stonehill vs diokno As to the first group of things seized. Indeed, 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. LOPEZ VS COMMISSIONER Manicurist only There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the circumstances, therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant. The petition cannot, therefore, prevail. PEOPLE VS MALASUGUI
Chinese merchant. Robbery with homicide.
When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. PEOPLE VS DAMASO Helper The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf. CFI VS ALVAREZ While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. 2. Directed only against the State PEOPLE VS MARTI WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS NLRC PEOPLE VS MENDOZA