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.

RULING:
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 legis).

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.”