People Vs Andre Marti, GR No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991 Facts

1. People vs Andre Marti, GR No.
81561, Jan 18, 1991
FACTS:
The appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to Manila Packaging and
Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and
asked if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced Anita to seal
the package making it ready for shipment.
Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the
courier company, conducted an inspection of the package as part of standard operating
procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took
sample of the substance he found inside. 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 court a quo. 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: W/N an act of a private individual be invoked against the State.
HELD:
No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The search and seizure clauses are restraints
upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals.
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. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
2. Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights
FACTS:
A "Demolition Notice," signed by petitioner Carlos Quimpo, in his capacity as an
Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under the Office
of the City Mayor, was sent to and received by the private respondents, officers and members of
the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated. In said notice, the respondents were given 3
days to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA. Prior to their receipt of the demolition
notice, the private respondents were informed by Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to
give way to the "People's Park.".
The group, led by their President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint with the CHR
against the petitioners, asking the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be
addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr. of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. The CHR issued an Order,
directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA
pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering said
petitioners to appear before the CHR.
ISSUE: W/N CHR may be prohibited from further hearing and investigating the present case.
HELD:
Yes. One of the powers and functions of the Commission in Section 18, Article XIII, of
the 1987 Constitution is to “investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of
human rights violations involving civil and political rights.” However, the "order to desist" in the
present case is not investigatorial in character, but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it
does not possess.
The "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to
extrajudicial and judicial remedies which the CHR may seek from proper courts on behalf of the
victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction
to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any
court in which the action is pending, or by a Justice of CA or SC. A writ of preliminary injunction
is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or
protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose."
3. Carino vs. CHR
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
4. Wilson vs. Ermita, GR No. 189220
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
5. Oposa vs Factoran, 224 SCRA 792
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
6. Baldoza vs Dimaano, 71 SCRA 152
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
7. David vs PGMA, GR No. 171396
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
8. Almario vs Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269

FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
9. Vivares vs St. Theresa’s College, GR 202666
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
10. Pestilos vs Generoso, GR 182601
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
11. Estrada vs Ombudsman, GR 212140-41
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
12. Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil 70

People Vs Andre Marti, GR No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Andre Marti, GR No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Andre Marti, GR No. 81561, Jan 18, 1991 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. People vs Andre Marti, GR No.

81561, Jan 18, 1991

ISSUE: W/N an act of a private individual be invoked against the State.

2. Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights

4. Wilson vs. Ermita, GR No. 189220

5. Oposa vs Factoran, 224 SCRA 792

6. Baldoza vs Dimaano, 71 SCRA 152

7. David vs PGMA, GR No. 171396

8. Almario vs Executive Secretary, 701 SCRA 269

10. Pestilos vs Generoso, GR 182601

11. Estrada vs Ombudsman, GR 212140-41

12. Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil 70

You might also like