Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harry Stonehill Vs DOJ Secretary Jose W Diokno 1967 20 SCRA 383
Harry Stonehill Vs DOJ Secretary Jose W Diokno 1967 20 SCRA 383
DOJ
Secretary Jose W. Diokno, Acting NBI Director Jose Lukban, Special
Prosecutors Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal, Jr. and Asst.
Fiscal Manases G. Reyes, Municipal Court of Manila Judge Amado Roan,
Municipal Court of Manila Judge Roman Cansino, Court of First Instance of
Rizal-Quezon City Branch Judge Hermogenes Caluag, and Municipal Court of
Quezon City Judge Damian Jimenez, respondents.1
Stonehill and his co-petitioners objected to the search warrants issued and the
subsequent seizure of the properties, as the warrants are in nature of a general
(search) warrant which violated the Constitutional provision against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court issued the writ on 22 March 1962 which granted the
petitioner’s prayer for writ of preliminary injunction. However, the writ was
partially lifted or dissolved by the Court through its 29 June 1962 resolution,
in relation to the papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the
corporations where the petitioners were officers. However, the injunction was
1Harry Stonehill vs. DOJ Secretary Jose W. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967, The
LawPhil Project website, http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jun1967/gr_l-
19550_1967.html. (Last seen at 31 March 2015, 1:55 p.m.)
maintained on the papers, documents and things found and seized in their
residences.
HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT: The Supreme Court held that the searches
and seizures made by the respondents are illegal as to the properties seized in
the residence of the petitioners. However, the Court did not include the
properties that were seized from their offices.