Human Rights Law_Cases Part I

Publish in



Please download to get full document.

View again

of 18
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Human Rights Law_Cases Part I
  CASES People v Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991) People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti   G.R. No. 81561, January 18 1991   Facts:  The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino Complex Ermita, Manila carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in Zurich Switzerland. The proprietress, Anita Reyes (not related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the appellant if he could examine and expect the packages however appellant refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. Anita no longer insisted. Before delivery of appellant’s box to the bureau of Customs and or bureau of Post, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and husband of Anita, following standard procedure opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Job prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting laboratory examination sample he extracted from the cellophane. Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a photographer went to the Reyes’ office at Ermita. Job brought out the box in which appellants’ packages were places and in the presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps, removed the Styrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves are found inside the cellophane. Issue:   Whether or not there is violation of appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Ruling:  The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI who made the search. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made search and inspection of the said packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Custom or Post. If the search is made upon the request of law enforces, a warrant must generally must be secured first if it to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made in the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purpose, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcer, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts committed by private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise by the sovereign authority. Issue:  Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals? Ruling:  The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. 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 judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was  AFFIRMED. Waterhouse Drug v NLRC, GR 113271 (16 Oct 1997) G.R. No. 113271. October 16, 1997 Facts : Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp.  YSP Inc., a supplier of medicine, sold to Waterous, thru Catolico, 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit. However, previews P.O.s issued to YSP, Inc. showed that the price per bottle is P320.00. Verification was made to YSP, Inc. to determine the discrepancy and it was found that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced.  YSP, Inc. Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) confirmed that the difference represents refund of jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets per sales invoice, which was paid to Ms. Catolico. Said check was sent in an envelope addressed to Catolico. Catolico denied receiving the same. However, Saldana, the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp. confirmed that she saw an open envelope with a check amounting P640 payable to 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 on e’s 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 : W/N the check is admissible as evidence Held : Yes. Ratio: (People vs. Marti) Marti ruling: The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.  It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Despite this, the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of cause for the dismissal of Catolico from employment Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for the termination of Employment. Zulueta v CA, 253 SCRA 699    Gamboa v Chan, 677 SCRA 385 (2012)    Rule of Procedure on Environmental Cases, Rule 7, Part III, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC PART III SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS   RULE 7 WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks