Search
×

Sign up

Use your Facebook account for quick registration

OR

Create a Shvoong account from scratch

Already a Member? Sign In!
×

Sign In

Sign in using your Facebook account

OR

Not a Member? Sign up!
×

Sign up

Use your Facebook account for quick registration

OR

Sign In

Sign in using your Facebook account

Shvoong Home>Law & Politics>Case Digest on Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) Summary

Case Digest on Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)

Book Summary   by:WritingNow360     Original Author: Supreme Court of the Philippines
ª
 
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) F: Upon application of the officers of the govt (resp. prosecutors), several judges (resp. judges) issued a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners &/ or the corporations of w/c they were officers, directed to any peace officer, to search the perons named and/ or the premises of their offices, warehouses, and/ or residences, and to seize several personal prop. as the "subject of the offense; stolen or embezelled or the fruits of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense" as violation of CB Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws (TCC), NIRC and the RPC." Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null & void, said petitioners filed w/ the SC this orig. action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus & injunction. The writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents, and things seized from the officers of the corporations; but the injunction was maintained as regards those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. ISSUES: (1) With respect to those found & seized in the offices of the corporations, w/n petitioners have cause of action to assail the validity of the contested warrants. (2) In connection w/ those found & seized in the residences of petitioners, w/n the search warrants in question and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof are valid. (3) If the answer in no. 2 is no, w/n said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners. HELD: (1) No. Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and the seizure made in pursuance thereof bec. said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of petitioners. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be avalied of by 3rd parties.
(2) No. Two points must be stressed in connection w/ Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Consti: (a) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause
to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth therein; & (b) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. None of these requirements has been complied w/. It was stated that the natural and juridical persons has committed a violation of CB laws, TCC, NIRC & RPC. No specific offense
had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof w/ respect to the offense committed were abstract
. As a consequence, it was impossible
for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of a probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular
acts, or committed specific
omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. General search warrants are outlawed bec. they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights-- that the things to be se
Published: February 18, 2008   
Please Rate this Summary : 1 2 3 4 5
  1. Answer   Question  :    explain this summary View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    requisite of a valid extra judicial confession? View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    who can object to the admissibility of an extra judicial confession? View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    reyes vs court of appeals, 80 scra 114 View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    how the supreme court define the condition in issuance of search warrants? ( 1 Answer ) View All
  1. Answer  :    Issuance of search warrant must be based on findings of probable cause to be determined solely by the judge and the things to be seized must be descriced with particularty.­­ Monday, March 14, 2011
  1. Answer   Question  :    what is the constitutional issue involved with stonehill vs. diokno? View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    issue View All
  1. Answer   Question  :    the facts of the case ( 1 Answer ) View All
  1. Answer  :    Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null & void, said petitioners filed w/ the SC this orig. action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus & injunction. The writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents, and things seized from the officers of the corporations; but the injunction was maintained as regards those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. Saturday, December 10, 2011
Translate Send Link Print
X

.