Facts:

The case "Rizal Alih, et al. vs. Major General Delfin C. Castro, et al." arose from an incident that occurred on November 25, 1984, in Zamboanga City. On that day, a significant contingent of over two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the home defense forces executed a military raid on a compound occupied by the petitioners, which included Rizal Alih, Nasim Alih, Aisan Alih, Mijal Alih, Omar Alih, Edris Muksan, and several others, in search of loose firearms, ammunition, and explosives. This operation was referred to as a "zona," a term that evoked memories of the feared practices of the Japanese kempeitai during World War II. The residents of the compound initially attempted to resist by firing warning shots, which escalated into a violent shoot-out between the soldiers and the occupants of the compound. By the following morning, the military gained control and arrested sixteen male occupants, conducting fingerprint tests, photographing, and paraffi

...

Facts:

Background of the Raid

• On November 25, 1984, more than two hundred Philippine Marines and elements of the home defense forces executed a raid on a compound located at Gov. Alvarez Street, Zamboanga City.
• The purpose of the raid was to search for loose firearms, ammunition, and other explosives supposedly stored within the premises.
• The operation was popularly known as a "zona," recalling earlier repressive practices during the Japanese Occupation, although without the execution element, and was marked by the intimidating presence of military forces.

Conduct During the Operation

• Upon the soldiers’ arrival, the occupants reacted by firing a burst of gunfire intended to warn off the intruders.
• The situation soon escalated when the soldiers returned fire, resulting in a bloody shoot-out that caused several casualties.
• At daybreak the following morning, the compound surrendered, leading to the arrest of sixteen male occupants.

Aftermath and Subsequent Actions

• The arrested occupants were subjected to fingerprinting, paraffin testing, and photographing despite their objections.
• The military inventoried and confiscated a significant cache of arms and ammunition including nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and several rounds of ammunition.
• On December 21, 1984, the petitioners instituted a petition for prohibition and mandamus coupled with a preliminary injunction and restraining order, seeking:
• The return of the allegedly illegally seized articles.
• Prevention of the use of these items as evidence in any criminal proceedings.
• A challenge to the procedures of fingerprinting, photographing, and paraffin testing on the ground they violated their rights, particularly against self-incrimination.

Constitutional and Legal Basis Raised

• The petitioners contended that the seizure of arms and ammunition was unconstitutional because it was conducted without a proper search warrant as required under Article IV, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution.
• It was argued that the absence of a search warrant violated the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
• The petitioners also stressed that evidence obtained through this unconstitutional search should be rendered inadmissible, in line with Article IV, Section 4(2).

Respondents’ Justifications

• The respondents admitted the lack of a search warrant but attempted to justify their actions by invoking the doctrine of “superior orders.”
• They further hinted at the exigency of the situation, pointing to the heightened tensions and the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco as context for the urgency of the raid.
• Despite these claims, the respondents’ reliance on superior orders and the necessity argument could not override the constitutional protections afforded to the petitioners.

Issue:

Legality of the Search and Seizure

• Whether the entry and search of the petitioners’ premises without a search warrant violated the Petitioners’ constitutional rights under the 1973 Constitution.
• Whether the absence of judicial oversight in obtaining a warrant rendered the seizure of firearms and ammunition unlawful.

Justification Under “Superior Orders”

• Whether the respondents could legally justify the unlawful raid by claiming they were following superior orders.
• Whether the context of heightened lawlessness and the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco provided sufficient ground for bypassing constitutional procedures.

Admissibility of the Seized Evidence

• Whether the articles seized during the raid, including the firearms and ammunition, could be considered valid evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings given the illegal procedure of their seizure.
• Whether the principle of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” bars the use of such illegally obtained evidence.

Validity of Non-Testimonial Evidence

• Whether the processes of fingerprinting, photographing, and paraffin testing the petitioners, despite objections, constitute a violation of the right against self-incrimination.
• To what extent the application of physical evidence collection does or does not fall under the prohibition against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)