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.”