Stonehill VS Diokno Summary Report

Republic Act 7438

.

Doni June V. AlmioLLB – 1C

Stonehill, et. al. VS. Diokno, et.al.

REPUBLIC ACT 7438

Republic Act 7438

An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the

Duties of The Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing

Penalties for Violations Thereof

Republic Act 7438

Repealed Republic Act No. 857 (An Act To Punish Any Public Officer Or

Employee Who Shall Obstruct, Prohibit, Or Otherwise Prevent The

Exercise Of The Right Of Attorneys To Visit And Confer With Persons

Arrested)

Republic Act 7438Section 1

Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Dignity of every human being must be upheld because human rights are considered to be fundamental rights.

Republic Act 7438

As shown in:*United Nations Declaration of

Human Rights.

*1987 Philippine Constitution Article III (Bill of Rights)

Republic Act 7438

Section 2Custodial Investigation

include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,

without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Republic Act 7438

”Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.”

(People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565)

Republic Act 7438

Rules of Custodial Investigation apply when the questions of the arresting officers/ officers conducting investigation is related to the offense committed.

Republic Act 7438Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under

Custodial Investigation and Duties of Public Officers.

1. Right of person arrested to assistance of counsel at all times.

2. Person arrested must be informed of his Miranda Rights by the arresting officer.

3. Custodial Investigation must be in writings.

Republic Act 7438MIRANDA RIGHTS

an arrested person has the rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

Republic Act 7438

4. Extrajudicial confession made by person arrested must be in writing with presence of counsel.

In the absence of said counsel, the presence of parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him.

5. When a person who is arrested under article 125 (arbitrary detention) of the Revised Penal Code will sign a waiver, presence of his counsel is required.

Republic Act 74386. Detained persons under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits or conferences by:

a. Immediate Familyi. Spouse/ fiance/ fianceeii. Parent or childiii. Brother or sisteriv. Grandfather or grandchildv. Uncle or auntvi. Nephew or niecevii. Guardian or ward

b. Medical Doctor (chosen by him or immediate family)

c. Priest or Religious Minister (chosen by him or immediate family)

Republic Act 7438

Section 3Assisting Counsel

Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with

conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.

No assisting counsel, no custodial investigation.

Republic Act 7438

Section 4Penalty Clause

Persons punished under this law:1. Arresting public officer or employee who failed to inform

person arrested with his Miranda Rights.2. Public officer or anyone acting upon the orders of an

investigating officer who failed to provide an independent and competent lawyer to the arrested person.

3. Any person who obstructs, prevents, or prohibits any lawyer or any person who may visit the person arrested from visiting, conferring privately with him, or from examining, treating him, or for catering to his religious needs.

Stonehill, et. al. VS.

Diokno, et.al.

Stonehill VS. DioknoHARRY 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.

Stonehill VS. DioknoFacts of the Case

42 search warrants were issued by respondents-judges against the petitioners and the corporation where they were officer.


The search warrant orders any peace officer to seize and take possession of:

“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) in violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.”


Petitioners contend that said laws were null and void for it violates the 1935 Constitution and the Rules of Court.


Respondent-judges contend that (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(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.


The papers and things seized under the warrant was split into two groups:

1. those seized in the offices of the corporation.

2. those found and seized in the residences of the petitioners.


Those seized in the offices of the corporation were considered valid.

Petitioners have no cause of action to raise the legality of the searches and seizures made in the corporation because corporations have their own personalities separate than that of the individual personalities of its officers.

Stonehill VS. DioknoIssues

1. Whether or not the search warrants for the residences of the petitioners were valid.

2. Whether or not the evidences were admissible.

Stonehill VS. DioknoHeld

1. The warrants were considered to be invalid.(A) The warrants did not comply with the constitutional requirements in issuing warrants:

a. no warrant shall issue upon probable cause to be determined by the judge.

b. the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.


1. The warrants were considered to be invalid.

(B) No specific offense had been alleged in the warrants. “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.”


2. The evidences seized were not admissible

(A) The Moncado Doctrine was abandoned in the said case.

a. Evidences seized were considered a fruit of a poisonous tree

(B) The Exclusionary Rule was adopted by the Supreme Court.


Final Order:1. The search warrants for the

residences of the 3 petitioners herein are considered null and void ; the searches and seizures made illegal; the writ of preliminary injunction given to the papers and things searched in the residences of the petitioners are made permanent.


Final Order:2. The papers and things searched

in the 29 places, offices and other offices related to the corporation are considered valid.

Documents

Stonehill VS Diokno Summary Report