Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967
HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROERT P. ROO!S, JOHN J. ROO!S "n# !ARL
EC!, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE $. %IO!NO, &n '&( )"*")&+, "( SECRETARY O- JUSTICE. JOSE
LU!AN, &n '&( )"*")&+, "( A)+&n/ %&0e)+o0, N"+&on"1 u0e"u o2 In3e(+&/"+&on.
SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PE%RO %. CEN4ON, E-REN I. PLANA "n# MANUEL
5ILLAREAL, JR. "n# ASST. -ISCAL MANASES G. REYES. JU%GE AMA%O
ROAN, Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2 M"n&1". JU%GE ROMAN CANSINO, Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2
M"n&1". JU%GE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Cou0+ o2 -&0(+ In(+"n)e o2 R&6"1-7ue6on
C&+, 0"n)', "n# JU%GE %AMIAN JIMENE4, Mun&)&*"1 Cou0+ o2 7ue6on C&+,,
respondents.
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David
for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General rturo . lafriz, ssistant Solicitor General Pacifico P.
de Castro, ssistant Solicitor General !rine C. "aballero, Solicitor Ca#ilo D. $uiason
and Solicitor C. Padua for respondents.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin
! hereinafter
referred to as Respondents"Prosecutors ! several #udges
$
! hereinafter referred to
as Respondents"%udges ! issued, on different dates,
&
a total of '$ search (arrants
against petitioners herein
'
and)or the corporations of (hich the* (ere officers,
+
directed to the an* peace officer, to search the persons above"named and)or the
premises of their offices, (arehouses and)or residences, and to sei,e and ta-e
possession of the follo(ing personal propert* to (it.
Boo-s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts,
ledgers, #ournals, portfolios, credit #ournals, t*pe(riters, and other documents
and)or papers sho(ing all business transactions including disbursements
receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins
/cigarette (rappers0.
as 1the sub#ect of the offense2 stolen or embe,,led and proceeds or fruits of the
offense,1 or 1used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,1
(hich is described in the applications adverted to above as 1violation of Central Ban-
3a(s, 4ariff and Customs 3a(s, 5nternal Revenue /Code0 and the Revised Penal
Code.1
Alleging that the aforementioned search (arrants are null and void, as contravening
the Constitution and the Rules of Court ! because, inter alia. /0 the* do not describe
(ith particularit* the documents, boo-s and things to be sei,ed2 /$0 cash mone*, not
mentioned in the (arrants, (ere actuall* sei,ed2 /&0 the (arrants (ere issued to fish
evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against
them2 /'0 the searches and sei,ures (ere made in an illegal manner2 and /+0 the
documents, papers and cash mone* sei,ed (ere not delivered to the courts that
issued the (arrants, to be disposed of in accordance (ith la( ! on March $6, 78$,
said petitioners filed (ith the 9upreme Court this original action for certiorari,
prohibition, #anda#us and in#unction, and pra*ed that, pending final disposition of the
present case, a (rit of preliminar* in#unction be issued restraining Respondents"
Prosecutors, their agents and )or representatives from using the effects sei,ed as
aforementioned or an* copies thereof, in the deportation cases alread* adverted to,
and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered :uashing the contested
search (arrants and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the
respondents, their agents or representatives to return to petitioners herein, in
accordance (ith 9ection &, Rule 8;, of the Rules of Court, the documents, papers,
things and cash mone*s sei,ed or confiscated under the search (arrants in :uestion.
5n their ans(er, respondents"prosecutors alleged,
8
/0 that the contested search
(arrants are valid and have been issued in accordance (ith la(2 /$0 that the defects of
said (arrants, if an*, (ere cured b* petitioners< consent2 and /&0 that, in an* event, the
effects sei,ed are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the
alleged illegalit* of the aforementioned searches and sei,ures.
=n March $$, 78$, this Court issued the (rit of preliminar* in#unction pra*ed for in the
petition. >o(ever, b* resolution dated %une $7, 78$, the (rit (as partiall* lifted or
dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things sei,ed from the offices of the
corporations above mentioned are concerned2 but, the in#unction (as maintained as
regards the papers, documents and things found and sei,ed in the residences of
petitioners herein.
;
4hus, the documents, papers, and things sei,ed under the alleged authorit* of the
(arrants in :uestion ma* be split into t(o /$0 ma#or groups, namel*. /a0 those found
and sei,ed in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and /b0 those found and
sei,ed in the residences of petitioners herein.
As regards the first group, (e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to
assail the legalit* of the contested (arrants and of the sei,ures made in pursuance
thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the personalit* of herein petitioners,
regardless of the amount of shares of stoc- or of the interest of each of them in said
corporations, and (hatever the offices the* hold therein ma* be.
?
5ndeed, it is (ell
settled that the legalit* of a sei,ure can be contested onl% b* the part* (hose rights
have been impaired thereb*,
7
and that the ob#ection to an unla(ful search and sei,ure
is purel% personal and cannot be availed of b* third parties.
6
Conse:uentl*,
petitioners herein ma* not validl* ob#ect to the use in evidence against them of the
documents, papers and things sei,ed from the offices and premises of the
1
corporations adverted to above, since the right to ob#ect to the admission of said
papers in evidence belongs e&clusivel% to the corporations, to (hom the sei,ed effects
belong, and ma* not be invo-ed b* the corporate officers in proceedings against them
in their individual capacit*.