Case Digest: Rizal Alih et al vs Castro GR No L-69401

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Rizal Alih et. al., vs Castro

GR No L-69401                                                                                 June 23, 1987



Facts:
A group of more than 200 Philippine marines and home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners (Rizal Alih et. al.) is search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives. The people inside the compound resisted the invasion and a crossfire between the Philippine marines and the petitioner occurred, resulting in number of casualties. The petitioners surrendered the next morning and 16 occupants were arrested, later to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated several M16 rifles, M14 rifle, rifle grenades and rounds of ammunition.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and restraining order. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent these from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing being violative of their right against self-incrimination. Petitioner argued that the arms and ammunition were taken without a search warrant as required by law under Sec. 3 of the 1973 Constitution, and it be declared inadmissible in relation to Sec 4 (2) of the 1973 Constitution.

Respondent justified their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders and that the measures was necessary due to the aggravation of peace and order problem in their place.

Issue:
Whether or not the confiscated items shall be considered admissible.

Whether or not the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-test is protected by the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Ruling:
No, superior orders cannot countermand the Constitution. There is no excuse for the constitutional shortcuts done by the military. Also, the aggravation of peace and order problem in their place does not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure (Art III Sec. 2, 1973 Philippine Constitution).

The arrest does not fall also under the warrantless arrest provided for by Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings against petitioners.

With respect to the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing, the acts are not covered by the protection against self-incrimination, for it only applies to testimonial compulsion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more