How do you reconcile the case of People vs. Marti and Zulueta vs.

CA taking into consideration the years when they were decided? What is the implication of the Zulueta case on the principle that the Bill of Rights only applies as against the State?

It is a well-settled rule in Constitutional Law that evidence obtained in violation of a persons right of privacy of communication and correspondence and his right against unreasonable searched and seizure are inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

More commonly known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this rule simply suggests that things that have been illegally seized cannot legally be used to hold a case against a person in court.

But we have here two cases with almost the same facts and circumstances but with two contrasting rulings. In both cases, two private individuals invoked their constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence and right against unreasonable searches and seizures but only the contention of one was sustained by the Court and the other was denied. In the legal system of the Philippines, there is a legal principle called stare decisis which literally means to stand by that which is decided. Under this principle are two other

principles, the first one is that judges are to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. And the second one is that judges cannot overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so of it is contrary to principle. In the case at bar, the Court has adhered to the second principle of stare decisis in overturning their previous decision in the Marti case. As what can be gleaned from the factual antecedents of both cases, the evidence seized in the Marti case was found incidentally by the owner carrier while performing standard operation procedures in his business, while the evidence submitted in

the case of Zulueta was seized in violation of the Zuluetas husbands constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. In this case, the Courts decision is warranted by a justifiable reason which is the significant difference on the manner in which the pieces of evidence in question were obtained; the one being done only in the performance of a duty and the other being done in blatant violation of a constitutional right. Furthermore, taking into consideration the years when the cases were decided, five years had already elapsed since the ruling of Marti was promulgated and by then, circumstances and conditions have changed and legal concepts and ideologies that have been previously largely accepted may no longer be principally adhered to and respected.

Anent the second issue, as a general rule, the Bill of Rights exist to serve as a limitation on the powers that the government can exercise over its citizens and as such it cannot be enforced as against private individuals. But for every general rule, there is always an exception. And in the case at bar, the Zulueta case serves as the exception on the applicability of the Bill of Rights on private individuals. This implies that the Court can readily sacrifice generally accepted principles and rules in lieu of more important things such as the protection and conservation of a persons rights and liberties. Moreover, this exception also serves as an admonition to everyone that just because the Bill of Rights is widely known only as being enforceable as against the State it does not mean that they can take advantage of the law by breaching and encroaching upon other peoples right for the courts of justice can always turn the tables for nobler intentions if it will admit of a more just, fair and humane society.