Stonehill vs Diokno

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:
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.
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.

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.