4/12/24, 7:21 AM Case Summary: G.R. No. L-19550 - Stonehill vs.

Diokno

QR Link

Title
Stonehill vs. Diokno

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. L-19550 CONCEPCION, C Jun 19, 1967
.J

The court declares search warrants null and void, emphasizing the
importance of protecting the right to be secure against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and abandoning the doctrine allowing the use of
evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19550)

Background of the Case

Stonehill v. Diokno is a Philippine jurisprudence case decided on June 19,
1967.
The case involved the legality of search warrants and the protection of the
right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The court declared the search warrants null and void, emphasizing the
importance of protecting this right and abandoning the doctrine that
allowed the use of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures.

Issuance of Search Warrants

The officers of the government, including the Secretary of Justice and the
Acting Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for and
obtained 42 search warrants against the petitioners.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/summary/stonehill-v-diokno 1/3
4/12/24, 7:21 AM Case Summary: G.R. No. L-19550 - Stonehill vs. Diokno

These warrants authorized the search and seizure of various documents,

papers, and things from the offices, warehouses, and residences of the
petitioners.
The warrants were issued based on vague allegations of violations of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and
the Revised Penal Code.

Invalidity of the Search Warrants

The court held that the search warrants were invalid because they did not
comply with the constitutional requirement that warrants be issued only
upon probable cause and particularly describe the things to be seized.
The warrants were issued without specific allegations of the offenses
committed and authorized the seizure of records pertaining to all business
transactions of the petitioners, regardless of their legality.
This contravened the explicit command of the Bill of Rights and the
objective of eliminating general warrants.

Standing of the Petitioners

The court rejected the argument that the petitioners did not have standing
to challenge the search warrants because they were officers of the
corporations involved.
The court held that the legality of a seizure can only be contested by the
party whose rights have been impaired.
The objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be invoked by third parties.
Therefore, the petitioners had standing to challenge the search warrants
and the seizures made under their authority.

Abandonment of the Non-Exclusionary Rule

The court abandoned the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case, which
allowed the use of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures.
The court held that the non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the
constitutional... continue reading

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/summary/stonehill-v-diokno 2/3
4/12/24, 7:21 AM Case Summary: G.R. No. L-19550 - Stonehill vs. Diokno

Case Story (G.R. No. L-19550)

1. The case was filed by Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, John J. Brooks,
and Karl Beck against various government officials and judges.
2. The petitioners alleged that the search warrants issued against them were
null and void, contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
3. The search warrants were issued based on applications that did not specify
any specific offense, making it impossible for the judges to find probable
cause.
4. The warrants authorized the search and seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of the petitioners, regardless of their legality.
5. The court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of ...

Unlock Summary and Story

Get comprehensive understanding of the case

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/summary/stonehill-v-diokno 3/3