G.R. No.

L-19550
1967

Stonehill vs Diokno

June 19,

I.
Facts
A. Several Judges issued 42 different search warrants against the petitioners;
providing for the search of the respondents house, office or warehouse.
B. The search warrants were executed by NBI agents; thus seizing 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 etc.
C. The search warrants issued by the various courts of justice were assailed by
petitioners on the ground that the said warrants are of general in nature; thus
rendering it null and void for being illegally procured.
II.
Reliefs proposed for:
A. Petitioners pray that all the documents and money seized in their house, office or
warehouse be returned accordingly.
B. Petitioners argue that since the search is illegal; then the papers cannot be used
against them in court proceedings.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE WARRANTS ISSUED WERE LAWFUL; WHETHER OR
NOT OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE IS COVERED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST
ILLEGAL SEIZURE
III.

Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the petition of the petitioners saying that the
search warrants executed by the respondents were illegally procured citing the
following:
ARTICLE 3 (BILL OF RIGHTS)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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.
Obiter Dicta : CASTRO, J., concurring and dissenting:
I do not share his reluctance or unwillingness to expressly declare the nullity of
the search warrants served at places other than the three residences, and the
illegibility of the searches and seizures conducted under the authority thereof..All
the search warrants, without exception, in this case are admittedly general,
blanket and roving warrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably
outlawed by the Constitution..Whether or not the petitioners possess legal
standing for the said warrants are void and the searches and seizures were
illegal
Independent of ownership or other personal interest in the records and
documents seized, the petitioners have standing to move for return and
suppression by virtue of their proprietary or leasehold interest in many of the
premises searched. These proprietary and leasehold interests have been
sufficiently set forth in their motion for reconsideration and need not be recounted

here, except to emphasize that the petitioners paid rent, directly or indirectly, for
practically all the premises searched