Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 1 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
824
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 2 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
·Under Art. 111, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126
of the Revised Rules of Court, the warrant should particularly
describe the things to be seized.
825
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 3 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
826
by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 4 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
VILLAMOR, J.:
827
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 5 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 6 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
828
boxes of documents.
On March 3, 1970, petitioners filed a petition with the
Court of First Instance of Rizal praying that the search
warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that preliminary
prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be issued,
that the search warrant be declared null and void, and that
the respondents be ordered to pay petitioners, jointly and
severally, damages and attorneyÊs fees. On March 18, 1970,
the respondents, thru the Solicitor General, filed an answer
to the petition. After hearing, the court, presided over by
respondent Judge, issued on July 29, 1970, an order
dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search
warrant. In the meantime, or on April 16, 1970, the Bureau
of Internal Revenue made tax assessments on petitioner
corporation in the total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not
entirely, based on the documents thus seized. Petitioners
came to this Court.
The petition should be granted for the following reasons:
1. Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the
complainant and his witness.
The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of the
Philippines and of the Revised Rules of Court are:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 7 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
829
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 8 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
830
x x x x x
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 9 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
831
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 10 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
832
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 11 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
833
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 12 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
834
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 13 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 14 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
835
„x x x Both the Jones Law (sec. 3) and General Orders No. 58 (sec.
97) specifically require that a search warrant should particularly
describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The
evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things
to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the
search warrant·to leave the officers of the law with no discretion
regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that
Âunreasonable searches and seizuresÊ may not be made,·that
abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct
interpretation of this constitutional provision is borne out by
American authorities.‰
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 15 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
836
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 16 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
837
ÂÂAlthough, for the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that
an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a
statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in
the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce
the books and papers of such corporation, we do not wish to be
understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to
immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable
searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, but an association
of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal
entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no
constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property
cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded
against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 14th
Amendment, against unlawful discrimination, x x x.‰ (Hale v.
Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 50 L. ed. 652.)
„In Linn v. United States, 163 C.C.A. 470, 251 Fed 476, 480, it
was thought that a different rule applied to a corporation, on the
ground that it was not privileged from producing its books and
papers. But the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and
seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been
achieved in a lawful way.‰ (Silverthorne Lumber Company, et al. v.
United States of America, 251 U.S. 385, 64 L. ed. 319.)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 17 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
„As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no
cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and
of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason
that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate
and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of
the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in
said corporations, and whatever, the offices they hold therein may
be. 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. Consequently,
petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence
against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the
offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the
right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs
exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and
may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against
them in their individual capacity. x x x.‰
838
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 18 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
I concur.
839
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 19 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
840
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 20 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
841
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 21 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
that the law is complied with where the judge adopts as his
own personal examination the questions asked by the PC
or police investigator as appearing in the written
statements, which the judge read over again to the
witnesses whether said answers were theirs, and whether
said answers were true, to which the witnesses replied in
the affirmative, there being no prohibition in the law
against adoption by the judge of the previous investigatorÊs
questions (Luna vs. Plaza, L-27511, Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA
310). But there is no compliance with the requirement
where the judge issuing the warrant of arrest acted solely
on the basis of affidavits of the complainant and her one
witness which were sworn to before another judge, without
personally examining the witnesses by asking questions
(Doce vs. Branch II of the the CFI of Quezon, L-26437,
March 13, 1968, 22 SCRA 1028).
(b) Particular description of the things to be seized.·
While it is true that the property to be seized under a
search warrant must be particularly described therein and
no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the
description is required to be specific only insofar as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow. Where, by the nature
of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather
general, it is not required that a technical description be
given as this would mean that no warrant could issue.
Thus, a description of the property to be seized as
„fraudulent books, invoices and records,‰ was held
sufficient (People vs. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384). In Alvarez vs.
Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33, the
description „books, documents, chits, receipts, lists, and
other papers used by him in connection with his activities
as money-lender‰ was held sufficient. See also Yee Sue Koy
vs. Almeda., 70 Phil. 141.
-----O0O0O-----
842
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 22 of 23
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 37 2/2/20, 4:09 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017004eb38e13de65893003600fb002c009e/p/AQC461/?username=Guest Page 23 of 23