Case Summary (G.R. No. L-69401)
Facts of the Raid
On November 25, 1984, over two hundred Philippine Marines and home defense forces conducted a “zona” operation—an unannounced military sweep—targeting suspected loose firearms and explosives in the petitioners’ compound. The occupants responded with warning gunfire; a firefight ensued, causing multiple casualties. The following morning, the compound surrendered. Sixteen male occupants were arrested and subjected to fingerprinting, paraffin testing, and photography against their objections. Military personnel inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and assorted ammunition.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction on December 21, 1984, seeking the return of seized articles, exclusion of the evidence, and relief against compelled physical examinations. The Supreme Court treated the petition as an injunctive suit and referred it to the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, which received evidence and submitted recommendations.
Applicable Law
1973 Philippine Constitution, Article IV, Section 3: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; requirement of probable cause and a warrant.
1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(2): Exclusionary rule—evidence obtained in violation of the preceding section is inadmissible.
Petitioners’ Claims
- The warrantless search and seizure violated their constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Articles seized should be returned and barred from use as evidence.
- Fingerprinting, photographing, and paraffin testing constituted self-incrimination prohibited by the Constitution.
Respondents’ Justifications
Respondents acknowledged the absence of a search warrant but invoked the defense of superior orders. They also cited the heightened peace and order situation following the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco.
Court’s Analysis on Warrantless Search
The Constitution’s guarantees cannot be suspended by superior orders or exigent circumstances short of actual hostilities. No declaration of martial law or emergent warfare existed in Zamboanga City to justify bypassing civil courts. Respondents could have secured a search warrant from any of the ten functioning trial courts in the city or surrounded the premises pending judicial authorization. Their unilateral determination of probable cause and forcible entry violated the supremacy of civilian judicial authority and the ancient principle that a person’s home is inviolable without lawful process.
Exclusionary Rule and Fruits of the Poisonous Tree
Because the search was unconstitutional, all firearms and ammunition seized are inadmissible in any proceeding against the petitioners. These items are “fruits of the poisonous tree,” and their exclusion is necessary to deter future violations by prosecution-controlled law-enforcement officers. The seized articles shall remain in custodia legis pending proper disposition by the courts confronting the criminal cases a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-69401)
Facts of the “Zona” Operation
- On November 25, 1984, a force of more than two hundred Philippine Marines and home defense elements raided the petitioners’ compound on Gov. Alvarez Street, Zamboanga City.
- The military action, known colloquially as a “zona,” evoked comparisons to the kempeitai roundup tactics of the Japanese Occupation, minus summary executions.
- Petitioners inside the compound fired warning shots to deter intrusion; no injuries resulted initially.
- Soldiers returned fire, triggering a bloody exchange that caused multiple casualties.
- By the following morning, the compound surrendered and hostilities ceased.
Arrest and Seizure
- Sixteen male occupants of the compound were taken into custody, later fingerprinted, paraffin-tested, and photographed over their objections.
- Military authorities inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and various rounds of ammunition found on the premises.
Petition and Lower Court Proceeding
- On December 21, 1984, the petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition and mandamus, coupled with a prayer for preliminary injunction and restraining order.
- They sought the return of all seized articles, an order barring their use as evidence, and a declaration that their fingerprinting, photographing, and paraffin-testing violated the right against self-incrimination.
- Treating the petition as an injunction suit for recovery of illegally seized property, the Supreme Court referred the matter to Judge Omar U. Amin of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City.
- After plenary hearings and receipt of testimonial and documentary evidence, the RTC submitted its report and recomme