Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19550)
Facts:
Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, John J. Brooks and Karl Beck v. Hon. Jose W. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the four named businessmen; respondents include Hon. Jose W. Diokno (Secretary of Justice), Jose Lukban (Acting Director, NBI), several Special Prosecutors and assistant fiscal, and a number of judges who issued the contested warrants.Between March 3 and March 9, 1962 several judges issued a total of 42 search warrants directed at petitioners and at numerous corporations of which they were officers. The warrants authorized searches of persons, offices, warehouses and residences and the seizure of broad categories of records and items — e.g., “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 disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements” — on grounds stated generally as violations of “Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code,” without alleging specific offenses or particular acts.
On March 20, 1962 petitioners filed with the Supreme Court an original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction, seeking to quash the warrants as unconstitutional and to command return of the seized materials; they also prayed for a preliminary injunction restraining respondents from using the seized materials in deportation proceedings. Respondents answered asserting validity of the warrants, alleging any defects were waived by petitioners’ consent, and that the seized materials were admissible despite any illegality.
The Court issued the requested writ of preliminary injunction on March 22, 1962, but by resolution dated June 29, 1962 it partially lifted that injunction as to papers seized from corporate offices and other non‑residential premises while maintaining the injunction as to papers seized from the petitioners’ residences. The case thus presented two groups of seized materials: those taken from corporate premises and those taken from the petitioners’ residences. The parties litigated (and the Court considered...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to attack the search warrants and seizures of documents taken from corporate offices and premises not their personal residences?
- Were the contested search warrants valid under the constitutional requirement that warrants be issued only upon probable cause and particularly describe the things to be seized and be in connection with one specific offense?
- If the warrants were invalid, are the documents and things seized thereunder ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)