STONEHILL VS.

DIOKNO

Stonehill et al and the corporation they form were alleged to have committed acts in
violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code. By the strength of this allegation a search warrant was
issued against their persons and their corporation. The warrant provides authority
to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the following
personal property to wit:
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).
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the
warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:
(a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and
(b) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein.
Stonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for:
(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be
seized;
(2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized;
(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners
in deportation cases filed against them;
(4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and
(5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts
that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The prosecution counters, invoking the Moncado doctrine, that the defects of said
warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners consent; and (3) that, in any event, the
effects seized are admissible in evidence against them. In short, the criminal cannot
be set free just because the government blunders.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant issue is valid.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al. The SC emphasized however that
Stonehill et al cannot assail the validity of the search warrant issued against their
corporation for Stonehill are not the proper party hence has no cause of action. It
should be raised by the officers or board members of the corporation. The
constitution protects the peoples right against unreasonable search and seizure. It
provides; (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined
by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall
particularly describe the things to be seized. In the case at bar, none of these are
met. The warrant was issued from mere allegation that Stonehill et al 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 applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed
were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the
warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes
the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this
case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a
legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a violation of Central Bank
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,
as alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference to any
determinate provision of said laws or codes.
The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested
search warrants was compounded by the description therein made of the effects to
be searched for and seized, to wit:
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts,
ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets
and related profit and loss statements.
Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of Stonehill et al, regardless of whether the transactions were
legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al
and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly
contravening the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be
seized be particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective:
the elimination of general warrants. The Moncado doctrine is likewise abandoned
and the right of the accused against a defective search warrant is emphasized.


UMALI (Castillo, Abanez, Jalbuena & Rivera) V. CA (BORMAHECO and PM Parts)
G.R. No. 89561September 13, 1990

FACTS:
The Castillo family:- are the owners of land located in Lucena City- which was
given as security for a loan from the DBP.- For their failure to pay the amortization,-
foreclosure of the said property was about to be initiated. Plaintiff Santiago Rivera:- is a
relative of the Castillos (nephew of the mother)- is the President of Slobec Realty- he
proposed to the Castillo- the conversion into subdivision of the (4) parcels of land-
adjacent to the mortgaged property to raise the necessary funds- to prevent the
foreclosure of the property
A Memo of Agreement was:- executed by and between Slobec Realty and the
Castillo family.- Rivera obliged himself to pay the Castillos P70,000.00- immediately
after the execution of the agreement and- the additional amount of P400,000.00- after
the property has been converted into a subdivision. Armed with the Memorandum of
Agreement:- Rivera (as President of Slobec Realty)- proposed to purchase from
Bormaheco- 2 tractors; A Sales Agreement was executed:- over a Tractor and- Slobec,
executed in favor of Bormaheco a Chattel Mortgage over the said equipment- as
security for the payment of the balance.
Slobec obtained a Surety Bond:- from ICP- as further security of the unpaid
balance (for the tractor)- with ICP as surety and Slobec as principal, in favor of
Bormaheco, The bond was secured by a Counter-Guaranty with Real Estate Mortgage:-
executed by Rivera as president of Slobec and- the Castillos, as mortgagors and- ICP
as mortgagee.- ICP guaranteed the obligation of Slobec with Bormaheco in the amount
of P180,000.00.- In giving the bond, ICP required that the Castillos mortgage to them
the properties in question. For violation of the terms and conditions of the Counter-
Guaranty Agreement:- the properties of the Castillos were foreclosed by ICP As the
highest bidder.- The mortgagors failed to redeem the property.- Consequently, ICP
consolidated its ownership over the land.- ICP sold to PM Parts 4 parcels of land and by
virtue of said conveyance,- PM Parts transferred unto itself the titles over the lots.PM
Parts requested the Castillos:- to vacate the subject property- but refused to comply
with his demands. Umali, as the appointed administratrix of the properties in question:-
filed an action for annulment of title- contending that all the aforementioned transactions
are void- for being entered into in fraud and- without the consent and approval of the
CFI- before whom the administration proceedings has been pending.- They pray that
the lands be declared as owned by the estate of the late Felipe Castillo. PM Parts says
that:- it is an innocent purchaser for value and relied on the face of the title- before it
bought the subject property
Judgment was rendered:- in favor of the the Castillos and against the
defendants,- declaring transactions null and void.- CA reversed the decision of the trial
court and- rendered the judgment subject of this petition.## Simulated contract issue
Umali contends that transactions:- entered into between Santiago M. Rivera, as
President of Slobec Realty and Mode Cervantes, as Vice-President of Bormaheco,-
such as the Sales Agreement, Chattel Mortgage and the Agreement of Counter-
Guaranty with Chattel/Real Estate Mortgage,- are all fraudulent and simulated and
should, therefore, be declared nun and void


