ALIH v CASTRO

G.R. No. L-69401 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.