People v.

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

Q: Andre Marti contracted the services of Manila Packing and Export Forwarders to send gift-
wrapped packages to a friend in Switzerland. When asked by the forwarder, Anita Reyes, if
they could examine and inspect the packages, Marti refused, assuring her that the packages
simply contained books and cigars. However, the proprietor, Job Reyes, opened the boxes for
final inspection before transmittal to the Bureau of Customs/Bureau of Posts as part of their
standard operating procedures. Upon opening, they discovered plastic-wrapped dried leaves,
which they suspected to be marijuana. The proprietor reported the incident to NBI and in the
presence of the NBI agents, the boxes were opened by the proprietor. NBI confirmed that the
contents were marijuana. After Marti was traced by NBI, he was charged with violation of RA
6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, for which he was later on convicted by the Special Criminal
Court of Manila. Marti assailed the admissibility of the prohibited drugs as evidence against
him, which, according to him, was obtained in violation of his constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. Based on the aforementioned
facts, was there indeed an unreasonable search and seizure that would render the evidence used
against Marti inadmissible? Explain.

A: NO, there was no unreasonable search and seizure that would render the evidence
used against Marti inadmissible. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by
government. Its protection is directed only to governmental action, not against private
individuals. Hence, in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties granted by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

It must be noted that: a) It was the proprietor, a private individual, who made a search of the
packages in compliance with their standard operating procedures before transmitting the same
to the Bureau of Customs/Bureau of Posts; and b) the mere presence of the NBI agents during
the search effected by the proprietor, a private individual, did not convert the search into a
warrantless search and seizure. To merely observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not
a search.

Marti's argument that since the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is untenable, because the
Constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the
people, does not govern relationships between individuals. Allegations against unreasonable
searches and seizures may only be invoked against the State.