Stonehill vs Diokno

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 this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction with the
Supreme Court, requesting that, pending the final disposition of the current case, a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued, alleging that the search warrants were void because (1) they do not specifically
describe the documents, books, and items to be seized; (2) cash money, which was not mentioned in the
warrants, was 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 conducted illegally;
and (5) the documents, papers, and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the
warrants, to be disregarded.

ISSUE: W/N the seizure is valid

HELD: YES. warrants for the search of three residences are null and void; searches and seizures are
illegal; and the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question can be divided into two (2) major groups, namely:
(a) those discovered and seized in corporate offices and have no cause of action to challenge the
legality of the contested warrants and the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple
reason that said corporations have their own personalities, separate and distinct from the
personalities of the petitioners, regardless of the number of shares of stock they own or the offices
they hold in said corporations. Only the person whose rights have been violated can challenge the
legality of a seizure. Certainly, if illegal, such a seizure could not affect the constitutional rights
of defendants whose property had not been seized or whose privacy had not been violated.
(b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.
must be emphasized in relation to this constitutional mandate:
(1) that no warrant shall be issued unless there is probable cause, which shall be determined by the judge
in the manner specified in said provision; and - not met
(2) The warrant must specifically describe the items to be seized. - not satisfied
without regard to any specific provision of said laws.
The warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of the
petitioners herein, whether legal or illegal.
To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to completely destroy one of the most
fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, because it would subject the sanctity of the home and
the privacy of communication and correspondence to the whims caprice or passion of peace officers.