People v Marti
interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Facts:
Accused tried to send four packages through
the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders to a friend
in Zurich, Switzerland. The proprietor of the
forwarding (Mr. Reyes) agency inspected the
packages before delivery to the Bureau of Customs
and found dried marijuana leaves.
Mr. Reyes brought the letter and a sample
of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The NBI agents made an inventory and took
charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after
signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the
said effects. An Information was filed against
appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act. Accused was convicted
by the Special Criminal Court of Manila.
Appellant contends that the evidence subject
of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation
of his constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure and privacy of communication
(Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore
argues that the same should be held inadmissible in
evidence (Sec. 3 (2), Art. III).
In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to
the exclusionary rule and has struck down the
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the
constitutional safeguard against unreasonable
searches and seizures. In all those cases adverted
to, the evidence so obtained were invariably procured
by the State acting through the medium of its law
enforcers or other authorized government agencies.
The case at 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.
Issue: May an act of a private individual allegedly in
violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be
invoked against the State?
Held: NO. In the absence of governmental
Appellant argues, however, that since the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
Ratio:
The contraband in the case at bar having come
into possession of the Government without the latter
transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable
search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason
why the same should not be admitted against him in
the prosecution of the offense charged. Constitution (re: Sec. 2, Art. III) relate to the issuance
Appellant, however, would like this court to believe
that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of
the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case
which resulted in his conviction.
Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr.
Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency,
who made search/inspection of the packages. Said
inspection was reasonable and a standard operating
procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a
precautionary measure before delivery of packages
to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts.
The NBI agents made no search and seizure,
much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of
accused/appellant. The mere presence of the NBI
agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and
seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to
observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not
a search. Having observed that which is open, where
no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not
search.
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.
(sponsorhip speech of Fr. Bernas)
The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures 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.
provisions of the 1935 Constitution has been
modified by the present phraseology found in the
1987 Charter, expressly declaring 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 modifications introduced in the 1987
of either a search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-
vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance
thereof
The modifications introduced deviate in no manner
as to whom the restriction or inhibition against
unreasonable search and seizure is directed against.
The restraint stayed with the State and did not shift to
anyone else.
To agree with appellant that an act of a private
individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also
be construed as an act of the State would result in
serious legal complications and an absurd
interpretation of the constitution.
People v Lacson
[GR No. 149453 (May 28, 2002)]
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision
of the CA
Facts:
o Soon after the announcement on May 18,
1995 that the Kuratong Baleleng gang had been slain
in a shootout w/ the police, 2 witnesses surfaced
providing the testimony that the said slaying was a
rub-out. On June 1, 1995, Chief Superintendent Job
Mayo, PNP Director for Investigation, filed murder
charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against
97 officers & personnel of ABRITFG. The next-of-kin
of the slain KBG members also filed murder charges
against the same officers and personnel.
o On Nov. 2, 1995, after 2 resolutions, the
Ombudsman filed before the SB 11 information of
murder against the defendant & 25 policemen as
principals. Upon motion of the respondent, the
criminal cases were remanded to the Ombudsman &
in a re- investigation, the information were amended
downgrading the principal into an accessory.
o With the downgrading of charges, the case
was later transferred from the SB to the RTC not due
to jurisdictional questions over the suspects but due
to the failure to indicate that the offenses charged
therein were committed in relation to, or in discharge
of, the official functions of the respondent, as
required by RA 8249.
o Before the arraignment, the witnesses of the
prosecution recanted their statements while the 7
private complainants submitted their affidavits of
desistance. All 26 suspects filed individual motions to
(1) make a judicial determination of the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest;
(2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants, &
(3) dismiss the cases should the TC find lack of
probable cause. The cases were dismissed.
o It was on March 27, 2001 when PNP director
Mendoza indorsed to the DOJ new affidavits of new
witnesses w/c it began to investigate & to file w/ the
RTC. The respondent, invoking among others, their
right against double jeopardy, then filed w/ the CA a
petition stating that 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules
on Crim. Pro. bans the revival of the murder cases
against him; a petition the CA denied.
o On June 6, 2001, 11 Information for murder
involving the killing of the same members of the
Kuratong Baleleng gang were filed before the RTC
QC. The new Informations charged as principals 34
people, including respondent Lacson & his 25 other
co-accused in Crim. Cases Nos. Q-99- 81679 to Q-
99-81689. The defendant filed for determination of
probable cause & an outright dismissal in the RTC.
The CA considered the original cases to be
provisionally dismissed & the new cases as mere
revivals. Under 8 2000 RCP 117, the cases were
dismissed.
Issue: WON 8, Rule 117 bars the filing of the 11
informations against the respondent Lacson involving
the killing of some members of the Kuratong Baleleng
gang.
Held:
Remanded to the RTC to determine if they complied
with rule and case should be dismissed. There is no
question that the new rule can be given retroactive
effect given RPC A22. There can be no ruling,
however, due to the lack of sufficient factual bases to
support such a ruling. There is need of proof to show
the ff. facts:
(1) provisional dismissal of the case had the express
consent of the accused
(2) whether it was ordered by the court after giving
notice to the offended party
(3) whether the 2 year period to revive the case has
already elapsed
(4) whether there is justification for filing of the cases
beyond the 2 yr period.
The respondent expressed consent, but the records
dont reveal whether the notices to the offended
parties were given before the cases were
provisionally dismissed. Only the right to double
Jeopardy by the defendant was tackled by the
litigants. The records are also inconclusive w/
regards to the 2-year bar, if w/in or without. Because
of this, both prosecution & defendant must be given
ample time to adduce evidence on the presence or
absence of the adduced evidence.