The constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures is imposable only against the state and not to private persons.

However, if the private person is acting upon orders of government officials, the principle of agency applies, because in fact such private person is acting in the interest of government, and is therefore subject to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.


People vs Andre Marti
G.R. NO. 81561, January 18, 1991

Facts:

On August 14, 1987, the Andre Marti and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could inspect the packages. Shirley assured Anita that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the packages. 

Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He took samples of the contents thereof. He reported this to the NBI and invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the trial court. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against him.

Issue:

Were the evidence obtained in violation of Marti's constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore inadmissible in evidence?

Held:

The SC hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked 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.

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. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.

It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. The judgment of conviction finding Marti guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.



People vs Bongcarawan
G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002

Facts:

The security officer of Super Ferry 5, Mark Diesmo, received a complaint from passenger Lorena Canoy about her missing jewelry. Canoy suspected one of her co-passengers at cabin no. 106 as the culprit. Diesmo and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to search for the suspect whom they later found at the economy section. The suspect was identified as the accused, Basher Bongcarawan. Bongcarawan was informed of the complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no. 106. With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no jewelry was found. He was then escorted by two (2) security agents back to the economy section to get his baggage. The accused took a Samsonite suitcase and brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and small plastic packs containing white crystalline substance. Suspecting the substance to be shabu, the security personnel immediately reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the accused beside the suitcase and its contents. They also called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The Philippine Coast Guard arrived and took custody of the accused and the seized items. NBI Forensic Chemist later confirmed the substance to be shabu. Accused was convicted of violation of Dangerous Drugs Act.

Bongcarawan appealed, arguing that the Samsonite suitcase containing the shabu was forcibly opened and searched without his consent, and hence, in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Any evidence acquired pursuant to such unlawful search and seizure, he claims, is inadmissible in evidence against him. He also contends that People v. Marti is not applicable in this case because a vessel security personnel is deemed to perform the duties of a policeman.

Issue:

Whether the drug confiscated is admissible in evidence against accused.

Held:

As held by this Court in the case of People v. Marti, [i]n the absence of governmental interference, liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures 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 arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.

There is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order. The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function. In contrast, police officers are agents of the state tasked with the sovereign function of enforcement of the law. Historically and until now, it is against them and other agents of the state that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures may be invoked.


A violation of one’s constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil Code.


Silahis International Hotel vs Soluta, et al.
G.R. No. 163087, February 20, 2006

Facts:

The petitioners suspected that the respondents who are officers of the Silahis International Hotel Union were using the Union Office located inside the hotel in the sale or use of marijuana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution. They arrived at the said conclusion through surveillance.

In the morning of January 11, 1988, while the respondent union officer was opening the Union Office, petitioner Jose Marcel Panlilio, Vice President for Finance of Silahis International Hotel, Inc., with his personal secretary, a Bulletin reporter, and a security guard entered the union office despite objections thereto by forcibly opening the same. Once inside  the union office they started to make searches which resulted in the confiscation of a plastic bag of marijuana. An information for violation of the dangerous drugs act was filed against the respondents before the RTC of Manila which acquitted them on the ground that the search conducted was illegal since it was warrantless and without consent by the respondents.

After their acquittal, the respondents filed a case for Malicious Prosecution against the petitioner for violation of Art. 32 of the Civil Code. After trial, the Regional Trial Court held that petitioners are liable for damages as a result of an illegal search. The same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals

Issue:

Whether the warrantless search conducted by the petitioners (private individual and corporation) on the union office of the private respondents is valid.

Held:

The search is not valid and they are civilly liable under Art. 32 of the Civil Code. The fact that the union office is part of the hotel owned by the petitioners does not justify the warrantless search. For respondents, being the lawful occupants of the office, had the right to raise the question of validity of the search and seizure. 

Petitioners had, by their own claim, already received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities allegedly undertaken in the union office and Maniego conducted surveillance of the union officers. Yet, petitioners and their companions barged into and searched the union office without a search warrant, despite ample time for them to obtain one, and notwithstanding the objection of Babay.

The course taken by petitioners and company stinks in illegality, it not falling under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is allowed by law. Petitioners’ violation of individual respondents’ constitutional right against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code.

Petitioners cite People v. Marti to support their thesis that the determinants in the validity of the constitutional right against searches and seizure cannot be invoked against private individuals.

But the ruling of this Court in Marti, a criminal case, bears on the issue of whether "an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of [one’s] constitutional rights, [may] be invoked against the State." In other words, the issue in that case was whether the evidence obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity without the participation of the State, is admissible.

The issue in the present civil case, however, is whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so.