BACHE VS. RUIZ

On 24 Feb 1970, Commlssloner Veru of Internul Revenue, wrote u letter uddressed to J Rulz requestlng the
lssuunce of u seurch wurrunt ugulnst petltloners for vlolutlon of Sec 46(u) of the NIRC, ln relutlon to ull other
pertlnent provlslons thereof, purtlculurly Sects 53, 72, 73, 208 und 209, und uuthorlzlng Revenue Exumlner de
Leon muke und flle the uppllcutlon for seurch wurrunt whlch wus uttuched to the letter. The next duy, de Leon
und hls wltnesses went to CFI Rlzul to obtuln the seurch wurrunt. At thut tlme J Rulz wus heurlng u certuln
cuse; so, by meuns of u note, he lnstructed hls Deputy Clerk of Court to tuke the deposltlons of De Leon und
Logronlo. After the sesslon hud ud|ourned, J Rulz wus lnformed thut the deposltlons hud ulreudy been tuken.
The stenogrupher reud to hlm her stenogruphlc notes; und thereufter, J Rulz usked respondent Logronlo to tuke
the outh und wurned hlm thut lf hls deposltlon wus found to be fulse und wlthout legul busls, he could be
churged for per|ury. J Rulz slgned de Leons uppllcutlon for seurch wurrunt und Logronlos deposltlon. The
seurch wus subsequently conducted.
ISSUE: Whether or not there hud been u vulld seurch wurrunt.
HELD: The SC ruled ln fuvor of Buche on three grounds.
1. J Rulz fulled to personully exumlne the complulnunt und hls wltness.
Personul exumlnutlon by the |udge of the complulnunt und hls wltnesses ls necessury to enuble hlm to
determlne the exlstence or non-exlstence of u probuble cuuse.
2. The seurch wurrunt wus lssued for more thun one speclflc offense.
The seurch wurrunt ln questlon wus lssued for ut leust four dlstlnct offenses under the Tux Code. As ruled
ln Stonehlll Such ls the serlousness of the lrregulurltles commltted ln connectlon wlth the dlsputed seurch
wurrunts, thut thls Court deemed lt flt to umend Sectlon 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court thut u
seurch wurrunt shull not lssue but upon probuble cuuse ln connectlon wlth one speclflc offense. Not sutlsfled
wlth thls quullflcutlon, the Court udded thereto u purugruph, dlrectlng thut no seurch wurrunt shull lssue for
more thun one speclflc offense.
3. The seurch wurrunt does not purtlculurly descrlbe the thlngs to be selzed.
The documents, pupers und effects sought to be selzed ure descrlbed ln the Seurch Wurrunt
Unreglstered und prlvute books of uccounts (ledgers, |ournuls, columnurs, recelpts und dlsbursements books,
customers ledgers); recelpts for puyments recelved; certlflcutes of stocks und securltles; contructs, promlssory
notes und deeds of sule; telex und coded messuges; buslness communlcutlons, uccountlng und buslness
records; checks und check stubs; records of bunk deposlts und wlthdruwuls; und records of forelgn
remlttunces, coverlng the yeurs 1966 to 1970.
The descrlptlon does not meet the requlrement ln Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constltutlon, und of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of
the Revlsed Rules of Court, thut the wurrunt should purtlculurly descrlbe the thlngs to be selzed.
A seurch wurrunt muy be suld to purtlculurly descrlbe the thlngs to be selzed when the descrlptlon thereln ls us
speclflc us the clrcumstunces wlll ordlnurlly ullow or when the descrlptlon expresses u concluslon of fuct not of
luw by whlch the wurrunt offlcer muy be gulded ln muklng the seurch und selzure or when the thlngs descrlbed
ure llmlted to those whlch beur dlrect relutlon to the offense for whlch the wurrunt ls belng lssued.