Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 294 views

    PEOPLE Vs MARTI (Search and Seizure)

    Uploaded by

    Chammy
    1) Andre Marti sent four gift-wrapped packages from Manila Packing to Switzerland but refused to let the proprietress inspect them, claiming they contained books, cigars, and gloves. 2) During a standard inspection before delivery, the proprietor Job opened the boxes and detected a peculiar odor and dried marijuana leaves inside the cellophane wrappers. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the search by the private proprietor Job was reasonable and part of standard procedure, not an unlawful intrusion by the government, so Marti's constitutional rights were not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PEOPLE Vs MARTI (Search and Seizure)

    Uploaded by

    Chammy
    294 views1 page
    1) Andre Marti sent four gift-wrapped packages from Manila Packing to Switzerland but refused to let the proprietress inspect them, claiming they contained books, cigars, and gloves. 2) During a standard inspection before delivery, the proprietor Job opened the boxes and detected a peculiar odor and dried marijuana leaves inside the cellophane wrappers. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the search by the private proprietor Job was reasonable and part of standard procedure, not an unlawful intrusion by the government, so Marti's constitutional rights were not violated.

    Original Description:

    PEOPLE vs MARTI (Search and Seizure)

    Original Title

    PEOPLE vs MARTI (Search and Seizure)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Andre Marti sent four gift-wrapped packages from Manila Packing to Switzerland but refused to let the proprietress inspect them, claiming they contained books, cigars, and gloves. 2) During a standard inspection before delivery, the proprietor Job opened the boxes and detected a peculiar odor and dried marijuana leaves inside the cellophane wrappers. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the search by the private proprietor Job was reasonable and part of standard procedure, not an unlawful intrusion by the government, so Marti's constitutional rights were not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    294 views1 page

    PEOPLE Vs MARTI (Search and Seizure)

    Uploaded by

    Chammy
    1) Andre Marti sent four gift-wrapped packages from Manila Packing to Switzerland but refused to let the proprietress inspect them, claiming they contained books, cigars, and gloves. 2) During a standard inspection before delivery, the proprietor Job opened the boxes and detected a peculiar odor and dried marijuana leaves inside the cellophane wrappers. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the search by the private proprietor Job was reasonable and part of standard procedure, not an unlawful intrusion by the government, so Marti's constitutional rights were not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People of the Philippines vs.

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

    FACTS:

    The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila
    Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying
    with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress,
    Anita Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he could examine and
    expect the packages however appellant refused, assuring her that the packages simply
    contained books, cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted.
    Before delivery of appellants box to the bureau of Customs and or bureau of Post, Mr. Job
    Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following standard procedure opened the boxes for
    final inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the
    bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job prepared a letter
    reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting laboratory examination sample he
    extracted from the cellophane. Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a photographer
    went to the Reyes office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants packages
    were places and in the presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps, removed the
    Styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana
    leaves are found inside the cellophane.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there is violation of appellants constitutional right against unreasonable


    search and seizure.

    RULING:

    The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. Records of the case
    clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made search and inspection of the said packages.
    Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as
    a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Custom or Post. If the
    search is made upon the request of law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured
    first if it to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in the behest or
    initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, as in
    the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against
    unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not
    the law enforcer, is involved.
    In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts
    committed by private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion
    by the government.

    The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the
    State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise by the sovereign authority.

    You might also like