Search and Seizure – General Warrants – Abandonment of the Moncado Doctrine Stonehill vs.Diokno HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK Petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as Acting Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon City, Respondents. G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967 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 abovenamed 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 documents of accounts, papers financial showing records, all vouchers, correspondence, including receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other and/or business transactions 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: As a consequence. not mentioned in the warrants. were cured by petitioners’ consent. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against them. invoking the Moncado doctrine. Tariff and Customs Laws. The warrant was issued from mere allegation that Stonehill et al committed a ―violation of Central Bank Laws. in any event. In short. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. the criminal cannot be set free just because the government blunders. The SC emphasized however that Stonehill et al cannot assail the validity of the search warrant issued against their corporation for Stonehill is not the proper party hence has no cause of action. and (3) that. The prosecution counters. It should be raised by the officers or board members of the corporation. to be disposed of in accordance with law. . HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant issue is valid. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. It provides. (2) cash money. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. books and things to be seized. papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants. The constitution protects the people’s right against unreasonable search and seizure.(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. that the defects of said warrants. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. were actually seized. (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them. or committed specific omissions. if any. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. and (5) the documents. In the case at bar. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications.‖ In other words. none of these are met. balance sheets and related profit and loss statements. correspondence. portfolios. the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill et al.As a matter of fact. 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. financial records. 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 convict anybody of a ―violation of Central Bank Laws. receipts. whatever their nature. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. credit journals. journals. Tariff and Customs Laws. ledgers.‖ — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes. of the highest order. . The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al and the aforementioned corporations. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts. regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal.‖ Thus. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. to wit: ―Books of accounts. It would be a legal heresy. vouchers. typewriters. The Moncado doctrine is likewise abandoned and the right of the accused against a defective search warrant is emphasized.
Report "Stonehill vs Diokno 28 SCRA 383 (Case Digest).docx"