You are on page 1of 2

1.

The right is personal


stonehill vs diokno
As to the first group of things seized.
Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
LOPEZ VS COMMISSIONER
Manicurist only
There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common
courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all
the circumstances, therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to
dispense with the need for a search warrant. The petition cannot, therefore, prevail.
PEOPLE VS MALASUGUI

Chinese merchant. Robbery with homicide.


When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises,
he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable search
may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
PEOPLE VS DAMASO
Helper
The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal one,
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
authorized to do so in his or her behalf.
CFI VS ALVAREZ
While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised
and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles
of government.
2. Directed only against the State
PEOPLE VS MARTI
WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS NLRC
PEOPLE VS MENDOZA

PEOPLE VS BONGCARAWAN