People of the Philippines vs.

Andre Marti
G.R. No. 81561, January 18 1991

FACTS:

The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying
with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress,
Anita Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he could examine and
expect the packages however appellant refused, assuring her that the packages simply
contained books, cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted.
Before delivery of appellants box to the bureau of Customs and or bureau of Post, Mr. Job
Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following standard procedure opened the boxes for
final inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the
bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job prepared a letter
reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting laboratory examination sample he
extracted from the cellophane. Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a photographer
went to the Reyes office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants packages
were places and in the presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps, removed the
Styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana
leaves are found inside the cellophane.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is violation of appellants constitutional right against unreasonable

search and seizure.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. Records of the case
clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made search and inspection of the said packages.
Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as
a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Custom or Post. If the
search is made upon the request of law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured
first if it to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in the behest or
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, as in
the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not
the law enforcer, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion
by the government.

The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the
State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise by the sovereign authority.