Alih vs.

Castro
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 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 �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 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 the poisonous 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.