Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
60 views

Stonehill vs. Diokno, GR. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

(1) The Supreme Court ruled search warrants issued against petitioners were invalid as they did not describe with particularity the things to be seized and probable cause was not properly established. (2) While respondents claimed any defects were cured by petitioners' consent, the court found the searches and seizures of documents from petitioners' residences were illegal. (3) The court abandoned the prior rule that illegally obtained documents could still be admitted as evidence, and made permanent the injunction prohibiting use of the seized residential documents in deportation proceedings against petitioners.

Uploaded by

Mary Jane Asnani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views

Stonehill vs. Diokno, GR. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

(1) The Supreme Court ruled search warrants issued against petitioners were invalid as they did not describe with particularity the things to be seized and probable cause was not properly established. (2) While respondents claimed any defects were cured by petitioners' consent, the court found the searches and seizures of documents from petitioners' residences were illegal. (3) The court abandoned the prior rule that illegally obtained documents could still be admitted as evidence, and made permanent the injunction prohibiting use of the seized residential documents in deportation proceedings against petitioners.

Uploaded by

Mary Jane Asnani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Stonehill vs. Diokno, GR. No.

L-19550, June 19, 1967


Facts:
Respondents issued 42 search warrants against the petitioners. However, petitioners questioned
the legality of the warrants on the ground that, according to them, (1) did not describe the
particularity of the documents to be seized, (2) cash money not mentioned in the warrants were
seized, (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence in a deportation case against them, (4) the
search and seizure were made in an illegal manner, (5) the seized documents and money were not
delivered to the courts.
In response, the respondents said that the (1) search was valid and if there are any defects, (2) it
has already been cured by the consent of the petitioners. The court granted the preliminary
injunction prayed by the petitioners, but it was partially dissolved as to the documents seized
from the office of the corporation. Maintaining the injunction as regards to the documents seized
in the residences of the petitioners.
In the corporate documents, the petitioners have no cause of action to question the legality of the
warrants because the corporation have a separate personality from its stockholders. But with the
documents seized in the residence may raise 2 questions to be settled:
Issues:
(1) whether the search warrants were made under the authority and (2) and if the answer is
negative, whether those documents may be used as evidence against the petitioners in deportation
case.
Ruling:
Constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall
particularly describe the things to be seized.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same
were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had
committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a
consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the
existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that
the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business
transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned
corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of
Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its
major objective: the elimination of general warrants.
Relying upon Moncado vs. People's Court (80 Phil. 1), Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that,
even if the searches and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the documents,
papers and things thus seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Upon mature
deliberation, however, we are unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the Moncado
case must be abandoned. Said position was in line with the American common law rule.
We are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the
contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion,
have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the
petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed, should we agree thereto. At any
rate, we do not deem it necessary to express our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter
open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.
We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby,
abandoned; that the warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, as
specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures
therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection
with the documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is
hereby made permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers
and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the
aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied;
and that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as regards the
documents, papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other
premises enumerated in the same Resolution, without special pronouncement as to costs.

2. Bache and Co. vs Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, February 27, 1971

You might also like