You are on page 1of 9

People vs Court of Appeals (291 SCRA 400

A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate the order of Judge Casanova which quashed search warrant issued by
Judge Bacalla and declared inadmissible for any purpose the items seized under the warrant.
>An application for a search warrant was made by S/Insp Brillantes against Mr. Azfar Hussain who had allegedly in his
possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt 1207 Area F. Bagon Buhay Avenue, Sarang Palay, San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. The following day Search Warrant No. 1068 was issued but was served not at Abigail Variety
Store but at Apt. No. 1, immediately adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting in the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and
the seizure of a number of different explosives and firearms.
ISSUE: WON a search warrant was validly issued as regard the apartment in which private respondents were then
actually residing, or more explicitly, WON that particular apartment had been specifically described in the warrant.
The ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising from the absence of a meeting of minds as to the place to be searched
between the applicants for the warrant and the Judge issuing the same; and what was done was to substitute for the
place that the Judge had written down in the warrant, the premises that the executing officers had in their mind. This
should not have been done. It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different from that stated
in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched — although not that specified in the warrant — is exactly
what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in their supporting evidence. What is
material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in
their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers'
own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant.
Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the
place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to police officers the power of
choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be that delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door to abuse
of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has
precisely removed from them. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done
only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the

PICOP v. Asuncion Case Digest
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253) (1999)
FACTS: On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before the RTC of
Quezon City, stating: 1. That the management of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP

they also filed a “Supplemental Pleading to the Motion to Quash” and a “Motion to SuppressEvidence. who appeared during the hearing for the issuance of the search warrant. the application ended with a statement that the warrant is to search the premises of another person at a different address (Belen Cabanero at New Frontier Village. Asuncion issued the contested search warrant. (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge. . People vs Estrada (296 SCRA 383) PEOPLE VS ESTRADA FACTS: A petition for review was filed seeking the reversal of respondent Judge Estrada's order that granted private respondent's motion to quash search warrant 958 as well as the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration. ammunitions. 2. which are the subject of the offense. Respondent judge granted Lanyza’s motion to quash the search warrant and denied petitioner’s motion for . and which . Cabanlas. during the search. The policemen proceeded to search the residence of private respondent Lanuza at Lot 41 of said address. Cebu . Subsequently. Chief of the Legal. 1995 which was served the next day.” On March 23. the police enforced the search warrant at the PICOP compound and seized a number of firearms and explosives. 1995. the petitioners filed a “Motion to Quash” before the trial court. private respondent Lanuza filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the ground that the search warrant is illegal and null and void. In the present case. the RTC issued the first contested Order which denied petitioners’ motions.who happened to be the subject on whom another search was applied for by the same applicant) >Respondent Judge issued search warrant 958 on June 27. had no personal knowledge that petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms. or used or intended to be used in committing the offense. The pertinent facts of the present case are as follows: > Atty. Mabolo. Talisay. and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. That a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the described properties. On February 4.000-meter compound containing at least 15 structures. > On August 22. (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod. Believing that the warrant was invalid and the search unreasonable. . Information and Compliance Division (LICD) of BFAD filed an application for the issuance of a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza (private respondent) of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street. are [being kept] and conceal[ed] in the premises described. ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued was valid HELD: The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present. 1995. the trial court rendered its second contested Order denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. Cebu City for violation of Article 40(k) of RA 7934 (The Consumer Act of the Philippines). the team discovered that said address (516 xx) was actually a 5. However. is in possession or ha[s] in [its] control high powered firearms.compound. (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them. explosives. 1995. and (3)the place to be searched was not described with particularity. Failure to find any drug products prompted the policemen to proceed to search a nearby warehouse at Lot 38 which yielded 52 cartons of assorted drug products. The present petition stated that. (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge. Judge Maximiano C. After propounding several questions to Bacolod. 1995. On August 3. the search warrant is invalid because (1) the trial court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other deponents. in writing and under oath or affirmation.

