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

BROOKS and KARL BECK

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,
G.R. No. L-19550

June 19, 1967

Facts:
Petitioners assails the validity of the 42 search warrants issued against petitioners herein and/or the
corporations of which they were officers, which were directed 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."
Respondents-prosecutors alleged, (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been
issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners'
consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein
petitioners, regardless of the
alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.
Issue:
WON the aforementioned search warrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the
Rules of Court.
Held:
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may
be split into two (2)
(a) Those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations
Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the
seizures made in pursuance thereof, because 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.
(b) Those found and seized in the residences of petitioners.
Invalid.
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.

In the assailed warrants, there was no specific offense had been alleged in said applications.
Hence, 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 Code.

The Court abandoned its pronouncement in Moncado vs. People, wherein even if the searches
and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus
seized are admissible in evidence. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of
the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State. Rationale is without that
rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed
from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not
to permit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." the
admission of the new constitutional Right is not tolerate denial of its most important
constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been
forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in
reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment. Non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the
letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby,
abandoned; 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;