1.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ANDRE MARTI

FACTS:
August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly Reyes, went
to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders carrying Four (4)
wrapped packages. The appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending
the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could
examine and inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the
packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.

Before the delivery of appellants box to the Bureau of Customs and Bureau
of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (Proprietor), following the standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A peculiar odor emitted
from the box and that the gloves contain dried leaves. He prepared a letter
and reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examinations. The dried
marijuana leaves were found to have contained inside the cellophane
wrappers.

The accused appellant assigns the following errors: The lower court erred in
admitting in evidence the illegality of search and seized objects contained in
the four (4) parcels.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?
HELD:
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RATIONALE:
Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution

Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by

virtue of a defective search warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling
earlier adopted in Mercado vs Peoples Court.

The case at the 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. Under the circumstances, can accused / appellant validly
claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the
government without the latter transgressing appellants rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason whty the
same should not be admitted.

FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS Readily foreclose the proportion that NBI

agents conducted an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited
merchandise, clearly that the NBI agents made no search and seizure much
less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of accused / appellant.

CHADWICK vs STATE, having observed that which is open, where no

trespass has been committed in aid thereof

BILL OF RIGHTS
The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional
democracy, protection against whom, protection against the STATE.

2. Velasquez-Rodriguez v Honduras
Facts:
- Angel Manfredo Velasquez Rodriguez disappeared from
downtown Tegulcigalpa in Honduras;
- He was seized by 7 armed men in civilian clothing, who abducted
him in an unlicensed car on 12 September 1981, and never seen
again;
- Police and security forces denied involvement; the courts would
not hear the familys case;
- The Honduras government, which was a military dictatorship at
the time, refused to cooperate with the Commission when the
family filed a petition;
- When the dictator was ousted, Honduras asked for more time to
conduct an investigation. However, when granted the extra
time, all it produced was a 4 sentence report stating that there
was no evidence connecting the military to the disappearance.
Decision:
- The Inter-American Convention does not expressly prohibit forced
disappearances.
- However, the practice is a violation of several articles of the
Convention:
(1)Article 1 duty to guarantee rights;
(2)Article 4 right to life (clandestine execution without trial,
clandestine burial);
(3)Art 5 right to personal integrity (prolonged isolation and
imprisonment; incommunicado detention);
(4)Art 7 right to personal liberty (arbitrary deprivation of
liberty; infringement of the right to be taken before a judge to
review the legality of arrest).
- Forced disappearances also constitute a violation of something
more than individual articles because it shows a crass
abandonment of the principle of human dignity and the values of
the Inter-American system and the Convention.

Main Legal Issues:

 (1)Can the disappearance be the responsibility of the State even if
committed by private persons; if so, in what circumstances? (Art
1.1 State obligations);

RULING:
State obligation: The Court found government agents responsible
directly for the abduction of Mr Velasquez. But, it said that even if the
government was not directly liable, it would still be liable for the
violations found because of its breach of Article 1.1. If the kidnapping
had been carried out by private persons, the government would be
liable because:
o Art 1.1 requires state parties to ensure rights guaranteed
by the Convention;
o ensure means that the State is required to organize its
government apparatus and all structures through which
public power is exercised to ensure free and full enjoyment
of human rights;
o the State must prevent, investigate and punish and
violation of those rights; and, if possible, attempt to restore
violated rights and provide compensation;
o an act violating human rights which is not directly
imputable to a State initially will lead to State responsibility
not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due
diligence to prevent or to respond to the violation;
o duty to investigate is not a duty to achieve results, but
rather to seriously investigate.

3. The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986).

It is a public international law case decided by the International Court of

Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States
and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated
international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the
Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United
States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its
argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also
blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council
and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.[2]
Nicaragua, under the later, post-FSLN government of Violeta Chamorro,
withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 following a repeal
of the law which had required the country to seek compensation.[3]

The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its
obligations under customary international law not to use force against
another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its
sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach
of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the
Court stated that while the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the
Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare,
this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]

4. A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection
of one's Constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16,
Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which says the "state shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature."[1] "Kalikasan" is a Filipino word for "nature".[1]

The writ is comparable to the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas corpus.[1] In contrast, this
writ protects one's right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights. [2] The writ
of kalikasan is "proudly Philippine-made", unlike the other two writs that have roots in
European and Latin American law.[1]

The writ of Kalikasan may be sought to deal with environmental damage of such magnitude
that it threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

5. In re Yamashita
U.S. Supreme Court
327 U.S. 1, 13-16, 28, 34-35 (1946)

FACTS
After World War II, Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was tried before a U.S. military
tribunal in Manilla for war crimes committed by troops under his command.
-U.S. claimed that D failed to discharge his duty as a commander to control the operations of the
members of his command, allowing them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes
against the U.S. and allies and was in violation of laws of war.
ISSUE
Does the law of war impose upon an army commander to take appropriate measures to control
his troops for prevention of violations of the law of war which are likely to attend occupation of
hostile territory, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for the failure to take
such measures when violations result?
HOLDING
There is an affirmative duty to take such measures as were in his power and appropriate in the
circumstances to protect prisoners of war and civilians.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of the law is to protect civilians and prisoners of war from brutality.
Fourth Hague Convention of 1907: Armed force must be commanded by a person responsible
for his subordinates.