Cebu City. as in the present case — and such evidence is within the knowledge and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same. The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. Mabolo. Mere allegation as to the non-existence of a license by private respondent is not sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant. . 28 In the present case. Mabolo. 38 within the same compound. however. while the drugs sought to be seized were found in a warehouse at Lot No. two (2) serious grounds to quash the search warrant. the applicant must show a justifiable reason therefor during the examination by the judge. 41. We hold that to establish the existence of probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of a search warrant. Hence.. wherever and whenever it is feasible. factories and warehouse. This Court has held that the applicant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.reconsideration. No justifiable reason was introduced why such certification could not be secured. SPO4 Manuel Cabiles could have easily procured such certification when he went to the BFAD to verify from the registry of licensed persons or entity. With this sketch as the guide. it must be noted that the application for search warrant was accompanied by a sketch 29 of the compound at 516 San Jose de la Montana St. The necessity of requiring stringent procedural safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and personalities. it could have been very easy to describe the residential house of private respondent with sufficient particularity so as to segregate it from the other buildings or structures inside the same compound. Cebu City. considering that private respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is actually located at Lot No. But if the best evidence could not be secured at the time of application. the applicant must show "facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. the absence of a license required by law. This description of the place to be searched is too general and does not pinpoint the specific house of private respondent.. the inadequacy of the description of the residence of private respondent sought to be searched has characterized the questioned search warrant as a general warrant. Within the same compound are residences of other people.. In the case at bar. the present petition. The introduction of such evidence is necessary especially in cases where the issue is the existence or the negative ingredient of the offense charged — for instance. But the search warrant merely indicated the address of the compound which is 516 San Jose de la Montana St. the best evidence procurable under the circumstances to prove that private respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell drugs is the certification to that effect from the Department of Health. Secondly. the place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient particularity in the questioned search warrant. The sketch indicated the 2-storey residential house of private respondent with a large "X" enclosed in a square. Cebu City. Firstly. offices. Held: There are. Mabolo. workshops. ISSUE: WON respondent judge erred in granting Lanuza’s motion to quash Search Warrant 958. 516 San Jose de la Montana St. we cannot fault the respondent Judge for nullifying the search warrant as she was not convinced that there was probable cause for its issuance due to the failure of the applicant to present documentary proof indicating that private respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell drugs. Thus. which is violative of the constitutional requirement. The said warehouse is owned by a different person.

coupled with the object and documentary evidence they presented. Aruta Search and Seizure – Informer’s Tip In the morning of 13 Dec 1988. Abello about the contents of her travelling bag. Samiano. When they opened the same. there is reason to believe that Maxicorp engaged in copyright infringement and unfair competition to the prejudice of Microsoft. she gave the same to him. HELD: No.Thus. When asked by Lt. they were also produced. packaged and in some cases. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. The RTC judge. From what they have witnessed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maxicorp and in its decision it highlighted the fact that the receipt issued was not in Samiano’s or Sacriz’ name hence the proceeding in the trial court was infirm from the onset. Aruta was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation. At 6:30 in the evening of 14 Dec 1988. He also brought the computer unit they bought as evidence as well as the receipt. they found dried marijuana leaves. a computer technician. convinced that there is a probable cause for a case of copyright infringement and unfair competition committed by Maxicorp. together with a civilian witness (John Benedict Sacriz) then bought a computer unit from Maxicorp. Maxicorp assailed the legality of the warrant before the Court of Appeals. who showed the judge that the software in the computer unit bought by Samiano from Maxicorp was pirated. they were issued a receipt. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. the law enforcement officers received information from an informant named “Benjie” that a certain “Aling Rosa” would be leaving for Baguio City on 14 Dec 1988 and would be back in the afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of marijuana. People v. it was improper for the Court of Appeals to reverse the RTC’s findings simply because the sales receipt evidencing NBI Agent Samiano’s purchase of counterfeit goods is not in his name. an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a surveillance against Maxicorp Inc. Maxicorp ntellectual Property – Law on Copyright – Probable Cause in Issuing Search Warrant In 1996. NARCOM officers approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. Dominador Samiano. . ISSUE: Whether or not the conducted search and seizure is constitutional. He even added an additional witness (Felixberto Pante). Both NBI Agent Samiano and Sacriz were clear and insistent that the counterfeit software were not only displayed and sold within Maxicorp’s premises. The fact that the receipt issued was not in Samiano’s name nor was it in Sacriz’ name does not render the issuance of the warrant void. installed there. are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. He brought with him Sacriz as witness. issued the corresponding warrant.Microsoft Corp v. Samiano applied for a search warrant before the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct. however. The unit was pre-installed with a pirated copy of Windows. For their purchase. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation. Subsequently. Aruta alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers. the receipt was in the name of a certain “Joel Diaz”. The testimonies of the two witnesses. He observed that Microsoft Software (Windows Operating Systems) were being produced and packaged within the premises of Maxicorp.

