Four (4) gift wrapped packages were sent by Andre Marti and Shirley Reyes through Manila

Packaging and Export Forwarders. Marti completed the transaction by filling up forms and
informed Anita Reyes that packages contained books, cigar and gloves as gifts to his friend in
Zurich. Mr. Job Reyes, the owner, opened the boxes for final inspection and a peculiar odor
emitted. Out of curiosity, he opened one cellophane wrapper and took several grams of dried
leaves. Samples from the cellophane were brought to Narcotics Section of National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), where he was also interviewed. Job Reyes informed the authorities that the
shipment were still in his office. Agents then went with him in his office in Ermita, Manila.

In the presence of the NBI agents, Job opened the packages and found dried marijuana leaves
in the cellophane wrappers. Cake-like dried marijuana leaves were found in the books and
tabacalera cigars was also opened, marijuana leaves were stocked underneath the cigars.

Thereafter, NBI agents made inventory of the items and issued receipt acknowledging custody
of the items. Authorities searched for Marti and was later found at Central Post office while he
was claiming his mail. He was then invited for inquiries on the attempted shipment. After
laboratory emanation of the samples, the forensic chemist certified that the leaves were
marijuana flowering tops. An information was filed against Marti for violation RA 6425 also
known as Dangerous Drugs Act.

Issue:

Whether the evidence had been obtained in violation of Marti's constitutional rights against
unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication and therefore be held
inadmissible in evidence.

Held:

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.

If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first
secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest
or 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.

Violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an
individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority.

Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected through private
seizure equally applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-governmental as it is, of
appellant's constitutional rights to privacy and communication.