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 Marti’s 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 Marti’sbox 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 Marti’s 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 latter’s 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 accused’s 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 accused’s 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 prosecution’s 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 Master’s and children’s

bedroom were retained by the Veroy so the caretaker could not

enter those rooms.

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 children’s room.

Inside the children’s room, they recovered a .45 caliber

handgunwith a magazine fully loaded, printed materials of RAM-

SFP 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]

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 Veroy’s 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 Veroy’s 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

children’s room.3 half-full jute sacks containing printed materials

of RAM-SFP were also found in the children’sroom. A search of

the children’s 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 master’s 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 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.

Thefiscal’s 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.

Luke’s 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. Luke’s Hospital where their physicalcondition

remained erratic. Gen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had

issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Luke’s 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 citizen’s 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