ALIH vs.

CASTRO
A contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines and elements of the
home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners in search
of loose firearms, ammunitions, and explosives. The Military operation was
commonly known and dreaded as a "zona," which was similar to the feared
Kempeitai practiced during the Japanese Occupation. Here, the persons fingered
by the informed would be executed outright.
The petitioners initial reaction was to resist, and fired a warning shot. Though no
one was hurt, the soldiers returned fire, and the situation aggravated to a shoot
out. From the incident, 16 male occupants were arrested and were subjected to
finger-printing, photographing, and paraffin-testing.
Forwarding Art IV, Sec 3 of the 1973 Constitution against Unlawful S&S,
petitioners now contend that said was violative of their right against selfincrimination, and filed a petition for prohibition to recover the articles serized,
and to prevent their use as evidence.
The respondents, while admitting the absence of the required such warrant,
sought to justify their act on the ground that they were acting under superior
orders. Such is untenable. The Constitution protects the innocent as well as the
guilty.
Neither may respondents plead the urgency of the raid because they did have all
the time in the world to avail themselves of a warrant. They had no reason to
disregard the process required by the Constitution.
(MAIN ISSUE) Despite the fact that the S&S was Warrantless, respondents
forward that the seizure was valid as it was incidental to a lawful arrest. Under the
Revised Rule 113, Section 5(b), the officer making the arrest must have personal
knowledge of the ground therefor of the offense. No such ground to justify the
required probable cause of a crime to be/about to be/ being committed was
offered.
(As to Right Against Self-Incrimination) The objection to the photographing,
fingerprinting and paraffin-testing of the petitioners deserves slight comment. The
prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only and
does not apply to the body as evidence.