Alih v.

Castro, 151 SCRA 279

GR No L-69401 June 23, 1987
CASE DIGEST

JHONREY N. LALAGUNA – JD-1B

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: Article IV, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their  persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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.”