Stonehill vs Diokno: Why search warrants, subpoenas became an issue in Duterte's impeachment trial

EXPLAINER: Stonehill v. Diokno: When the Supreme Court excluded illegally obtained evidence

The 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Stonehill v. Diokno became a landmark decision in Philippine law after it declared search warrants against American businessman Harry Stonehill invalid and established the exclusionary rule barring illegally obtained evidence.

Diokno shares old Sunday Times front page, cites Stonehill case amid Duterte impeachment trial

MANILA, Philippines — House prosecutor and Akbayan Party-list Rep. Chel Diokno on Wednesday invoked the 1962 Stonehill corruption scandal in the midst of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial, warning against what he said could become another missed opportunity to uncover the full truth.Diokno made the remark after sharing on Facebook a 1962 issue of The Sunday Times, the Sunday edition of The Manila Times, which featured a report invo…

Stonehill vs Diokno: Why search warrants, subpoenas became an issue in Duterte's impeachment trial

Nearly six decades after it was decided, the Supreme Court's ruling in Stonehill vs Diokno resurfaced during the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.