Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama

G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967 Concepcion, C.J .

HARRY STONEHILL, ROBERT BROOKS, JOHN BROOKS, and KARL BECK, vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SEC. OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as
Acting Director, NBI; 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, CFI of Rizal-QC Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of QC

NATURE: Original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction (with a prayer that,
pending final disposition of the present case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining
respondents from using the effects seized)

FACTS: On different dates, respondents-judges issued a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners
and/or the corporations of which they were officers, directing any peace officer to search the persons
above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and
take possession of "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)" as the subject of the offense/ fruits of the offense/ used or intended
to be used as the means of committing the offense punishable under Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, the Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code.
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question may be split into two major groups:
Those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and
Those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

W/N the things found and seized in the offices were validly seized NO CAUSE OF ACTION
The corporations have respective personalities, separate and distinct from the petitioners. The
right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, and
may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

W/N the things found and seized in the residences were validly seized NO
Two points must be stressed regarding the right against unreasonable searches and seizures:
(1) no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set
forth in the Constitution; and (2) the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. Neither
of these was complied with. No specific offense had been alleged in said applications. Hence, it was
impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause.
Moreover, because of the vague description in the applications, the warrants authorized the
search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of the petitioners, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal, 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.

W/N the things invalidly seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners NO
The position taken in Moncado v. People's Court must be abandoned. Said position was in line
with the American common law rule that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely "because
the constable has blundered". However, most common law jurisdictions have already given up this
approach and eventually adopted the exclusionary rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The warrants for the search of the residences of petitioners are null and void. The searches and
seizures therein made are illegal. The writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers
and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are concerned.