Harry Stonehill, Robert Brooks, John Brooks, Karl Beck, petitioners vs. DOJ Secretary Jose W. Diokno, Acting NBI Director Jose Lukban, Special Prosecutors Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal, Jr. and Asst. Fiscal Manases G. Reyes, Municipal Court of Manila Judge Amado Roan, Municipal Court of Manila Judge Roman Cansino, Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch Judge Hermogenes Caluag, and Municipal Court of Quezon City Judge Damian Jimenez, respondents.1

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

TOPIC: Constitutional and Human Rights - unreasonable searches and seizures

PONENTE: Chief Justice Concepcion.

FACTS: On different dates, several judges issued a total of 42 search warrants that directed peace officers to search the premises of the offices, warehouses, and residences of Harry Stonehill, Robert Brooks, Karl Beck, et. al. and seize the following properties: 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), in relation to violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.

Stonehill and his co-petitioners objected to the search warrants issued and the subsequent seizure of the properties, as the warrants are in nature of a general (search) warrant which violated the Constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Meanwhile, the respondents answered that first, the questioned search warrants are valid and issued in accordance with the law. Second, the consent of the petitioners cured any (legal) defects present in these warrants and third, the properties seized are admissible in evidence regardless of the illegality of the search and seizures conducted.

The Supreme Court issued the writ on 22 March 1962 which granted the petitioner’s prayer for writ of preliminary injunction. However, the writ was partially lifted or dissolved by the Court through its 29 June 1962 resolution, in relation to the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the corporations where the petitioners were officers. However, the injunction was

1 Harry Stonehill vs. DOJ Secretary Jose W. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967, The LawPhil Project website, http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jun1967/gr_l-19550_1967.html. (Last seen at 31 March 2015, 1:55 p.m.)

maintained on the papers, documents and things found and seized in their residences.

ISSUE: Whether the search warrants contravene the Constitutional provision on unreasonable searches and seizures and thus, the properties seized cannot be used as evidence against Stonehill and his co-petitioners?

HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT: The Supreme Court held that the searches and seizures made by the respondents are illegal as to the properties seized in the residence of the petitioners. However, the Court did not include the properties that were seized from their offices.

DOCTRINES UPHELD: (1) A general warrant is a warrant that sanctions seizure of records whatever its nature. (2) General warrants contravene the Constitution about the particular description of things to be seized. (3) The right to object to admission as evidence the documents, papers and things seized from the offices of a particular corporation belongs exclusively to such corporation and may not be invoked by its corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

RATIONALE: The objective of the Constitution about the particular description of things to be seized is to eliminate general warrants.