STONEHILL VS DIOKNO

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO

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

Facts:

            Respondent judges issued on different dates a total of 42 search warrant against petitioners and/or corporations of which they were officers, directed to any peace officer, to search the persons and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residence and to seize and take possession of the following personal proper: “books of account, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipt ledger, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters and other document and/or paper showing all sheets and profit and loss statements and bobbins.” As the subject of the offense, stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense or used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense which is described in the applications adverted to above as violation of central bank laws, tariff and custom laws, internal revenue code and revised penal code.

Issue:

            Whether or not the search warrant is valid

Ruling:

            The Supreme Court held that to be valid two points must be stressed: 1. that no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause to be determined by the judge in a manner set forth in the provision 2. That the warrant shall particularly described the things to be seized. None of these requirements has been complied with the contested warrant.

            Indeed, the same were issued upon application stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code and Revised Penal Code”. In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said application. It was impossible for the judge who issued the warrant to have found the existence of probable cause. The application do not alleged any specific acts performed by petitioner.

            The warrant 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 warrant sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the corporation whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our bill of rights - that the thing to be seize be particularly described as well as tending to defeat it major objectives to eliminate general warrants.