paraphernalia. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. colored yellow with Plate No. pamphlets. NBS 524. pursuant to Article III. as well as numerous papers. paraphernalia. tables. the arrest being incipiently illegal. and. colored white with Plate No. Sec. NGV 427 with marking “Bagong Silang. it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. Light-a-Fire Movement and April 6 Movement. The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise: All printing equipment. Motor vehicles used in the distribution/circulation of the “WE ORUM” and other subversive materials and propaganda.. except for the pointing finger of the informant. there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Consequently. Subversive documents. as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record. NKV 969. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because. respectively. As such. 1] Toyota-Corolla. ink. It was only when the informant pointed to Aruta and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. 3] A delivery truck with Plate No. paper. 3(2) of the Constitution. publisher-editor of the “We orum” newspaper. issued two (2) search warrants where the premises at 19 Road 3. letters and facsimile of prints related to the “WE ORUM” newspaper. and. the business premises of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We orum” newspapers were searched. there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accusedappellant was committing a crime.” Pursuant to the said search warrants. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Jr. publication and distribution of the said newspapers. there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta’s bag. Stated otherwise. equipment. leaflets. therefore. Judge Ernani Cruz-Pa o. photo (equipment. RMS Building. dictaphone and the like used and/or connected in the printing of the “WE ORUM” newspaper and any and all documents communication. 2] DATSUN pick-up colored white with Plate No. the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and. communications/recording equipment. pick-up truck with Plate No. books. and other publication to promote the objectives and purposes of the subversive organizationknown as Movement for Free Philippines. 5] TOYOTA Hi-Lux. Accordingly. books and other written literature allegedly possessed by Jose Burgos.HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers are being freed due to technicalities. were seized. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accusedappellant. business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We orum” newspapers. NKA 892. documents. PBP 665. must be rejected. more particularly. Quezon City. Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. office and printing machines. . tape recorders. Executive Judge of the Court of irst Instance of Quezon City. it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal. cabinets. Chief of staff On 7 December 1982. Quezon Avenue. Project 6. the premises of both printing offices were padlocked and sealed thereby preventing the publication of the aforementioned newspapers. Aruta was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. 4] TOYOTA-TAMARAW. Neither was there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests. and 784 Units C & D. Quezon City. Burgos v. Thereafter. typewriters.

Pa o. Jr. which was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies.022872. It is always in the power of the Supreme Court to suspend its rules or to except a particular case from its operation. Quezon City as contained in the warrant. their representatives. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error. which was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all metropolitan dailies. Whether or not the two (2) search warrants were validly issued. substitute or successors from using the articles seized as evidence in Criminal Case No. he is now estopped from challenging the validity of the search warrants. RMS Building. However the Court took cognizance of the petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the “We orum” offices. Jr. Quezon City indicated that the articles sought to be seized were allegedly kept at No. Project 6. should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued them (Templo v. REMEDY AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCH The correct remedy for petitioners was to file a motion to quash the search warrants –Indeed. These documents lawfully belong to petitioner Jose Burgos. We do not follow the logic of respondents. and he can do whatever he pleases with them. ON VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANTS Use of evidence seized in an illegal search does not prevent a party from questioning its validity – Respondents also submit the theory that since petitioner Jose Burgos. before impugning the validity of the warrants before this Court. Jose Burgos. the City Fiscal of Quezon City. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). had used and marked as evidence some of the seized documents in Criminal Case No. But this procedural flaw notwithstanding. 2. Quezon Avenue. Precisely. It would be quite absurd and illogical for .A petition for certiorari. whenever the purpos es of jus tice require it. The fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in any way affect the validity or invalidity of the search warrants assailed in this petition. Q022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. petitioners. 60 SCRA 295 [1974]). two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct premises. The existence of this special circumstance justifies this Court to exercise its inherent power to suspend its rules. et al. Respondents sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioners came immediately before the Supreme Court without having previously sought the quashal of the search warrants before Judge Cruz. PERTINENT ISSUES: Whether or not the immediate recourse to the Supreme Court was proper to question the validity of the two (2) search warrants. No. 19 Road 3. subalterns. we take cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the public interest generated by the search of the “We orum” offices. Jr. Q. ANSWERS: No. entitled People v. Dela Cruz. within legal bounds. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants. assistants. A mere typographical error in a search warrant does not render the same invalid –The search warrant used to search the premises of the “We orum” newspaper at 784 Units C & D. subordinates.

