G.R. No. 81561
January 18, 1991
Facts
Respondent, together with his common law life, brought into the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders (MPEF) four gift-wrapped packages. Said packages will be sent to their friend in Switzerland. They insisted to the proprietress of the MPEF that the parcel should not be examined and inspected since the box only contained cigars, gloves and books. However, the proprietor Job Reyes opened the parcels for initial inspection before delivery to the Bureau of Customs in pursuant to their standard operating procedure. When Reyes opened the parcels, he smelled a peculiar odor which made him inspect the items. Thereafter, he found dried leaves. Reyes prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the
cellophane wrapper. He brought the letter and a sample of appellant’s shipment to the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for laboratory examination. The NBI went to Reyes’ office to investigate. Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant’s packages were placed and, in the presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found inside the cellophane wrappers.
Later on, the RTC convicted respondent for violating R.A. No. 6425 aka The Dangerous Drugs Act. Hence, this appeal.
Respondent contends that the RTC erred in admitting the illegally searched items since it is a violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. The other grounds include the non-observance of his constitutional rights while under custodial proceedings and the failure to give credence to appellant’s explanation on how the parcel came into his possession. Moreover he contends that the modification of the 1935 Constitution by the 1987 Constitution expressly declares that any evidence obtained either by police authorities or private individuals thru violation of unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible.
Issues
- Whether or not search and seizure by a private individual is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication?
- Whether or not the modifications of the 1987 Constitution already includes private individuals as one who can violate unreasonable search and seizure?
- Whether or not the mere presence of NBI officials constitutes a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication?
Held
First Issue
No. The general rule is the exclusionary rule – evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible. However, in the absence of governmental interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked (Villanueva v Querubin). In other words, search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals.
In this case, there is no violation of the constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure because it is not the government but it is a private individual who conducted the search and seizure of the items. Therefore, the evidence is admissible.
Second Issue
No. The Constitution does not govern relationships between private individuals but relationships between private individuals and the Government. The modifications only relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof and in no manner deviated as to whom restriction or inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. Hence, the evidence is admissible for it does not violate the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizure for it was a private individual who effected the search and seizure.
Third issue
No. 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. In other words, there is no violation if there is no trespass on the part of the state official. Additionally, Gandy v. Watkins provided that a thing which was taken into custody by the police at the specific request of a private individual who initially made the search is a valid search. Therefore, the presence of the NBI officials in the search initially made by a private individual is not sufficient to warrant a violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure.