People vs.

Andre Marti [GR 81561, 18 January 1991] Facts: On 14 August 1987, Andre Marti and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of theManila Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them 4gift-wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them.Marti informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Marti filledup the contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the consignee, namely, WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich,Switzerland. Anita Reyes did not inspect the packages as Marti refused, who assured the former that thepackages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of Martis representation, the 4 packages were then placed inside a brown corrugated box, with styro-foamplaced at the bottom and on top of the packages, and sealed with masking tape. Before delivery of Martisbox to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita(Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection, where a peculiarodor emitted therefrom. Job pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of thegloves, and took several grams of the contents thereof. Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting theshipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from thecellophane wrapper. At the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the boxcontaining Martis packages was opened, yielding dried marijuana leaves, or cake-like (bricks) driedmarijuana leaves. The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contentsthereof, after signing a Receipt acknowledging custody of the said effects. Thereupon, the NBI agentstried to locate Marti but to no avail, inasmuch as the latters stated address was the Manila Central PostOffice. Thereafter, an Information was filed against Marti for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as theDangerous Drugs Act. After trial, the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIX)rendered the decision, convicting Marti of violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to Section 4,Article 11 and Section 2 (e)(i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as theDangerous Drugs Act. Marti appealed.

Issue: Whether an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of the accuseds constitutional rights, beinvoked against the State. Held: In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot beinvoked against the State. The contraband herein, having come into possession of the Government withoutthe latter transgressing the accuseds rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees nocogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offensecharged. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyesinto a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at thatwhich is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has beencommitted in aid thereof, is not search. Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass onthe part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution. Theconstitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directedonly against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could onlybe invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power isimposed. If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be firstsecured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest orinitiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case atbar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizurecannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, theprotection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by privateindividuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government Constitutional Issues : 1. Marti contends that the evidence had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable seach and siezure and privacy of communication. Ruling : 1. 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. In the absence of governmental interference, the libertied guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. 2. Mere presence of NBI agents does not convert it to warrantless search and siezure. Merely to look at that which is plain sight is not search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed is not search. Commissioner Bernas : The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy...is a protection against the State. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals [GR 107383, 20 February 1996] Second Division, Mendoza (J): 3 concur Facts: Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin. On 26 March 1982, Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and Martin's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which Zulueta had filed against her husband. Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against Zulueta, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Martin, declaring him the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of Martin's Complaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney's fees; and to pay the

costs of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court. Issue:Whether the injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable apply even to the spouse of the aggrieved party. Held:The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other. SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: Rafael Ortanez filed a complaint fo annulment of marriageagainst petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez on grounds of lackof marriage license and / or psychological incapacity of thepetitioner. Among the exhibits offered by Rafael were 3cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations betweenpetitioner and unidentified persons. The tape recordings weremade and obtained when Rafael allowed his friends from themilitary to wire tap his home telephone

.Issue: W/N the tapes were admissible as evidence? Ruling: No. Rep Act No. 4200 entitled An Act to Prohibit andPenalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violationz of thePrivacy of Communication, and for other purposes expresslymakes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. Therelevant provisions are as follows :Section 1: it shall be unlawful for any person, notbeing authorized by all the parties to any privatecommunication or spoken word, to tap and wire orcable, or by using any other device or arrangement,to secretly overhear, intercept, or record suchcommunication or spoken word by using a devicecommonly known as a tape recorder, or howeverotherwise described. Section 4: Any communication or spoken word, or theexistence of contents, substance, purport or meaningof the same or any part thereof, or any informationtherein contained, obtained or secured by any personin violating of the preceding sections of this Act shallNOT be admissible in evidence in any judicial,quasi0judicial, legislative or administrative hearing orinvestigation Absent a clear showing that both parties to thetelephone conversation allowed the recording of the same,the INADMISSIBILITY of the subject tapes is mandatory People vs. Damaso [GR 93516, 12 August 1992] First Division, Medialdea (J): 3 concur Facts: On 18 June 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary officer connected withthe 152nd PC Company at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some companions were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan City. In said place, the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba, Revelina Gamboa andDeogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated, the persons apprehended revealed that there was anunderground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After coordinating with theStation Commander of Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. Theyfound subversive documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. After the raid,the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under surveillance the rented apartmentof Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. They interviewedLuzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that she worked with BernieMendoza/Basilio Damaso. She guided the

