People vs.

de Gracia
[GR 102009-10, 6 July 1994]
Facts: At the height of the December 1989 coup detat staged against the Government, the members of
the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) bombarded various
establishments and military camps in Metro Manila with their tora-tora planes and took over the
Villamor Air Base, the Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the Army Operations Center, the government
television station, and the Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan.
The accused in this case was charged with the crime of illegal possession of ammunition and explosives
in furtherance of rebellion.
According to the military officers involved, said establishment was being used as a communication
command post by the RAM-SFP. However, when they neared the establishment, they were attacked and
fired upon by a group of men. This resulted in the subsequent raid of the sales office, wherein the military
officers discovered and confiscated high-powered firearms and explosives inside one of the offices.
The officer who first entered the building alleged that he saw the accused inside the office of the Colonel
holding a C-4 while suspiciously peeping through the door. The accused was arrested and was made to
sign an inventory of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team.
The team, however, failed to secure a search warrant prior to the raid. They attributed this failure to the
disorderly circumstances at the time, i.e., the attack of the nearby Camp Aguinaldo by rebel forces with
the simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the sales office, coupled with the fact that the courts were
consequently closed.
Issue: Whether the military operatives made a valid search and seizure during the height of the December
1989 coup detat.
Held: It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with
a search warrant at that time. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was
being used as headquarters by the RAM. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms
and explosives in the Eurocar Sales Office could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In
addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing
within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
forces. The courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the building and
houses therein were deserted.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this
case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more
than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the
raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts.
The trial judge himself manifested that on 5 December 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was
closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed
with.

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
the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying
with them 4 gift-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
filled up the contract necessary for the transaction. Anita Reyes did not inspect the packages as Marti
refused, who assured the former that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were
gifts to his friend in Zurich.
Before delivery of Marti's box, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following
standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection, where a peculiar odor emitted
therefrom. Job pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves, and
took several grams of the contents thereof. Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to
the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane
wrapper. At the Narcotics Section of the NBI, the box containing Marti's packages was opened, yielding
dried marijuana leaves, or cake-like (bricks) dried marijuana leaves.
Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate Marti but to no avail, inasmuch as the latter's stated address was
the Manila Central Post Office. Thereafter, an Information was filed against Marti for violation of RA
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Issue: Whether an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of the accused's constitutional rights,
be invoked against the State.
Held: In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked against the State. The contraband herein, having come into possession of the Government
without the latter transgressing the accused's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court
sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense
charged. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes
into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. 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.
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law
enforcers, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed
by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

Waterous Drug Corporation vs NLRC

[GR 113271, 16 October 1997]
FACTS: Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp. Catolico sold to
YSP Inc. 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit. However, the normal selling price is P320 per unit.
Catolico overcharged by P64 per unit for a total of P640. YSP sent a check payable to Catolico as a
refund for the jacked-up price. It was sent in an envelope addressed to her. Saldana, the clerk of
Waterous Drug Corp. opened the envelope and saw that there was a check for P640 for Catolico.
Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of dishonesty.
NLRC: Dismissed the Petition. Evidence of respondents (check from YSP) being rendered inadmissible,
by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants.
Petitioners: In the light of the decision in the People v. Marti, the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from interference by
government and cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the
ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
ISSUE:
Whether Waterous act of opening an envelope from one of its regular suppliers is contrary to the
injunction against unreasonable search and seizure and a persons right to privacy of communication.
HELD:
In light of the decision in the People v. Marti, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from interference by government and cannot be
extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government. The Court finds no reason to revise the doctrine laid down in People vs.
Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated
by private individuals.
It is not true that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, such an invasion
gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Herein, there was no violation of the right of privacy of
communication, and Waterous was justified in opening an envelope from one of its regular suppliers as it
could assume that the letter was a business communication in which it had an interest.
However, Catolico was denied due process. Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised
of the charge against him, given reasonable time to answer the charge, allowed ample opportunity to be
heard and defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires.
Thus, the decision and resolution of the NLRC are affirmed except as to its reason for upholding the
Labor Arbiters decision, viz., that the evidence against Catolico was inadmissible for having been
obtained in violation of her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and against unreasonable
searches and seizures, which was set aside.