28.

Stonehill v Diokno The constitution protects the people’s right against unreasonable
FACTS:
1. Respondent made possible the issuance of 42 search warrants
against the petitioner and the corporation to search persons and
premises of several personal properties due to an alleged
violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Custom Laws,
Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines. As a results, search and seizures were conducted in
the both the residence of the petitioner and in the corporation's
premises.
2.The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and
void as their issuance violated the Constitution and the Rules of
Court for being general warrants. Thus,he filed a petition with
the Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and
injunction to prevent the seized effects from being introduced as
evidence in the deportation cases against the petitioner. The
court issued the writ only for those effects found in the
petitioner's residence.
search and seizure. It provides; (1) that no warrant shall issue
but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in
the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the
warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.
In the case at bar, none of these are met. The warrant was issued
from mere allegation that Stonehill et al committed a “violation
of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.” In other words, no
specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The
averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were
abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who
issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable
cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent
proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed
particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a
given provision of our criminal laws.

ISSUE: WON the search warrant issue is valid

HELD: NO.

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 is
not the proper party hence has no cause of action. It should be
raised by the officers or board members of the corporation.