You are on page 1of 19

OVER A CUP OF COFFEE AND A PINT OF INSANITY

everyone's a caffeine-driven idiot in law school... (If you call yourself a GENIUS,
you're in for a beating!)
HOME
FACEBOOK
DOODLES AND SCRIBBLES
ABOUT ME

My Photo
Janice Parilla

I'm just a girl, a dreamer who uses her pen and pencil to visualize her dreams, her
fantasies and how she sees the world. I create a fake imaginary realm of my own. I
turn what is ugly into beautiful, and transform beautiful things ugly. Still, at times, I
freeze reality---a reminder to what is real so I shall never get lost in my land of
orgasmic surrealism and so I may be able to climb back into the real world when
necessary.
View my complete profile
ARCHIVES

2013 (6)
2012 (49)
November (12)
October (6)
August (2)
July (12)
June (17)
Powered by Blogger.

CATEGORIES

146 SCRA 446 (1)


151 SCRA 279 (1)
1980 Iran hostage crisis (1)
2001 (1)
2002 (2)
2002 Montesclaros (1)
2003 (1)
2004 (1)
2004 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. MOJICA vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS (1)
2006 (1)
2007 (1)
2009 (1)
2010 (2)
2011 (1)
2011 JOSE R. CATACUTAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (1)
301 SCRA 298 (1)
68 SCRA 62 (1)
A.M. No. 53-MJ (1)
Absentee Voting (1)
Alih vs. Castro (1)
Ambil vs Sandiganbayan (1)
Ampatuan (1)
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec (1)
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec (1)

Ang Ladlad vs Comelec (1)


Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (3)
Apelado vs. People (1)
April 13 (1)
April 8 (1)
ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ vs. People of the Philippines (1)
August 31 (1)
August 4 (1)
Automated ELections System (1)
Bayan Muna vs. Comelec (1)
Bellis vs. Bellis (1)
Brillantes vs. Comelec (1)
Caltex vs. Palomar (1)
CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
(1)
case digest (26)
Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia (1)
Catacutan vs. People (1)
Citizenship of Poe (1)
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES (1)
COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION (1)
compensation (2)
Constitutional Law (6)
Consunji vs. Court of Appeals (1)
Corpus vs. Cabaluna (1)
Correlation and Distinction (1)
criminal law (1)

Criminal Procedure (1)


Dibaratun vs. Comelec (1)
Dibaratun vs. Comelec and Abubakar (1)
Dual Citizens (1)
Election 2013 (1)
Election case (12)
Estrada vs. Arroyo (1)
Estrada vs. Desierto (1)
et al (2)
et al vs. Comelec (2)
et al vs. Pao G.R. No. L-69803 (1)
et al. vs. COMELEC (1)
Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation (1)
fruit of the poisonous tree (1)
G. R. No. 149803. January 31 (1)
G. R. No. 161824 (1)
G.R. No 146710-15 (1)
G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto (1)
G.R. No 170180 (1)
G.R. No 182178 (1)
G.R. No L-64261 (1)
G.R. No. 148334 (1)
G.R. No. 110097 (1)
G.R. No. 110592 (1)
G.R. NO. 12809620 (1)
G.R. No. 135551 (1)

G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo (1)


G.R. No. 147589 (1)
G.R. No. 147613 (1)
G.R. No. 150605 December 10 (1)
G.R. No. 152295 (1)
G.R. No. 154198 (1)
G.R. No. 161434 (1)
G.R. No. 161634 (1)
G.R. No. 162759 (1)
G.R. No. 163193 (1)
G.R. No. 166973 (1)
G.R. No. 170365 February 2 (1)
G.R. No. 172602 (1)
G.R. No. 175457 (1)
G.R. No. 175482 (1)
G.R. No. 175991 (1)
G.R. No. 178788 (1)
G.R. No. 180363 April 28 (1)
G.R. NO. 183871. Rubrico vs. Arroyo (1)
G.R. no. 190581 (1)
G.R. No. 73681 (1)
G.R. No. 95939 (1)
G.R. no. 97347 (1)
G.R. No. L-19671 (1)
G.R. No. L-23678 (1)
G.R. No. L-30642 (1)

G.R. No. L-32717 (1)


