G.R. No.

L-342

May 4, 1946

AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner, ,vs. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL

DE JOYA, J.: Aurelio S. Alvero has been accused of treason, in criminal case that at
the hearing on his petition for bail, the prosecution presented, as part of its
evidence, certain documents which had been allegedly seized by soldiers of the
United States Army, accompanied by Filipino guerrillas, in the petitioner's house;
that petitioner immediately objected to the presentation of said documents, and
called the attention of the respondent judges to the fact that he had filed a petition,
in which he protested against the procedure of the government in the seizure of
said documents. petitioner renewed his objection thereto, and asked for their return
to him.
ISSUE: Whether the documents seized by United States Army personnel at Alveros
home can be used as evidence against the latter.
HELD: The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest herein
petitioner, as a collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers, without
any search warrant, in the zone of military operations, is unquestionable, to the
Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing
the seizure of military papers in the possession of prisoners of war); and also under
the proclamation of MacArthur, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of
the Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy, in violation
of the allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth
of the Philippines, when apprehended, from any position of political and economic
influence in the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war
The Petitioner consented to the presentation of the seized documents, as part
of the evidence for the prosecution, at the hearing in his petition for bail and at the
trial of the case on the merits, without having insisted that the question of the
alleged illegality of the search and seizure of said papers and documents should
first have been directly litigated and established by a motion. He already waived his
right here.
As the soldiers of the United States Army, that took and seized certain papers
and documents from the residence of herein petitioner, were not acting as agents or
on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that
those papers and documents came in the possession of the authorities of the
Commonwealth Government, through the Office of the CIC of the United States
Army in Manila, the use and presentation of said papers and documents, as
evidence for the prosecution against herein petitioner, at the trial of hi case for
treason, before the People's Court, cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of
unlawful or unreasonable searches and seizures, or on any other constitutional
ground, as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accusedappellant.
BIDIN, J.:p
FACT: the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of
the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita,
Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the
proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The appellant
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich,
Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction. Anita
Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages.
Appellan refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars,
and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich
Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened
appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. Job Reyes forthwith prepared a
letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of
the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper Dried marijuana leaves were
found to have been contained inside the cellophane wrappers The NBI agents made
an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after signing a
"Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects
Issue: Whether an act of a private individual,allegedly in violation of the accused
constitutional rights can be invoked against the state
HELD:
In the absence of governmentalinterference, the liberties guaranteed by theConstitu
tion cannot be invoked against the State. Records of the case clearly indicate that it
was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made
search/inspection of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard
operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before
delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs.It will be recalled that after Reyes
opened the box containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the same to the NBI
and later summoned the agents to his place of business
Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the
Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a
search.

Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the
individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals,
between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to
declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power
holder). The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked
against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
of power is imposed.

Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz [GR L-32409, 27 February 1971]
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote aletter addressed to Judge Vivencio M. Rui
z requesting the issuance of a search warrant against Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. and
Frederick
E.
Seggerman
for violation
of Section 46(a)
of
theNational Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), in relation to all other pertinent
provisions and authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo deLeon to make and file the
application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. In the afternoon of
the following day, De Leon and his witness, Arturo Logronio, went to the Court
of First
Instance
(CFI)
of
Rizal.
They
brought
with
them the following papers: Veras letter-request; an application for search warrantal
ready
filled
up
but
still
unsigned
by
De
Leon;
an affidavit of Logronio subscribed before De Leon; a deposition in printed form
Logronio
already accomplished and signed by him but
not yet subscribed; and a search warrant
already accomplished but still unsigned by Judge.
At that time the Judge was hearing acertain case; so
by means of a note, he
instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of De Leon and
Logronio. After the session had adjourned, the Judge was informed
that the depositions had already been taken. The stenographer, upon request of the
Judge,read to him her stenographic notes. The Judge asked Logronio to take the
oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal
basis,
he
could
be
charged
for
perjury.
The
Judge
signed
de Leons application for search warrant and
Logronios deposition. Search Warrant 2-M-70was then signed by Judge and accordin
glyissued.
3
days
later
(a
Saturday),
the
BIR
agents
served the search warrant to the corporation and Seggerman at the offices of the
corporation on Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. The corporations lawyers protested the
search
on
the ground that no formal complaint ortranscript of testimony was attached to the
warrant The agents nevertheless proceededwith their search which yielded 6 boxes
of documents. .

Issue Whether the corporation has the right to contest the legality of the seizure of
documents from its office.
Held:
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.
the Supreme Court impliedly recognized the
right
of
a
corporation
to object against unreasonable searches andseizures; holding that the corporations
have their respective personalities, separate from the personality of the corporate
officers, the corporate officers therefore may not validly object to the use in
evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices
of the
corporations,
since
the right
to
object to the admission of said papers inevidence belongs exclusively to the
corporations, to whom the seized belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate
officers in proceedings against their individual capacity.
In this case,there was no personal examination conducted by the Judge
of the complainant (De Leon) and his witness(Logronio).
words of
warning
against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant
and
his
witness.
This
cannot
be
consider
a
personal
examination. the search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. and
warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized , Search Warrant 2-M70 is null and void.

