G.R. No. L-69401, June 23, 1987
RIZAL ALIH, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MAJOR GENERAL DELFIN C. CASTRO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On November 25, 1984, a large contingent of Philippine Marines and home defense forces conducted a military operation, known as a “zona,” raiding the compound occupied by the petitioners in Zamboanga City to search for loose firearms and explosives. The raid was executed without a search warrant. The occupants initially resisted with gunfire, leading to a shoot-out with casualties. The compound surrendered the next morning, resulting in the arrest of sixteen male occupants who were subjected to fingerprinting, paraffin-testing, and photographing. The military also confiscated firearms and ammunition from the premises.
The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, seeking the return of the seized articles, to prevent their use as evidence, and to challenge the physical tests as violations of their right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court referred the case to the regional trial court for hearing. The respondents admitted the absence of a search warrant but sought to justify the raid on grounds of acting under superior orders and due to the aggravated peace and order situation following the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the military, and the subsequent fingerprinting, photographing, and paraffin-testing of the petitioners, violated their constitutional rights.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared the search and seizure illegal. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, under Article IV, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution, was violated. The absence of a search warrant rendered the raid unconstitutional. The justifications of “superior orders” and the alleged peace and order crisis were rejected. The Court, citing Ex parte Milligan, emphasized that the Constitution applies equally in all circumstances and to all persons, and its protections cannot be suspended. The petitioners, as mere suspects presumed innocent, were entitled to this protection. Consequently, all articles seized are “fruits of the poisonous tree” and are inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding against the petitioners. However, the Court ordered the seized items to remain in custodia legis pending the outcome of any criminal cases.
Regarding the physical tests, the Court ruled they did not violate the right against self-incrimination, as this prohibition applies only to testimonial compulsion, not to the use of the body as physical evidence. The Court concluded by condemning lawless methods of law enforcement and affirming the rule of law, stating that the Bill of Rights protects all individuals, innocent and guilty alike, from arbitrary state action.