Constitutional Law; Search warrants; Corporations; Only party affected may contest legality of

seizure effected by search warrants.Officers of certain corporations, from which documents,

papers and things were seized by means of search warrants, have no cause of action to assail
the legality of the seizures because said corporations have personalities distinct and separate
from those of said officers. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
rights have been impaired thereby. The objection to an unlawful search is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties.
Same; Evidence: When illegally seized evidence is admissible.Officers of certain corporations
cannot validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things
seized from the offices and premises of the corporations since the right to object to their
admission in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to which the seized effects
belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their
individual capacity.
Same; Requisites for issuing search warrants.The Constitution provides that no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge, and that the warrant shall
particularly describe the things to be seized.
Same; General search warrants.Search warrants, issued upon applications stating that the
natural and juridical persons therein named had committed a violation of Central Bank laws,
tariff and customs laws, Tax Code and Revised Penal Code do not satisfy the constitutional
requirements because no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. It was
impossible for the judges, who issued the warrants, to have found the existence of probable
cause, which presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is
sought has performed particular acts or committed specific omissions in violation of a specific
penal provision.
Same; Why general warrants are outlawed.General search warrants are outlawed because
they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at
the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
Same; Provision of Revised Rules of Court.To prevent the issuance of general warrants, the
Supreme Court amended the Old Rules of Court by providing in the Revised Rules of Court that
"no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense".
Same; Warrants not describing particularly the things to be seized.Search warrants
authorizing the seizure of books of accounts and records "showing all the business
transactions" of certain persons, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal,
contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized should be
particularly described and defeat its major objective of eliminating general warrants.
Same; Evidence; Abandonment of Moncado ruling; Illegally seized documents are not admissible
in evidence.The Moncado ruling, that illegally seized documents, papers and things are
admissible in evidence, must be abandoned. The exclusion of such evidence is the only practical
means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the letter and spirit of the prohibition against

unreasonable searches and seizures. If there is competent evidence to establish probable cause
of the commission of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then
there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the constitutional requirements If
he has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the judge to find that there is a probable
cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only possible
explanation for the issuance in that case is the necessity of fishing for evidence of the
commission of a crime. Such a fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to
establish a probable cause.