PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ANDRE MARTI

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

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 appellant’s 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.

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 People’s 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, accused/appellant cannot 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
why the same should not be admitted.

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.