Stonehill vs. Diokno [GR L-19550, 19 June1967]

En Banc, Concepcion (CJ): 6 concur
Facts:
A
total
of
42
search
warrants
against
Harry S.
Stonehill,Robert P. Brooks, HJohn J. Brooks, and KarlBeck, and/or the corporations of
which they were officers, directed to any peace officer, to search the said persons
and/or the premises their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and
to seize and take possession of the following
personal
property
to wit:
Booksof accounts,financial records, vouchers, correspondence,receipts, ledgers, jo
urnals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documentsand/or
papers
showing
all
business
transactionsincluding disbursements receipts, balancesheets and profit and loss stat
ements andBobbins (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.

Stonehill, et. al. filed with the Supreme Court the original action for
certiorari,prohibition, mandamus and injunction. the Supreme Court issued the writ
of preliminary injunction prayed for in the petition. However, by resolution dated 29
June1962,
the
writ
was
partially
lifted
or
dissolved,
insofar as the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the
corporations are concerned; but, the injunction was maintained as regards the
papers, documents and thingsfound and seized in the residences of Stonehill,et. al.
Issue:Whether Stonehill, et. al. can assail the legality of the contested warrants
that
allowed
seizure
of
documents,
papers
and
other
effect
in the corporate offices, and other places besides their residences.
Held:The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all
records of the corporate officers and the
corporations, whatever their nature, thusopenly contravening the explicit command
of our Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described.
Stonehill, et. al. have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance because the corporations have
their
respective
personalities,separate and distinct from the personality of Stonehill, et. al., 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.
Stonehill,
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 inevidence 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. With
respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the residences of Stonehill,
restrained the prosecutors from using them in evidence. Thus, the Court held that
the
warrants
for
the
search
of
3
residences
are
null
and
void;that the searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of
preliminary
injunctionheretofore issued, in connection with the
documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences is made
permanent, that the writs prayed for are granted,
Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 US 547, 31May 1978]
Facts:Officers of the Palo Alto Police Department and of the Santa Clara County
Sheriffs
Department
responded
to
a
call
lfrom the director of the Stanford UniversityHospital requesting the removal of a large
group of demonstrators who had seized the
hospitals administrative offices and occupied them since the previous afternoon.
After several futile efforts to persuade the demonstrators to leave peacefully, more
drastic measures were employed. The police chose to force their way in at the west end

of
the
corridor
and
a
group
of
demonstrators
emerged
through
the doors at the east end and, armed with
sticks
and clubs,
attacked the
group of ninepolice officers stationed there. All nine wereinjured.
The officers themselves were able to identify only two of their assailants, but one
of them
did
see
at
least
one
person
photographing
the assault at the east doors. On April 11(Sunday),
a student newspaper published at
Stanford University, carried articles and
photographs devoted to the hospital protest
and the violent clash between demonstrators and police. The next day, the Santa
ClaraCounty District Attorneys Office secured a warrant from the Municipal Court for an
immediate search of the Dailys offices for
negatives, film, and pictures showing the
events and occurrences at the hospital. The warrant issued on a finding of just,
probable and reasonable cause for believing that: Negatives and photographs and films,
evidence material and relevant to the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, to wit,
Battery on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly Weapon, will be located
There
is
no allegation or indication that
members of the Daily staff were in any way involved in unlawful acts at the hospital.
The search pursuant to the warrant was conducted later that day by 4 police officers
and took place in the presence of some members of the Dailystaff.
The search revealed only the
photographs that
had already been
published. The complaint alleged that the search of the Dailys office had deprived
respondents under color of state law of rights secured to them by the First,
Fourth,and Fourteenth Amendments of the UnitedStates Constitution.
Issue:Whether
the
Fourth
Amendment
is applied to the third partysearch, the recurring situation where state
authorities
have probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of crime
is located on identified property but do not then have probable cause to believe that
the owner or possessor of the property is
himself implicated in the crime that has
occurred or is occurring.
Held:State is not prevented by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from issuing a
warrant to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of the place to
be searched is not reasonably suspected of criminal involvement. The critical element in
a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime but that there
is reasonable cause to believe that the things to be searched for and seized are
located
on
the
property
to
which
entry
is
sought.
The
District Courts new rule denying search warrants against third parties and insisting on
subpoenas would
undermine law enforcement
efforts since search warrants are often used
early in an investigation before all theperpetrators of a crime have been identified and
the seemingly blameless third party may be implicated. delay in employing a subpoena
duces tecum could easily result in
disappearance
of
the
evidence.
The
preconditions for a search warrant (probable cause, specificity with respect to the place
to be searched and the things to be seized, and overall reasonableness), which must be
applied
with particular exactitude when First
Amendment
interests
would
be
endangered
by
the search, are adequate safeguards against
the interference with the press ability togather, analyze, and disseminate news that

respondents claim would ensue from use of warrants for third-party

of newspaper offices.

searches