STONEHILL VS DIOKNO

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.
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (G.R. No. L-64261)

Facts:
On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño, Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City], issued 2 search
warrants where the premises at 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City, business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers, respectively, were searched,
and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing,
publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written
literature alleged to be in the possession and control of Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper,
were seized. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction
was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge
Advocate General of the AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, et.al. from using the articles seized as evidence in Criminal
Case Q-022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People v. Burgos).

Issue:
Whether allegations of possession and printing of subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance of search
warrants.

Held:
Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, 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. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or
his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. Herein, a statement in the effect
that Burgos “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and
other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of
subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended” is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of
probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation
cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant. Further, when the search warrant applied for is directed
against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, the application
and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he
has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MOLINA

FACTS:

Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an information regarding the presence of an alleged marijuana
pusher in Davao City. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. As to
accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before the arrest. Moreover, the names and
addresses of the accused-appellants came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested. In the
morning of August 8,1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA,
Ma-a, Davao City. He called for assistance at the PNP proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they
would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by.At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, a “trisikad” carrying the
accused-appellants passed by. At that instance, SPO1Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as the pushers. The
police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. SPO1Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked
accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. Molina replied, “Boss, if possible we will settle this.” SPO1 Pamplona insisted
on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, accused-appellants Mula and Molina
were handcuffed by the police officers. Accused-appellants contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from them is
inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

ISSUE:

W/N THE MARIJUANA IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF
APPELLANTS’CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

HELD:

The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable fashion. The
Constitution provides: SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally 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. I Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the
evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2)
search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when
the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; ii[24]and (6) stop and frisk situations.
As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however,
recognizes permissible warrantless arrests. Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a
person: (a)when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
(arrest effected in hot pursuit);and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of escaped prisoners). In the case at bar,
accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad,
accused-appellants could not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have committed a crime. The response
of Molina that “Boss, if possible we will settle this” is an equivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute
probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not
participate in the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to the arresting officers), accused-appellants could not
be the subject of any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. SPO1 Paguidopon only learned Mula’s name and address after
the arrest. It is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant Mula.It is worthy to note that, before
the arrest, he was able to see Mula in person only once, pinpointed to him by his informer while they were on the side
of the road. These circumstances could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-appellant Mula,
considering that the latter was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him. With