STONEHILL V.

DIOKNO (1967)
G.R. NO. L-19550             JUNE 19, 1967

FACTS:
In violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and the Revised Penal Code, 42 warrants were issued against petitioners or the
corporation where they are officers to search the persons above-named and/or the
premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take
possession of their books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents
and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts,
balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) which
are the subject of the offense.
Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus and injunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present
case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued alleging the search warrants to be void
since (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be
seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; (3) the
warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in
deportation cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an
illegal manner; and (5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not
delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with
law 

ISSUE: W/N the seizure is valid

HELD: YES. warrants for the search of 3 residences null and void; searches and
seizures made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction issued
 the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the
warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: 
 (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations,
and 
 have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the
seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations
have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of
herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest
of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein
may be.
 question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights
have been invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful, could not affect the
constitutional rights of defendants whose property had not been seized or the
privacy of whose homes had not been disturbed
 (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.
 2 points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate,
namely: 
 (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 - not met
 (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. - not met
 without reference to any determinate provision of said laws 
 the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal.
  To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely
one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would
place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of peace officers.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN

G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998

FACTS: On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, known
only as Benjie, that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the
following day, December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. A Victory Liner
Bus with body number 474 and the letters BGO printed on its front and back bumpers
stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the same day from
where two females and a male got off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out
to the team "Aling Rosa" who was then carrying a traveling bag. Upon inspection, the
bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash
Katutak." The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to
which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-appellant was then brought to the
NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for
the confiscated marijuana leaves. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of
the dangerous drugs of 1972.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of

accusedappellant violated the latter’s constitutional rights.

RULING: Yes, the Supreme Court that the constitutional guarantee is not a blanket
prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable"
searches and seizures. The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in
one sentence prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and seizures are normally
unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.
Thus, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that
between person and police must stand KAREN GRACE M. AGUIMOD CASE DIGEST
the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue
search warrants or warrants of arrest.

JOSE BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF

G.R. NO L-64261 DECEMBER 26, 1984
FACTS:
Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the search on the premises of
“Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers and the seizure of items alleged to
have been used in subversive activities. Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and
that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against
petitioner.
Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of probable cause and that the two
warrants issued indicated only one and the same address. In addition, the items seized
subject to the warrant were real properties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify seizure of the items.
HELD:
The defect in the indication of the same address in the two warrants was held by the
court as a typographical error and immaterial in view of the correct determination of the
place sought to be searched set forth in the application. The purpose and intent to
search two distinct premises was evident in the issuance of the two warrant.

HUBERT J. P. WEBB, VS. HONORABLE RAUL E. DE LEON

G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
FACTS:
On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department
of Justice a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of
Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie
Jennifer in their home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF Homes Paranaque, Metro
Manila on June 30, 1991.

Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant

Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the DOJ Panel likewise gravely abused its discretion in holding that
there is probable cause to charge them with the crime of rape and homicide
2. Whether or not respondent Judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their
discretion when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before issuing warrants
of arrest against them
3. Whether or not the DOJ Panel denied them their constitutional right to due process
during their preliminary investigation
4. Whether or not the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded into judicial prerogative when it
failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the information as an accused.

RULING:
1. NO. The Court ruled that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
found probable cause against the petitioners. A probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was
committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
2. NO. The Court ruled that respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion. In
arrest cases, there must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed and that
the person to be arrested committed it. Section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon
filing of an information, the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the accused.
Clearly the, our laws repudiate the submission of petitioners that respondent judges
should have conducted “searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of
arrest against them.
3. NO. The DOJ Panel precisely ed the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf
and for the panel to study the evidence submitted more fully.
4. NO. Petitioner’s argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the
decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of the courts and
beyond executive and legislative interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes
appertains to the executive department of government whose principal power and
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of
this power is the right to prosecute their violators (See R.A. No. 6981 and section 9 of
Rule 119 for legal basis).

NEMESIO PRUDENTE vs Hon Judge ABELARDO M. DAYRIT

G.R. No. 82870 December 14, 1989
FACTS:
The Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Manila, Judge Abelardo Dayrit, for the issuance of Search Warrant for
violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm, etc). In the deposition of
witness (P/Lt. Florencio C. Angeles), it was made mentioned of “result of our continuous
surveillance conducted for several days. We gathered information from verified sources
that the holders of said firearms and explosives as well as ammunitions aren’t licensed
to possess said firearms and ammunition. Further, the premises is a school and the
holders of these firearms are not student who were not supposed to possess firearms,
explosives and ammunitions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search and seizure was valid?
HELD:
Search Warrant annulled and set aside.
RATIONALE:
Valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause, which is to be determined
personally by the Judge, after examination under oath and affirmation of the
complainant, and that witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. The probable cause must be in
connection with one specific offense and the Judge must, before issuing Search
Warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, In writing
and under oath, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with
any affidavits submitted.
PARTICULARITY
For violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) while the said decree
punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase
illegal possession of firearms etc. - - Reformed to ammunitions and explosives. In other
words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of
firearms and explosives. Hence, the failure of the Search Warrant to mention the
particular provision of PD1-866 that was violated is not of such gravity as to call for the
invalidation of this case.