Stonehill vs. Diokno Who May Invoke The Right

ROWARD TUBOG
USJR – School of Law

Subject: Constitutional Law 2
Topic: Arrests, Searches, and Seizures – Who may invoke the right?
Title: HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK,
petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in
his capacity as Acting Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL
MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN
CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First
Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of
Quezon City, respondents.
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David for
petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de
Castro, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero, Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason and
Solicitor C. Padua for respondents
Citation: G.R. No. L-19550. June 19, 1967
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the validity of search warrants and the seizures.
There were 42 search warrants secured by the respondents from Regional Trial Court to
search and seize personal properties belonging to the petitioner and/or the corporations of
which they were officers.
The search reads, in portion:

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all
business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers).
as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or
"used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is described in
the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
The petitioner argued that null and void as it contravenes the Constitution and the Rule of
Court – inter alia, (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things
to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; (3) the
warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation
cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and
(5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that
issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law
The respondents, in their part, countered (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and
have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were
cured by petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in
ROWARD TUBOG
evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned
searches and seizures.
Hence, this petition.
Issues:
Whether or not the petitioners can invoke their right insofar as those documents found and
seized in the offices of the corporation.
Ruling:
No.
The petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of contested warrants and of the
seizures made in the offices of the corporation 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.
In the case of Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. vs. United States, it has been held:
. . that the Government's action in gaining possession of papers belonging to the corporation
did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. If these papers were unlawfully
seized and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one were invaded, they were the rights
of the corporation and not the rights of the other defendants. Next, it is clear that a question of
the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights have been invaded.
Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants
whose property had not been seized or the privacy of whose homes had not been disturbed;
nor could they claim for themselves the benefits of the Fourth Amendment, when its violation,
if any, was with reference to the rights of another. Remus vs. United States (C.C.A.)291 F.
501, 511. It follows, therefore, that the question of the admissibility of the evidence based on
an alleged unlawful search and seizure does not extend to the personal defendants but
embraces only the corporation whose property was taken. . . .
Simply put 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.
Here, the petitioners 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.
ROWARD TUBOG

Stonehill vs. Diokno Who May Invoke The Right

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stonehill vs. Diokno Who May Invoke The Right

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROWARD TUBOG

USJR – School of Law

The search reads, in portion:

Hence, this petition.

You might also like