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.
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_l19550_1967.html. (Last seen at 31 March 2015, 1:55 p.m.)

The Supreme Court issued the writ on 22 March 1962 which granted the
petitioners 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
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.