For Your Data Stonehill Et Al. V. Diokno Et Al. Illustration Brief Summary
February 01, 2019
Edit
Stonehill et al. v. Diokno et al. illustration brief summary
20 SCRA 383, June 19, 1967
FACTS: Respondents issued, on dissimilar dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners too premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts, fiscal records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, too other documents showing all concern transactions including disbursement receipts, residuum sheets too lucre too loss statements too Bobbins(cigarettes)” every bit the plain of report of the criminal offence for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff too Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, too Revised Penal Code.
Upon effecting the search inward the offices of the aforementioned corporations too on the respective residences of the petitioners, at that spot seized documents, papers, coin too other records. Petitioners so were subjected to deportation proceedings too were constrained to interrogation the legality of the searches too seizures also every bit the admissibility of those seized every bit bear witness against them.
On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction too partially lifted the same on June 29, 1962 alongside honor to approximately documents too papers.
ISSUE: (1) Were the search warrants too the search too seizures valid too issued inward accordance alongside law? too
(2) If not, tin flaming said documents, papers too things live on used against petitioners?
RULING:
- Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution too the Rules, thus, illegal or beingness full general warrants. There is no in all likelihood movement too warrant did non especially specify the things to live on seized. The locomote of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the habitation too the privacy of communication too correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
- Document seized from an illegal search warrant is non admissible inward courtroom based on the exclusionary dominion every bit stated inward Article III, Section iii of the Constitution. However, they could non live on returned, except if warranted past times the circumstances.
- Petitioners were non the proper political party to interrogation the validity too supply of those taken from the corporations for which they acted every bit officers every bit they are treated every bit personality dissimilar from that of the corporation.