group to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza).When they reached the house, the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants.Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso (@Mendoza), the group lookedfor the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented byDamaso (@Mendoza). The group again required Morados to go with them. When they reachedthe house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that they already knew that shewas a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw Morados sherequested the group to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, the group, as well as theBarangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled Ang Bayan, xerox copiers and acomputer machine. They also found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely,Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados).The group requested the persons in the house to allow them to look around. When LuzTanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the Philippines,Zambales, Mindoro and Laguna and other items. They confiscated the articles and brought themto their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in the house tothe headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was thelessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. Thus, Basilio Damaso, wasoriginally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City withviolation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with thecrime of subversion, together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel, Teresita Calosa yMacabangon @ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y Evangelista @Ka Tess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. Suchinformation was later amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminalcharge. Upon arraignment, Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the meritsensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. The defensecounsel interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecutions evidence on grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant; and thereafter,manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. On 17 January 1990, thetrial court rendered its decision, finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing thelatter to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Damasoappealed. Issue: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of hishouse. Held:

Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to,or in connection with the crime of subversion. There is no substantial and credible evidence to Veroy vs layague Facts: Spouses Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy owned 2 houses, one in Quezon City, where they arepresently residing and another in Davao City. The house in Davao City was entrusted to caretakers.However, the keys to the Masters and childrens bedroom were retained by the Veroy so the caretaker could not enter those rooms.

En Banc, Paras (J): 12 concur Facts: Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy are husband and wife residing in Davao City. WhenVeroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security Systemsometime in June 1988, he and his family transferred to Quezon City. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to 2 houseboys, Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos, who hadtheir assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. The Veroys would occasionally send moneyto Edna Soquilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep of their house. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house, only the key to the kitchen,where the circuit breakers were located, was entrusted to Edna Soquilon to give her access incase of an emergency. On 12 April 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station,PC/INP raided Veroys house in Davao City on information that the said residence was beingused as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of thecaretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have asearch warrant. Permission was requested by phone to Ma. Luisa Veroy who consented on thecondition that the search be conducted in the presence of Major Macasaet. The following day,Capt. Obrero and Maj. Macasaet met at the Veroys house to conduct the search pursuant to theauthority granted by Ma. Luisa. Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazinecontaining 7 live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer in the childrens room.3 half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the childrensroom. A search of the childrens recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bagcontaining assorted clothing, a small black bag containing a book entitled Islamic RevolutionFuture Path of the Nation, a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag containingassorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the masters bedroom. Inventory andreceipt of seized articles were made. The case was referred for preliminary investigation to theQuezon City Assistant Prosecutor , who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for DavaoCity by the DOJ through Department Order 88 (16 May 1990). In a resolution dated 6 August1990, the Fiscal recommended the filing of an Information against the Veroys for violation of PD1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). Hence,

On April 12, 1990 Capt. Obrero called the telephone from Davao City, Mrs. Veroy to ask permission from thelatter if he could enter and search the house in Davao City as there was information that the said house wasbeing used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. Mrs. Veroy gave her permission on the condition that Major Macasaet, a long time friend of the Veroys, be present during the search. Thereafter, Capt. Obrero andMajor Macasaet conducted the search. When they were already inside the house, they opened the padlockof the door leading to the childrens room. Inside the childrens room, they recovered a .45 caliber handgunwith a magazine fully loaded, printed materials of RAMSFP and a book entitled Islamic Revolution FuturePath of the Nation. As a consequence of which, the Veeroy spouses were charged under PD 1866. Issue: Is the search valid? Whether or not the materials taken are admissible in evidence. Held: No. The search is not valid. The permission given by Mrs. Veroy to break open the door of their residence was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged rebel soldiers. Thepermission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. The itemstaken, were, therefore products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they areinadmissible in evidence Veroy v. Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992]

