PP v.

Andre Marti GR81561 January 18, 1991

Facts:
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.
Issue
May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional
rights, be invoked against the State? 82 82
Ruling
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.