Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Facts:
In the afternoon of the following day, de Leon and his witness, Logronio,
went to the CFI of Rizal for the application for search warrant. Judge
Ruiz was able to take Logronio’s oath and signed the application. Thus,
the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70.
Petitioner filed a petition with the CFI of Rizal praying that the search
warrant be quashed and be considered null and void. But respondent
Judge dismissed the petition. Consequently, the BIR made tax
assessments against petitioners based on the seized documents.
Hence, this present petition.
RULING: YES.
In addition, the Court states, citing the case of Stonehill v. Diokno, the
imlied recognition on the right of a corporation to object against
unreasonable search and seizures, to wit:
“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 may not
validly invoke object to the use as evidence against them of the
documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of
the corporation, since such right belongs exclusively to the corporations,
the whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual
capacity.”