People v Marti unlawful searches and seizures facilitated by the State.

However, in the case at bar,

[G.R. No. 81561. January 18, 1991.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant
Topic: Searches & seizures
Ponente: Bidin, J:
Doctrine: In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State.
RELEVANT FACTS
Andre Marti and common law wife Shirley Reyes went to a shipping company to send
package to a friend in Switzerland. Marti did not allow its examination, assuring that
they all contain books, cigars and gloves as “gifts.”
Before delivery to Bureau of Customs, proprietor of shipping company, Mr. Job
Reyes, opened the box for final inspection. Upon opening, a peculiar odor emitted
therefrom. He squeezed one bundle and felt dried leaves inside. He pulled out a
cellophane wrapper and made an opening on it. He took several grams of its
contents. He brought a sample to NBI.
Then NBI came to inspect. In the presence of NBI, Job Reyes opened the box and took
out the cellophane wrappers. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been
contained inside the wrappers. Job Reyes opened another box and it contained bricks
or cake-like marijuana leaves. An information was filed against appellant for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
the inspection was carried out by a private entity in his capacity as an administrator
of the establishment to which appellant availed a service. As such, it was part of the
standard operating procedures of the said establishment, and that the cited provision
of the Constitution does not cover this.
Villanueva v. Querubin: The constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure refers to the immunity of one's person … from interference by
government.
Walker v. State: Search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the
government and its agents, not upon private individuals.
Bernas v. US: The Fourth Amendment and the case law applying it do not
require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private
citizen. Rather, the amendment only prescribes governmental action.
DISPOSITIVE
Premises considered, we see no error committed by the trial court in rendering the
assailed judgment.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs

Marti claims he met a German national. In the course of their 30-min. conversation,
the German requested him to ship packages because he (German) was about to leave
PH the next day.

ISSUES

Was the evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against

unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication, thus inadmissible in
evidence?
RATIO DECIDENDI

NO VIOLATION. EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE. In the absence of governmental

interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked
against the State.

Section 2 and 3 of the Article III of the Constitution protects the individual from