on 8August 1990, an Information for the said offense was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City before the RTC Davao City). No bail was recommended by the prosecution. Thefiscals resolution was received by the Veroys on 13 August 1990. The latter filed a motion for bail on the same day which was denied for being premature, as they have not been arrested yet.The Veroys voluntarily surrendered to Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, but who refused to receive themo the ground that his office has not received copies of their warrants of arrest. In the meantime,on 15 August 1990, the Veroys were admitted to the St. Lukes Hospital for various ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and anxiety caused by the filing of the criminalcomplaint. On 17 August 1990, Gen. Dumlao granted their request that they be allowed to beconfined at the hospital and placed under guard thereat. Upon arraignment on 1 October 1990,the Veroys pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for hospital confinement, which was denied.The court ordered their commitment at the Davao City Rehabilitation Center pending trial on themerits. At the conclusion thereof, the court issued a second order denying their motion for reconsideration. The Veroys were returned to the St. Lukes Hospital where their physicalcondition remained erratic. Gen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Lukes Hospital to Camp Crame on the basis of the 2 October 1990 G.R. No. 160792 August 25, 2005IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, PN (MARINES) CAPT. NICANORFAELDON, PN (MARINES) CAPT. GERARDO GAMBALA, PA LT. SG JAMES LAYUG, PN CAPT. MILO MAESTRECAMPO,PA LT. SG ANTONIO TRILLANES IV, PN HOMOBONO ADAZA, and ROBERTO RAFAEL (ROEL) PULIDO, Petitioners,vs.GEN. PEDRO CABUAY, GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, SEC. ANGELO REYES, and SEC. ROILO GOLEZ,Respondents FactsEarly morning of 27 July 2003, some 321 armed soldiers, led by the now detained junior officers, entered and took controlof the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments ("Oakwood"), an upscale apartment complex, located in the business district of Makati City. The soldiers disarmed the security officers of Oakwood and planted explosive devices in its immediatesurroundings. The junior officers publicly renounced their support for the administration and called for the resignation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several cabinet members.Around 7:00 p.m. of the same date, the soldiers voluntarily surrendered to the authorities after several negotiations withgovernment emissaries. The soldiers later defused the explosive devices they had earlier planted. The soldiers thenreturned to their barracks.

Petitioners also point out that the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center violated the detainees right to privacy of communication when the ISAFP officials opened and read the personal letters of Trillanes and Capt. Milo Maestrecampo ("Maestrecampo"). Petitioners further claim that the ISAFP officials violated the detainees right against cruel and unusual punishment when the ISAFP officials prevented the detainees from having contact with their visitors. Moreover, the ISAFPofficials boarded up with iron bars and plywood slabs the iron grills of the detention cells, limiting the already poor light and ventilation in the detainees cells IssueThe narrow issue thus presented is whether letters determined or found to be from attorneys may be opened by prisonauthorities in the presence of the inmate or whether such mail must be delivered unopened if normal detectiontechniques fail to indicate contrabandHeldWe now pass upon petitioners argument that the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center violated the detainees right to privacy when the ISAFP officials opened and read the letters handed by detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo to one of the petitioners for mailing. Petitioners point out that the letters were not in a sealed envelope but simply folded becausethere were no envelopes in the ISAFP Detention Center. Petitioners contend that the Constitution prohibits the infringement of a citizens privacy right s unless authorized by law. The Solicitor General does not deny that the ISAFPofficials opened the letters. Thus, we do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the opening and reading of the detainees letters in the present caseviolated the detainees right to privacy of communication. The letters were not in a sealed envelope. The inspection of thefolded letters is a valid measure as it serves the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for the inspection of contraband.The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees andtheir lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees personal courier and not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing. In the present case, sincethe letters were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFPDetention Center could read the letters. If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees andtheir lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presenceof the detainees.Moreover, the junior officers are detained with other high-risk persons from the Abu Sayyaf and the NPA. Thus, we must give the military custodian a wider range of deference in implementing the regulations in the ISAFP Detention Center. Themilitary custodian is in a better position to know the security risks involved in detaining the junior officers,

together withthe suspected Abu Sayyaf and NPA members. Since the appropriate regulations depend largely on the security risksinvolved, we should defer to the regulations adopted by the military custodian in the absence of patent arbitrariness