G.R. No.
L-19550 June 19, 1967 inadmissible to the case positing the Article 3 Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, which
HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL
BECK, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO
Under Scope of Protection.
FACTS:
42 Search Warrants were issued by the government against the Garry Stonehill and
3 other petitioners in this case. The Search Warrant directed the police authority to
search the residences, warehouse, and office of the appellants. The things to be
seized are the following:
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 subject of the offense was an alleged violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
However, the petitioners contested the validity of the search as it falls within the
general warrant. The Search did not specify the thing to be seized. In addition, other
things were seized even though it was not written to the search warrant. The
Search Warrant did not also specify which part of the law was violated by the
petitioner. Thus he appealed to the Supreme Court to make the evidence obtained
provides protection against illegal search conducted by the public authority.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures
made under the authority are valid.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that search mad was invalid. Hence, the evidence is
inadmissible to the court.
In determining the validity of the search warrant, the Supreme Court answered the
test of valid search warrant.
“Two points must be stressed in connection with this 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 the 2 requirements were met by the search warrant. First point this case is
the probable cause of the search warrant. The search warrant did not specify what
specific violation was made by the petitioner. The violation was written in general
sense. In order for the search warrant to become valid, It must clearly states first
the alleged violations. In this case, Harry Stonehill and 3 others were not aware of
the alleged violations they have committed. Simply because the search warrant only
mentioned general law, but did not specify which part of the law was violated.
Second point of this case is the things to be seized. The search warrant authorized
policemen to seize documents of all business transactions whether illegal or legal.
Again this is not in line to the constitutional mandate of the state against general
search warrant.
With all the premises mentioned, the Supreme Court abandoned their former ruling
on the Moncado vs. People’s Court. The evidence obtained illegally is no longer
admissible to the court. This is in line with constitutional mandate of the state
which is to protect its citizen against illegal search of public authority.
In conclusion, the evidence illegally obtained by the authority is inadmissible to the
court because if fails to answer the question of valid search warrant.