Practice question
Two defendants seek exclusion of the same material seized in a search. The court finds an unconstitutional invasion of the first defendant’s own protected premises and papers. The second establishes no protected interest or invaded personal right and invokes only association with the first. No other evidentiary ground is raised. Which analysis follows Stonehill?
- Association alone makes every personal constitutional objection identical.
- The court must reject the first defendant’s claim because someone else also objects.
- The first defendant’s own-right claim and the second’s purely third-party claim must be assessed separately; joint accusation does not automatically transfer the search right.
- The second can create standing by declining to identify any invaded interest.
- A second defendant’s presence automatically cures the officers’ violation.
Legal references
- Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jun1967/gr_l-19550_1967.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2): https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.