is of no consequence. “that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises above-mentioned and the articles and things above. and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. Movement for ree Philippines. The fact is that the place for which Search Warrant No. Mere generalization will not suffice. as in the case at bar. Obviously this is the same place that respondent judge had in mind when he issued the said search warrant. this Court ruled that “the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. and when he knows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit. 20. Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant must be based on personal knowledge of the applicant or his witness – Equally insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the statement contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement. This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued. which address appeared in the opening paragraph of the said warrant. … after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. In fact. therefore. as amended …” is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requi rements of probable cause. It may or may not be owned by him. And it has also been said that the executing officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search warrants. Abadilla’s application that petitioner “is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia.respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. and April 6 Movement. one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Court of irst Instance (64 Phil. In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity. Ownership. and to promote the objective of.” The seizure of articles belonging to other persons not named in the warrant does not invalidate the search warrant or the search conducted – Section 2 of Rule 126 (now Section 3 of Rule 126) of the Rules of Court provides that a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of (a) property subject of the offense. it has been held “that the executing officer’s prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant.” In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. Tango. because the purpose . the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is more apparent than real. Quezon Avenue. Necessarily. RMS Building.82[b] was applied for was 728 Units C & D. It does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. stolen property must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seizure. the broad statement in Col. under Section 2(b). Thus. 33). Quezon City. the addresses of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the application. the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification. In Alvarez v. stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish.described were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with. And when the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials. Besides. and since it was Col. and (c) property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. the Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. (b) property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense. Mere unsubstantiated allegations or baseless conclusions of law do not constitute probable cause for issuance of a search warrant – Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885.

receipts. memoranda. Stonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. vouchers. (2) cash money. cards. Tariff and Customs Laws. none of these are met. were actually seized. correspondence. and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups. (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against them. Supreme Court for being too general. in any event.S. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. financial records. HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al. The SC emphasized however that Stonehill et al cannot assail the validity of the search warrant issued against their corporation for Stonehill are not the proper party hence has no cause of action. credit journals.” General warrants are unconstitutional – Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. directions to “seize any evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise” have been held too general. typewriters. recordings and other written instruments concerning the Communist Party in Texas. of the existence of probable cause. not mentioned in the warrants. papers.thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. Diokno search and Seizure – General Warrants – Abandonment of the Moncado Doctrine Stonehill et al and the corporation they form were alleged to have committed acts in “violation of Central Bank Laws.” By the strength of this allegation a search warrant was issued against their persons and their corporation. State of Texas the search warrant which authorized the search for “books. if any. Stonehill v.” was declared void by the U. pictures. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in question cannot be characterized differently. and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. In the case at bar. and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: “Books of accounts. invoking the Moncado doctrine. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. The warrant was issued from mere allegation that Stonehill et al committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws. records. were cured by petitioners’ consent. The constitution protects the people’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. ledgers. It provides. to be disposed of in accordance with law. and (5) the documents. In like manner. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. receipts. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. The warrant provides authority to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices.” The documents. It should be raised by the officers or board members of the corporation. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. In Stanford v. books and things to be seized. 54-197 of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant. that the defects of said warrants. and therefore invalid. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant issued is valid. lists. the criminal cannot be set free just because the government blunders. and (3) that. journals. As a consequence. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular . (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them. portfolios. namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and (b) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein. Tariff and Customs Laws. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). warehouses and/or residences. papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants. The prosecution counters. In short.” In other words. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. and that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. pamphlets.

or committed specific omissions. to convict anybody of a “violation of Central Bank Laws. typewriters. the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill et al. whatever their nature. vouchers. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts. . receipts. correspondence. ledgers. to wit: “Books of accounts.acts. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. of the highest order. regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. thus openly contravening the explicit command of the Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized. credit journals. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al and the aforementioned corporations. It would be a legal heresy. violating a given provision of our criminal laws.” Thus. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. financial records. As a matter of fact. Tariff and Customs Laws. The Moncado doctrine is likewise abandoned and the right of the accused against a defective search warrant is emphasized. portfolios.” — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes. balance sheets and related profit and loss statements. journals.