Title
People vs. Marti
Case
G.R. No. 81561
Decision Date
Jan 18, 1991
Andre Marti convicted for shipping marijuana to Zurich; evidence admissible as search was by private individual, not government; defenses deemed implausible.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81561)

Factual Background

On August 14, 1987 appellant and his common-law wife brought four gift-wrapped packages to a forwarding booth, completed a shipment contract listing appellant as shipper and providing consignee particulars, and declined the proprietress’s request to inspect the parcels, representing they contained books, cigars and gloves. The parcels were boxed with styrofoam, sealed, and set for delivery. As a routine pre-delivery practice, the proprietor (Job Reyes) opened and inspected the box; he smelled a peculiar odor, felt dried leaves inside a bundle described as gloves, and extracted material from a cellophane wrapper. He took a sample to the NBI Narcotics Section and later, with NBI agents, reopened the parcels at the forwarding office; the remaining contents were observed to be dried marijuana flowering tops. The NBI inventoried and took custody of the box and contents, submitted samples for laboratory testing, and received a forensic chemist’s certification that the leaves were marijuana flowering tops.

Procedural History

An information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425. At trial the court convicted appellant. On appeal, appellant raised three assignments of error: (1) that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure and should be excluded under the Constitution; (2) that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were not observed; and (3) that the court failed to accept his explanation that the packages belonged to a third party.

Issues Presented on Appeal

  1. Whether the evidence seized from the packages should have been suppressed as obtained in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III, Secs. 2–3).
  2. Whether appellant’s rights during custodial proceedings were violated, rendering any statements or evidence inadmissible.
  3. Whether the lower court erred in discrediting appellant’s claim that a third party (a German national named “Michael”) owned the packages.

Constitutional Framework and Exclusionary Rule

Article III, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution guarantee security against unreasonable searches and seizures and render evidence obtained in violation of those protections inadmissible. The Court’s jurisprudence (cited in the opinion) traces the exclusionary rule in the Philippines to Stonehill v. Diokno and subsequent cases, rejecting earlier doctrines that allowed evidence despite defective seizure. The 1987 Constitution’s provisions reflect that rule, but the Bill of Rights is a restraint on governmental action — i.e., it governs state intrusion rather than private conduct.

First Assignment — Search and Seizure: State Action Requirement

The principal legal point is that constitutional guards against unreasonable searches and seizures restrain governmental actors and do not, by themselves, render illegal or inadmissible conduct by private individuals. The Court relied on domestic and foreign precedents (e.g., Villanueva v. Querubin; Burdeau v. McDowell; pertinent U.S. decisions and appellate authorities cited in the opinion) establishing that the Fourth Amendment/constitutional protection is directed at sovereign action. Hence, where a private person, acting independently, discovers contraband and then voluntarily turns it over to authorities, the exclusionary rule premised on constitutional violations by the State does not automatically apply.

Application to the Facts: Private Inspection and NBI Involvement

Applying the state-action principle, the Court found that Job Reyes’ initial inspection was a private, reasonable, standard operating procedure performed before delivery to customs or post. He discovered the dried leaves, took a sample to the NBI, and later, in the presence of NBI agents, opened the parcels and turned the box over to NBI custody. The Court held that (a) the NBI agents did not conduct the initial search; (b) their later presence and assumption of custody did not retroactively convert Reyes’ private, lawful inspection into a constitutionally proscribed, warrantless government search; and (c) observing items in plain view when no trespass or governmental intrusion occurred is not a constitutionally prohibited search. Accordingly, the appellant could not successfully invoke the exclusionary rule against the State for evidence first discovered by a private actor.

Counterargument Considered and Rejected

Appellant argued that the 1987 Constitution’s explicit statement that evidence obtained in violation of Sections 2 and 3 is inadmissible means evidence must be excluded irrespective of whether a private person or state agent obtained it. The Court rejected this, explaining that the Bill of Rights governs relationships between the individual and the State; it does not transform every private actor into a government agent nor make every private search actionable under the Constitution. The Court also noted that the constitutional revisions construe the judge’s role in issuing warrants but do not expand the scope of the constitutional restraint to private individuals.

Second Assignment — Custodial Rights and Statements

Appellant contended his rights during custodial investigation were violated. The Court examined the record and found no proof that appellant was not informed of his constitutional rights or that he made uncounseled statements: NBI witnesses testified appellant was advised of his rights and that he availed himself of the right not to give any written statement. Under the presumption of regularity (Rule 131, Sec. 5[m]), the testimony of public officers is given full faith a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms