Scribd
Upload
130 views1 page

People v. Marti Digest

This case involves a private company that shipped packages for Marti. When one package emitted a strange odor during a routine inspection before delivery to customs, the proprietor opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Marti was then charged with drug trafficking. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the private shipping company was valid under the constitution since constitutional protections against unreasonable searches only apply to actions by the government, not private individuals or companies. As long as government agents did not request or intervene in the private search, Marti could not claim his constitutional rights were violated.

Uploaded by

Hershey Delos Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
130 views1 page

People v. Marti Digest

This case involves a private company that shipped packages for Marti. When one package emitted a strange odor during a routine inspection before delivery to customs, the proprietor opened it and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Marti was then charged with drug trafficking. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the private shipping company was valid under the constitution since constitutional protections against unreasonable searches only apply to actions by the government, not private individuals or companies. As long as government agents did not request or intervene in the private search, Marti could not claim his constitutional rights were violated.

Uploaded by

Hershey Delos Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE V.

MARTI
G.R. No. 81561. January 18, 1991
BRIEFED BY: Hershey Delos Santos

FACTS:
 Marti went to Manila Packing and Export Forwarders to send four gift-wrapped packages
to Switzerland.
 Anita Reyes, the proprietor, asked him if she could examine and inspect the packages.
However, Marti refused assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars,
and gloves.
 Before delivery of the package to the Bureau of Customs, Job Reyes, also the proprietor
and husband of Anita, following standard operating procedure, opened the box for final
inspection.
 When he opened it, a peculiar odor emitted from it. He also felt dried leaves inside the
packages.
 He contacted the NBI to examine it.
 Mr. Reyes brought out the box and opened it in the presence of the NBI agents.
 Upon examination, it turned out to be dried marijuana leaves.
 Marti was then charged of violation of RA 6425.

ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search and seizure by a private person are valid.

RULING: YES.
 In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State. The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only
be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against unreasonable exercise of
power is imposed.
 The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without
the latter transgressing Marti’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court
sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the
prosecution of the offense charged.
 The general rule is if the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant
must be first secured. However, if the search is made at the initiative of the
proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the
case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. Thus, the protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals.
 The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by
Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to
observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which
is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search.

You might also like