

Before delivery to Bureau of Customs/Posts, the proprietor Job Reyes, following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened Marti's boxes, a particular odor emitted therefrom and he soon found out that the boxes contained dried marijuana leaves. He reported the incident to the NBI who acknowledged custody of the incident. Marti was convicted for violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Constitutional Issues :

1. Marti contends that the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable seach and siezure and privacy of communication.

Ruling :

1. 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. In the absence of governmental interference, the libertied guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

2. Mere presence of NBI agents does not convert it to warrantless search and siezure. Merely to look at that which is plain sight is not search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed is not search.

Commissioner Bernas :

The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy...is a 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.

###

People vs. Domasian G.R.No. 95322 March 1, 1993

Facts :

The accused were Pablito Domasian and Samson Tan, the latter then a resident physician in the hospital of the victim's parents. The victim was 8-year old Enrico Agra, who was detained by Domasian and brought to a far place. While they were boarding a tricycle, Domasian was firmly holding Enrico and the boy continued crying. This aroused the suspicion of the driver, and brought about the recovery of the boy even before the ransom notes reached the boy's parents.

Upon perusal of the note, Agra's father thought the handwriting was familiar so he compared it with some records in the hospital. It turned out that it was written by Dr. Tan. Both accused were convicted of conspiracy in kidnapping Agra.

Constitutional Issues :

1. Domasian contends that he was arrested without warrant, tortured and held incommunicado to extort a confession.

2. Dr. Tan raised that the hospital documents which was compared to the ransom notes were seized without a search warrant.

Ruling :

1. Domasian never made a confession.

2. The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals, being directed only against the government and its law-enforcement agencies and limitation on official action.

###