Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

disbursement receipts, balance sheets, and profil and loss statements and

Topic: Searches and Siezures Bobbins (cigarette wrappers)


Case No.: No. L-19550. June 19, 1967.  Petitioners allege the validity of above warrants on the grounds that:
Case Name: Stonehill vs. Diokno o No particularity in describing the things to be seized
Full Case Name: HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and o Cash money not in the warrants was actually seized
KARL BECK, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as o The items seized will be used to fish for evidence against them and were
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as Acting Director, not delivered to the courts which issued the warrant
National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PEDRO D.  Respondent-prosecutors responded:
CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR., and ASST. FISCAL o Defects of the warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners’ consent
MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; o Seized items were admissible as evidence, regardless of alleged illegality
JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE  SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction but only on items seized from the
HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City residences and not on items seized from offices.
Branch and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon City,  documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants
respondents.Ponente: Del Castillo, J. in question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and
Digest Writer: Jerelleen seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found and
Nature: ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari, prohibition, seized in the residences of petitioners herein
mandamus and injunction.

SUMMARY ISSUES/RATIO DECIDENDI

Stonehill and other officers were accused of violating the Internal Revenue Code 1. W/N the petitioners had a cause of action in assailing the validity of the
and the Revised Penal Code. General warrants were issued and the items in search warrants for the items seized in the office spaces
connection to the crime were seized from the residences and office. The petitioners
are assailing the admissibility of such evidence as well as the validity of the search No cause of action. no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants issue. SC ruled that they have no cause of action in regards to the items warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that
seized from the corporation since it has its own separate legal personality. said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from
However, the court ruled that the items seized from their residences were the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock
inadmissible as evidence as it did not particularly identify the items to be seized. or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices
they hold therein may be.
RELEVANT FACTS
2. W/N the searches and seizures made under the search warrant for their
 Petitioners Stonehill et al. were officers in corporations and who were accused of residences are valid
violating “Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code.” No. The items were seized under an invalid search warrant
 Subsequently, a total of 42 search warrants were issued to search the petitioners,
the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take The right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
possession of the following: unreasonable searches and seizures are anchored on two other points: (1) no
o Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, warrant shall be issued unless a probable cause is determined by a judge; and (2)
ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other said warrant must describe in particularity the things seized. None of these two
documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including requirements were satisfied by the contested warrants: no specific offense has
been stated, and the enumeration of things to be seized pertain to all business
transactions, regardless if legal or illegal. of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But, then, this fishing expedition is
indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants.
Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and To prevent irregularities in the issuance of search warrants, the court amended
juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, the Revised Rules of Court to provide that "a search warrant shall not issue but
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense." Not satisfied with
other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no search
averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense."
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 DISPOSITIVE
of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given . We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it
provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants for the search of three (3) residences of
case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be the herein petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void;
legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank that the searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code," injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the documents, papers and other
— as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any effects thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby made
determinate provision of said laws 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
3. W/N the items seized are admissible as evidence against petitioners 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
No. Inadmissible as evidence 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,
Relying upon Moncado vs. People's Court, Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that, without special pronouncement as to costs.
even if the searches and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the
documents, papers and things thus seized are admissible in evidence against It is so ordered.
petitioners herein. Upon mature deliberation, however, we are unanimously of the
opinion that the position taken in the Moncado case must be abandoned. CONCURRING OPINIONS

the exclusionary rule - evidence unlawfully acquired must be excluded from CASTRO, J., concurring and dissenting:
proceedings, (as they are in violation of the rights of the accused). J. Castro agrees with the majority in declaring the warrants null and void, that the
Moncado doctrine be abandoned, and that the things seized must not be admitted
Indeed, the non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the as evidence against Stonehill et al. However, J. Castro disagrees on the Court’s
spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. unwillingness or reluctance to declare the nullity of the warrants served at the
To be sure, if the applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence to office spaces, citing lack of standing of the petitioners.
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 In J. Castro’s view, the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to assail the
not comply with the requirements of the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if validity of said warrants since: (1) the petitioners as officers of the corporations
he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the Judge to find that own and/control the warehouse and office premises; (2) by extension, they also
there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the warrant. own the things seized; and (3) the aggrieved person doctrine where the search
The only possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the necessity warrant was primarily directed against the petitioners.

S-ar putea să vă placă și