Diokno V stonehill

osted by taxcasesdigest on Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Labels: constitutional law, corporation, general warrant, search and seizure
Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally,
and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of
petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal
properties books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.

Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective
residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers, money and other records.
Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to question the
legality of the searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence
against them.

On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same
on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.

Held:

a. Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or
being general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly
specify the things to be seized. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the
sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the
mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.

b. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a
poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if warranted by the
circumstances.

c. Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken
from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality
different from that of the corporation.