Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Bache & Co Phil Inc v. Ruiz

    Uploaded by

    Robby Delgado
    The corporation contested the legality of a search and seizure of documents from its offices. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation has the right to object to unreasonable searches and seizures that impair its rights. The search warrant in this case was void for several reasons: 1) the judge did not personally examine the complainant or witness, 2) it was issued for multiple distinct tax offenses, and 3) it did not particularly describe the things to be seized. As the search warrant was void, the corporation's rights were impaired by the seizure of documents, so it had standing to contest the search and seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bache & Co Phil Inc v. Ruiz

    Uploaded by

    Robby Delgado
    90 views3 pages
    The corporation contested the legality of a search and seizure of documents from its offices. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation has the right to object to unreasonable searches and seizures that impair its rights. The search warrant in this case was void for several reasons: 1) the judge did not personally examine the complainant or witness, 2) it was issued for multiple distinct tax offenses, and 3) it did not particularly describe the things to be seized. As the search warrant was void, the corporation's rights were impaired by the seizure of documents, so it had standing to contest the search and seizure.

    Original Title

    13. Bache & Co Phil Inc v. Ruiz.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The corporation contested the legality of a search and seizure of documents from its offices. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation has the right to object to unreasonable searches and seizures that impair its rights. The search warrant in this case was void for several reasons: 1) the judge did not personally examine the complainant or witness, 2) it was issued for multiple distinct tax offenses, and 3) it did not particularly describe the things to be seized. As the search warrant was void, the corporation's rights were impaired by the seizure of documents, so it had standing to contest the search and seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views3 pages

    Bache & Co Phil Inc v. Ruiz

    Uploaded by

    Robby Delgado
    The corporation contested the legality of a search and seizure of documents from its offices. The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation has the right to object to unreasonable searches and seizures that impair its rights. The search warrant in this case was void for several reasons: 1) the judge did not personally examine the complainant or witness, 2) it was issued for multiple distinct tax offenses, and 3) it did not particularly describe the things to be seized. As the search warrant was void, the corporation's rights were impaired by the seizure of documents, so it had standing to contest the search and seizure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    13. Bache & Co Phil Inc v.

    Ruiz thereafter, the Judge asked Logronio to take the oath and
    warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and
    GR L-32409, 27 February 1971 without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury.

    Facts: The Judge signed de Leon’s application for search warrant and
    Logronio’s deposition. Search Warrant 2-M-70 was then
    On 24 February 1970, Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of signed by Judge and accordingly issued. 3 days later (a
    Internal Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to Judge Vivencio Saturday), the BIR agents served the search warrant to the
    M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against corporation and Seggerman at the offices of the corporation on
    Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. and Frederick E. Seggerman for Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal.
    violation of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue
    Code (NIRC), in relation to all other pertinent provisions The corporation’s lawyers protested the search on the ground
    thereof, particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was
    authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon to make and attached to the warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded
    file the application for search warrant which was attached to with their search which yielded 6 boxes of documents.
    the letter.
    On 3 March 1970, the corporation and Seggerman filed a
    In the afternoon of the following day, De Leon and his witness, petition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal praying
    Arturo Logronio, went to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of that the search warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that
    Rizal. They brought with them the following papers: Vera’s preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be
    letter-request; an application for search warrant already filled issued, that the search warrant be declared null and void, and
    up but still unsigned by De Leon; an affidavit of Logronio that Vera, Logronio, de Leon, et. al., be ordered to pay the
    subscribed before De Leon; a deposition in printed form of corporation and Seggerman, jointly and severally, damages and
    Logronio already accomplished and signed by him but not yet attorney’s fees.
    subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but still
    unsigned by Judge. At that time the Judge was hearing a certain After hearing and on 29 July 1970, the court issued an order
    case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In
    Court to take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. the meantime, or on 16 April 1970, the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue made tax assessments on the corporation in the total
    After the session had adjourned, the Judge was informed that sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, based on the
    the depositions had already been taken. The stenographer, upon documents thus seized.
    request of the Judge, read to him her stenographic notes; and
    The corporation and Seggerman filed an action for certiorari, corporations in whose offices documents, papers and effects
    prohibition, and mandamus. were searched and seized were the petitioners; while in the
    latter, the corporation to whom the seized documents belong,
    Issue: and whose rights have thereby been impaired, is itself a
    petitioner.
    Whether the corporation has the right to contest the legality of
    the seizure of documents from its office. On that score, the corporation herein stands on a different
    footing from the corporations in Stonehill. Moreover, herein,
    the search warrant was void inasmuch as First, there was no
    Held: personal examination conducted by the Judge of the
    complainant (De Leon) and his witness (Logronio).
    The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party
    whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the The Judge did not ask either of the two any question the answer
    objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether or
    and cannot be availed of by third parties. In Stonehill, et al. vs. not there was probable cause against Bache & Co. and
    Diokno, et al. (GR L-19550, 19 June 1967; 20 SCRA 383) the Seggerman. The participation of the Judge in the proceedings
    Supreme Court impliedly recognized the right of a corporation which led to the issuance of Search Warrant 2-M-70 was thus
    to object against unreasonable searches and seizures; holding limited to listening to the stenographer’s readings of her notes,
    that the corporations have their respective personalities, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury,
    separate and distinct from the personality of the corporate and to administering the oath to the complainant and his
    officers, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the witness. This cannot be consider a personal examination.
    interest of each of them in said corporations, whatever, the
    offices they hold therein may be; and that the corporate officers
    therefore may not validly object to the use in evidence against Second, the search warrant was issued for more than one
    them of the documents, papers and things seized from the specific offense. The search warrant was issued for at least 4
    offices and premises of the corporations, since the right to distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The first is the violation
    object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs of Section 46(a), Section 72 and Section 73 (the filing of
    exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects income tax returns), which are interrelated. The second is the
    belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in violation of Section 53 (withholding of income taxes at
    proceedings against them in their individual capacity. source).

    The distinction between the Stonehill case and the present case The third is the violation of Section 208 (unlawful pursuit of
    is that: in the former case, only the officers of the various business or occupation); and the fourth is the violation of
    Section 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business
    or gross value of output actually removed or to pay the tax due
    thereon). Even in their classification the 6 provisions are
    embraced in 2 different titles: Sections 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are
    under Title II (Income Tax); while Sections 208 and 209 are
    under Title V (Privilege Tax on Business and Occupation).

    Lastly, the search warrant does not particularly describe the


    things to be seized. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 tends to defeat
    the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the elimination of
    general warrants, for the language used therein is so all-
    embracing as to include all conceivable records of the
    corporation, which, if seized, could possibly render its business
    inoperative. Thus, Search Warrant 2-M-70 is null and void.

    (Narratives Constitutional Law II – Michael Vernon Guerrero


    Mendiola 2005)

    You might also like