STONEHILL

v.
DIOKNO,
G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
FACTS:
Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original action for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction upon herein
respondents-prosecutors, their agents and/or representatives from
using the effects seized in the deportation cases already adverted to
and that to declare the issued 42 search warrants of herein
respondent judges null and void, as contravening the Constitution
and the Rules of Court, thereby commanding the respondents and
their agents to return to petitioners herein, the documents, papers,
things and cash moneys seized or confiscated under the search
warrants in question.
ISSUE: Whether or not documents, papers and things may be used
in evidence against petitioners which were seized under invalid or
void search warrants.
HELD:
Upon mature deliberation we are unanimously of the opinion that the
position taken in the Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position
was in line with the American common law rule, that the criminal
should not be allowed to go free merely "because the constable has
blundered," 16 upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by means
other than the exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained. Most
common law jurisdictions have already given up this approach and

eventually adopted the exclusionary rule, realizing that this is the

only
practical
means
of
enforcing
the
constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the
language of Judge Learned Hand: Only in case the prosecution which
itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their
wrong will that wrong be repressed.