Scribd
Upload
60 views2 pages

Stonehill Vs Diokno

(1) Respondents secured 42 search warrants against petitioners, officers of a corporation, to search offices, warehouses, residences and seize books, records, and other documents. (2) Petitioners allege the warrants are null and void for failing to particularly describe items and seizing cash not listed. (3) The Court upheld seizures from corporate offices as corporations have separate legal status, but invalidated warrants for residences for failing to allege specific offenses or acts in applications.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views2 pages

Stonehill Vs Diokno

(1) Respondents secured 42 search warrants against petitioners, officers of a corporation, to search offices, warehouses, residences and seize books, records, and other documents. (2) Petitioners allege the warrants are null and void for failing to particularly describe items and seizing cash not listed. (3) The Court upheld seizures from corporate offices as corporations have separate legal status, but invalidated warrants for residences for failing to allege specific offenses or acts in applications.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

STONEHILL vs DIOKNO

G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

FACTS:
Respondents herein secured a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners of which they are
officers of a corporation, to search their offices, warehouses and residences, and to seize and take
possession of the following personal property to wit:

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios,
credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins
(cigarette wrappers).

Alleging in the application that the abovementioned property are subject of offenses in violation of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code and Revised Penal Code.

Petitoners are alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void and filed with the
Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction, as
contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court — because

(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in
the warrants, were actually seized; (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in
deportation cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and (5) the documents,
papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance
with law.

The Court issued the injunction prayed for but then subsequently partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as
the papers seized from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned. But, the
injunction was maintained as regards the papers seized in the residences of petitioners.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioners can validly assail the search warrant against the corporation.

RULING:

As to the things seized in the offices of the corporation

The Court that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants and seizures because said corporations have separate and distinct personality of herein
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said
corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.

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.

Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence the things seized from
the offices and premises of the corporations, since the right to object to the admission of said papers
in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not
be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
As to the things seized in the residences

The warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners are null and void; that the
searches and seizures therein made are illegal

Two points must be stressed in connection with this 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.

These requirements have not been complied with in the contested warrants. It merely stated 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. 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.

As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by
herein petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation
of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,"
— as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of
said laws

To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most
fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of
peace officers.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy