Alih vs. Castro CASE DIGEST 151 SCRA 279 June 23, 1987 Facts: Respondents who were members of the Philippine marine and defense forces raided the compound occupied by petitioner in search of loose loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives. A shoot-out ensued after petitioners resisted the intrusion by the respondents, killing a number of men. The following morning, the petitioners were arrested and subjected to finger – finger –printing, printing, paraffin testing and photographing despite their objection. Several kinds of rifle, grenades and ammunitions were also confiscated. The petitioners filed an injunction suit with a prayer to have the items illegally seized returned to them and invoked the provisions on the Bill of Rights The respondents admitted that the operation was done without a warrant but reasoned that they were acting under superior orders and that operation was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem due to the assassination of the city mayor. Issue: Whether or not the seizing of the items and the taking of the fingerprints and photographs of the petitioners and subjecting them to paraffin testing are violative of the bill of Rights and are inadmissible as evidence against them. Held: The court held that superior orders nor the suspicion that the respondents had against petitioners did not excuse the former from observing the guaranty provided for by the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizure. The petitioners were entitled to due process and should be protected from the arbitrary actions of those tasked to to execute the law. Furthermore, there was no showing that the operation was urgent nor was there any showing of the petitioners as criminals or fugitives of justice to merit approval by virtue of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The items seized, having been the “fruits of “fruits of the poisonous tree” were tree” were held inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings against the petitioners. The operation by the respondents was done without a warrant and so the items seized during said operation should not be acknowledged in court as evidence. But said evidence should remain in the custody of the law (custodia egis). However, as to the issue on finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of the provision against self-incrimination, the court held that the prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. As Justice Holmes put it in Holt v. United States, 18 “The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.”
Case Digest: Rizal Alih et al vs Castro GR No L-69401 Rizal Alih et. al., vs Castro
GR No L-69401
June 23, 1987
Facts: A group of more than 200 Philippine marines and home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners (Rizal Alih et. al.) is search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. The people inside the compound resisted the invasion and a crossfire between the Philippine marines and the petitioner occurred, resulting in number of casualties. The petitioners surrendered the next morning and 16 occupants were arrested, later to be fingerprinted, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated several M16 rifles, M14 rifle, rifle grenades and rounds of ammunition.
Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and restraining order. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent these from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing being violative of their right against selfincrimination. Petitioner argued that the arms and ammunition were taken without a search warrant as required by law under Sec. 3 of the 1973 Constitution, and it be declared inadmissible in relation to Sec 4 (2) of the 1973 Constitution.
Respondent justified their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders and that the measures was necessary due to the aggravation of peace and order problem in their place.
Issue: Whether or not the confiscated items shall be considered admissible.
Whether or not the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-test is protected by the constitutional right against selfincrimination.
Ruling: No, superior orders cannot countermand the Constitution. There is no excuse for the constitutional shortcuts done by the military. Also, the aggravation of peace and order problem in their place does not ex cuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure (Art III Sec. 2, 1973 Philippine Constitution).
The arrest does not fall also under t he warrantless arrest provided for by Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings against petitioners.
With respect to the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing, the acts are not covered by the protection against self-incrimination, for it only applies to testimonial compulsion.
