[go: up one dir, main page]

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
119 views1 page

30 - Alih vs. Castro, 150 SCRA 279

Uploaded by

Insolent Potato
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
119 views1 page

30 - Alih vs. Castro, 150 SCRA 279

Uploaded by

Insolent Potato
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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:

Yes. The precarious state of lawlessness in Zamboanga at the time in question


did not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures. At the time of the “zona”, the petitioners
were merely suspected of the mayor’s slaying and had not been in fact
investigated. Every person is entitled due process. The respondents defied the
precept that “civilian authority is at all times supreme over the military” so
clearly proclaimed in the Constitution. The respondents simply by-passed civil
courts which had the authority to determine whether or not there was probable
cause to search the petitioners’ premises. It follows that as the search of the
petitioners’ premises was violative of the Constitution, all the firearms and the
ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible as evidence in
any of the proceedings against the petitioners.

You might also like