People v Marti G. R. No.

81561 Facts Accused went to the Manila Packing and Export Forwarder to deliver 4 packages to a friend from Zurich. The proprietress ask if she could inspect the package but the accused refuse and assured her that it only contains cigar, books and glove for his friend thus the proprietress did not insist and place the package in a box. Before the package will be forwarded to the Bureau of Custom and Bureau of Post a proprietor standard procedure inspect the package of the accused, upon opening of the said box containing the package a strange scent was smelled by the proprietor thus through his curiosity he squeeze one of the package and was able to obtain its content. He forwarded the sample that he obtain from the package to the NBI for laboratory test and he was interview by the NBI agents and said he still has the package of the accused. In the presence of the NBI agent he opened the said package and saw bundles of dried leaves which was latter identified as marijuana contained in 4 package. The NBI filed a charge against the accused for the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act which he was found guilty by the lower court. The accused now contends that the evidence obtained from the package was illegal as it was a violation of his constitutional right against Illegal searches and seizures and Privacy of communication thus is inadmissible as evidence in court. Issue Whether or not the accused constitutional right against Illegal searches and seizure and Privacy of Communication had been violated. Ruling No, the SC said that in a line of cases which evidence had been obtain through the violation of the said constitutional right against Illegal searches and seizures and Privacy of communication it can be noted that said evidence were obtain by the agent of the state through its law enforcers and other authorize government agency. Thus the case at bar peculiar one since the evidence acquired was procured by a private individual acting in his private capacity. The court said the constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. In the case at bar the search is made at the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

Ramirez v CA G.R. No. 93833 Facts

Petitioner filed a civil case for damages against private respondent which petitioner alleged that he was insulted and humiliated by private respondent in a "hostile and furious mood"
and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. Petitioners claim was supported by a transcript of the conversation recorded by the

petitioner during the said incident. Thus the private respondent filed criminal charges against petitioner because said recording was done through the violation of RA 4200 entitled "An Act to
prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes." But the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner stating that the act of the petitioner does not constitute the compliant charge since the violation punished by R.A. 4200 refers to a the taping of a communication by a person other than a participant to the communication. The respondent appealed to the CA which reverse the ruling of the lower court and ruled in favor of the private respondent thus the petitioner appealed to the SC. Issue Whether or not taping of communication by one of the parties in a conversation is not covered by RA 4200. Ruling No, the court said the language of the assailed law is clear and unambiguous thus no interpretation is needed but the law should be applied. The court said that RA 4200 makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200. .