G.R. No.

L-19550

June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and

KARL BECK, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as Acting Director,
National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL,
JR. and ASST. FISCAL MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN,
Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal
Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First
Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN
JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon City, respondents.
NATURE: Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and
Injunction
FACTS:
~Upon application of the officers of the government named on
the margin hereinafter referred to as RespondentsProsecutors several judges hereinafter referred to as
Respondents-Judges issued, on different dates, a total of 42
search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the
corporations of which they were officers, directed to the any
peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or the
premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to
seize and take possession of the following personal property to
wit:
'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).'
as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and
proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended to be
used as the means of committing the offense," which is
described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
~On March 20, 1962, said 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
restraining Respondents-Prosecutors, their agents and /or
representatives
from
using
the
effects
seized
as
aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases
already adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter,
decision be rendered quashing the contested search warrants
and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the
respondents, their agents or representatives to return to
petitioners herein, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 67, of the
Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys
seized or confiscated under the search warrants in question.
Contentions:
Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and
void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court
because, inter alia:
(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents,
books and things to be seized;

Page

1 of 4

(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.
~On March 22, 1962, this Court issued the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for in the petition. However, by resolution
dated June 29, 1962, the writ was partially lifted or dissolved,
insofar as the papers, documents and things seized from the
offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned;
but, the injunction was maintained as regards the papers,
documents and things found and seized in the residences of
petitioners herein.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search warrants in question, and the
searches and seizures made under the authority thereof, are
valid or not, and
RULING:
Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search warrants
are in the nature of general warrants and that accordingly, the
seizures effected upon the authority there of are null and void.
In this connection, the Constitution sec. 13 (now sec. 2)
provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Two 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 (2) that the warrant
shall particularly describe the things to be seized.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the
contested warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon
applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein
named had 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. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in
this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein
petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to
convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal

Page

2 of 4

Code," as alleged in the aforementioned applications

without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or
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. This is precisely the evil sought to be
remedied by the constitutional provision above quoted to
outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not difficult to
imagine what would happen, in times of keen political strife,
"no search warrant shall issue for more than one
specific offense."

when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to wrest
it, even though by legal means.

The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application

for the contested search warrants was compounded by the
description therein made of the effects to be searched for and
seized, to wit:

particularly described as well as tending to defeat its

major objective: the elimination of general warrant.
~If the applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence
to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime
by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then there
is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the
requirements of the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if
he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for
the Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no
justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only possible
explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the
necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a
crime. But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of
the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals,

correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all
business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance
sheets and related profit and loss statements.
Thus, 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. The
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners
and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature,
thus openly contravening the explicit command of our
Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be

Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in

connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court
deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former
Rules of Court 14 by providing in its counterpart, under the
Revised Rules of Court 15 that "a search warrant shall not
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense." Not satisfied with this qualification, the
Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that

~The warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein

petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are
null and void; that the searches and seizures therein made are

Page

3 of 4

illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued,

in connection with the documents, papers and other effects
thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby
made permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar
as the documents, papers and other effects so seized in the
aforementioned
residences
are
concerned;
that
the
aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment
should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that the petition herein is
dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as regards the
documents, papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine
(29) places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same
Resolution.

Page

4 of 4