PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ANDRE MARTI
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
LawPhil’s Full text link:
FACTS:
August 14, 1957, the appellant and his
common-law wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the “Manila Packing and
Export Forwarders” carrying Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant informed
Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich,
Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect the packages.
She refused and assures her that the packages simply contained books, cigars,
and gloves.
Before the delivery of appellant’s box to the
Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (Proprietor), following
the standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the gloves contain dried leaves. He
prepared a letter and reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory
examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were found to have contained inside
the cellophane wrappers.
The accused – appellant assigns the following
errors: The lower court erred in admitting in evidence the illegality of search
and seized objects contained in the four (4) parcels.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects
is legal?
HELD:
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
RATIONALE:
Article
III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution
Mapp vs
Ohio, exclusionary rule
Stonehill
vs Diokno,
declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search
warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs
People’s Court.
The case at the bar assumes a peculiar
character since the 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. Under the circumstances,
can accused / appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure.
The contraband in
this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the
latter transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure,
the Court sees no cogent reason whty the same should not be admitted.
FACTUAL
CONSIDERATIONS – Readily
foreclose the proportion that NBI agents conducted an illegal search and
seizure of the prohibited merchandise, clearly that the NBI agents made no
search and seizure much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of
accused / appellant.
CHADWICK
vs STATE,
having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid
thereof
BILL OF RIGHTS
The protection of
fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy, protection
against whom, protection against the STATE.
