Article III - Bill of Rights | Gabie Camaymayan

Gabrielle Marie April 23, 2021

Grade 10 Case Analysis

Article III - Bill of Rights

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI Case (G.R. No. 81561)

On August 14, 1987, Andre Marti and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" carrying with them four packages to be sent to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes, the proprietress of the courier company, asked if she could examine and inspect the packages, however, they refused and convinced her to prepare the packages for shipment instead. Before delivery, The husband of Anita Reyes and proprietor of the company, Job Reyes, opened the boxes for final inspection, following standard operating procedure. When he opened the box, a suspicious odor was being emitted from dried leaves wrapped in cellophane, so he took samples of it and submitted them to the NBI. After being interviewed by the Chief of the Narcotics Section, three NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' office to inspect the package. They found what they suspected to be was dried marijuana leaves, and after the laboratory examination of the Forensic Chemistry Section, it was confirmed that they were marijuana flowering tops as certified by a forensic chemist. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The accused, Andrei Marti, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court assigning three errors in the case. Firstly, the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible because it was obtained through the violation of his constitutional right to privacy. Because it was a private person, Job Reyes, who opened his packages, the issue of whether the constitutional right of privacy should be enforced against private individuals arose. Next, the lower court erred in convicting him despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution while under custodial investigation were not observed. Lastly, he wasn’t even the actual owner of the packages, so it was unjust that he had to take all the blame.

To resolve the accused’s first assignment of error, the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. It is not meant for private individuals alike. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only for those tasked with the enforcement of the law. Job Reyes only followed the standard operating procedure of inspecting packages before they get sent out. When he opened them in front of the NBI agents in his office, what the NBI agents did, which was to observe Reyes as he shows them the contents of the box, is not considered a warrantless search and seizure prohibited by the Constitution. Merely observing and looking at something in plain sight is not a search. Therefore, the evidence was not illegally acquired.

To resolve the accused’s second assignment of error, the law enforcers assigned with the case testified that the accused was informed of his constitutional rights. Presuming that they regularly perform their duties because no evidence to prove the contrary is found. According to records, the accused even availed of his constitutional right and did not give any written statement during the investigation. Therefore, the second assignment of error by the accused is misplaced.

For the accused’s last assignment of error, he claimed that a stranger that he spoke to for 30 minutes entrusted him with the packages and gave him P2,000.00 pesos to ship them to Switzerland. This does not align with usual human experience and behaviors as building trust with someone you’ve just met in half an hour and handing over money to them to ship your package is very suspicious and unlikely to happen. For the accused to accept the errand by a stranger could not be explained by himself as well. He did not even bother to ask for the stranger’s full name, his complete address, or passport number. As per records of the Interpol, the accused was previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of Germany on January 1, 1982, and that the friend to whom he was going to ship the packages was likewise convicted for drug abuse. To conclude, the judgment of conviction finding Andre Marti guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is affirmed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DINDO "BEBOT" MOJELLO Case

(G.R. No. 145566)

The 11-year-old victim, Lenlen Rayco, was last seen with the appellant, Dindo Mojello in the evening on December 15, 1996. The next day, the victim’s body was discovered on the seashore lifeless, naked, and bruised. In the medico-legal report, it states that the victim was raped and died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia by strangulation and physical injuries to the head and the trunk. When the appellant was arrested, an investigation was conducted, where he admitted that he was the perpetrator of the crime. The appellant was assisted by a counsel during his custodial interrogation and his confession was witnessed by barangay captains. One of them even testified that after it was executed, the contents of the document were read to the appellant who later voluntarily signed it. The appellant's extrajudicial confession was sworn before a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Fe-Bantayan.

The appellant raised two issues: whether the extrajudicial confession executed by the appellant is admissible in evidence; and whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide.

The trial court observed that during the confession of the appellant, he was fully informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and his right to counsel. Furthermore, the appellant claimed his life was threatened, then resulting in him executing the extrajudicial confession. There was no evidence of this alleged maltreatment. The appellant never filed any case against the person who threatened him, and he didn’t report this to his counsel. He also said that he did not understand the contents of the confession which was read in Cebuano, but he admitted to using the language in daily discourse. Therefore, the appellant executed a voluntary confession by his failure to present evidence to prove otherwise, making his confession admissible as evidence under the law.

Also, the appellant claims that the lower court erred in convicting him of the crime of rape with homicide despite the lack of evidence against him. The court sustained the confession of the appellant to the crime, the testimony of the witness, and the medico-legal report proving the corpus delicti, but held that there was no circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that on the occasion of the rape, a homicide was committed by the appellant. The time of death of the victim was also not identified which could help connect the chain of events and prove or disprove the appellant’s story that he went home after drinking. No physical evidence like fingerprints or DNA samples that could possibly pinpoint the perpetrator was available. There are gaps in the reconstruction of facts surrounding the death of Lenlen. Thus, the appellant cannot be convicted of rape with homicide considering the lack of evidence which would create a reasonable doubt of his guilt for the said special complex crime. To conclude, Appellant Dindo Mojello is found guilty of the crime of statutory rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusión Perpetua. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Lenlen Rayco, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.