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.

STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO

Facts:
Forty-two (42) search warrants were issued at different dates against petitioners and the corporations of which they
were officers. Peace officers were directed to search the persons of the petitioners and/or their premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences. Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements and Bobbins were to be seized.
Petitioner contends that the issued search warrants were null and void as having contravened the Constitution and the
Rules of Court for, among others, it did not describe the documents, books and things to be seized PARTICULARLY.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant has been validly issued.
Whether or not the seized articles may be admitted in court.

Held:
The authority of the warrants in question may be split in two major groups: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the
corporations; and (b) those found and seized in the residences of the petitioners.
The petitioners have no cause of action against the contested warrants on the first major group. This is because
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of their officers, directors and
stockholders. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired, the objection
to an unlawful search and seizure purely being personal cannot be availed by third parties.
As to the second major group, two important questions need be settled: (1) whether the search warrants in question, and
the searches and seizures made under authority thereof, are valid or not; and (2) if the answer is no, whether said
documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners.
The Constitution protects the rights of the people from unreasonable searches and seizure. Two points must be stressed
in connection to this constitutional mandate: (1) no warrant shall be issued except if based upon probable cause
determined personally by the judge by the manner set in the provision; and (2) the warrant shall describe the things to be
seized with particularly.
In the present case, no specific offense has been alleged in the warrant’s application. The averments of the offenses
committed were abstract and therefore, would make it impossible for judges to determine the existence of probable
cause. Such impossibility of such determination naturally hinders the issuance of a valid search warrant.
The Constitution also requires the things to be seized described with particularity. This is to eliminate general warrants.

The Court held that the warrants issued for the search of three residences of petitioners are null and void.