G.R. No. L-19550 Case Digest

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

Harry Stonehill,etc.

vs Hon. Jose Diokno, etc.

Ponente: Conception

Facts:

Respondents issued 42 search warrants against the petitioners. However, petitioners questioned the legality of the warrants on the ground that, according to them, (1) did not describe the particularity of the documents to be seized, (2) cash money not mentioned in the warrants were seized, (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence in a deportation case against them, (4) the search and seizure were made in an illegal manner, (5) the seized documents and money were not delivered to the courts.

In response, the respondents said that the (1) search was valid and if there are any defects, (2) it has already been cured by the consent of the petitioners. The court granted the preliminary injunction prayed by the petitioners, but it was partially dissolved as to the documents seized from the office of the corporation. Maintaining the injunction as regards to the documents seized in the residences of the petitioners.

In the corporate documents, the petitioners have no cause of action to question the legality of the warrants because the corporation have a separate personality from its stockholders. But with the documents seized in the residence may raise 2 questions to be settled:

Issues: (1) whether the search warrants were made under the authority and (2) and if the answer is negative, whether those documents may be used as evidence against the petitioners in deportation case.

Ruling:

Constitutional mandate, namely: (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.

None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban 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.

Thus, the warrants 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 warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our 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.

Relying upon Moncado vs. People's Court (80 Phil. 1), Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that, even if the searches and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Upon mature deliberation, however, we are unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position was in line with the American common law rule.

We are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed, should we agree thereto. At any rate, we do not deem it necessary to express our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.

We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same Resolution, without special pronouncement as to costs.