G.R. No. L-48926 (1)
G.R. No. L-63915 (1)
Go vs. Sandiganbayan (1)
GR No. 137873 (1)
gr no. 146710-15 digest (1)
GR No. L-30061 (1)
Holy Name University (1)
Inc. vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE (1)
Iran hostage Crisis (1)
Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles couple (1)
January 20 (1)
January 21 (1)
Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (1)
Judgment of 24 May 1980 (1)
July 6 (1)
July 9 (1)
June 15 (1)
June 26 (1)
Jurisdiction (1)
LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1)
Law professors (1)
MUTUC VS. COMELEC (1)
National Power Corporation vs. Benjamin Ong Co (1)
Nicolas-Lewis (1)
Nolasco (1)

oblicon (1)
Party list System (1)
People s. Regalario (1)
PEOPLE VS. ASTORGA (1)
PEOPLE VS. BRACAMONTE (1)
People vs. Fukuzume (1)
People vs. Jabinal (1)
people vs. taraya (1)
PEOPLE VS. VELASCO (1)
probable cause (1)
Public International Law (1)
RA 3019 (3)
Resolution 6712 (1)
Right of suffrage (1)
Rulloda vs. Comelec (1)
Search and Seizure (3)
Secretary Justice vs. Catolico (1)
SOSITO vs. AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (1)
Statcon (1)
Statutory Construction (1)
Stephen Tibagong vs. People of the Philippines (1)
Substitution of Candidates (1)
Taada vs. Tuvera (1)
Tecson vs. Comelec (1)
Tenchavez vs. Escao (1)
Teves vs. Comelec (1)

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (1)


Tolentino and Mojica vs. Comelec (1)
United Airlines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1)
US vs. Iran (1)
warrant of arrest (1)

Alih vs. Castro


151 SCRA 279
June 23, 1987

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:
The court held that superior orders nor the suspicion that the respondents had
against petitioners did not excuse the former from observing the guaranty provided
for by the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizure. The petitioners
were entitled to due process and should be protected from the arbitrary actions of
those tasked to execute the law. Furthermore, there was no showing that the
operation was urgent nor was there any showing of the petitioners as criminals or
fugitives of justice to merit approval by virtue of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court.

The items seized, having been the fruits of the poisonous tree were held
inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings against the petitioners. The operation
by the respondents was done without a warrant and so the items seized during said
operation should not be acknowledged in court as evidence. But said evidence
should remain in the custody of the law (custodia egis).

However, as to the issue on finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as


violative of the provision against self-incrimination, the court held that the
prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. As
Justice Holmes put it in Holt v. United States, 18 The prohibition of compelling a
man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion
of his body as evidence when it may be material.

Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook

CASE DIGEST: ALIH VS. CASTRO

Posted on

Monday, July 2, 2012

Category

151 SCRA 279,

Alih vs. Castro,

Constitutional Law,

Search and Seizure

Leave a Reply

2013 | All rights reserved | Design by 90Four


Converted by LiteThemes.com

Philippine Law, Civil, Political, Criminal, Jurisprudence, Philosophy, Freethinking,


Technology
02 September 2013

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

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.
Posted by ResIpsaLoquitor at 11:25 AM
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook

Labels: 1987, Case brief, case digest, GR No L-69401, June 23, Rizal Alih et al vs
Castro, Rizal Alih et al vs Castro Case Brief, Rizal Alih et al vs Castro Case Digest
No comments:
Post a Comment

Links to this post


Create a Link

Newer Post Older Post Home


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive

2013 (58)
Oct (3)
Sep (10)
Case Digest: Leviste vs CA GR No 189122
Case Digest: Canlas et al vs NAPICO Homeowners Ass...
Case Digest: Quelnan vs People GR No 166061
Case Digest: People vs Meliton Jalbuena GR No 1711...
Case Digest: Rizal Alih et al vs Castro GR No L-69...
Case Digest: Desierto vs Heirs of Margarita Ventur...
Case Digest: MERALCO, Alexander Deyto and Ruben Sa...
Case Digest: Ramiscal Jr vs SANDIGANBAYAN and Peop...
Case Digest: People vs Combate GR No 189301
Case Digest: Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati and J...
Aug (20)
Jul (14)
Jun (11)
Popular Posts

Civil Law Books by Edgardo Paras Compilation


The Book of Edgardo Paras is the most common books used by law students in the
Philippines. Due to the bulkiness of the book as well as the ...
Criminal Law BOOK II

PDF Version of Criminal Law Book II Crimes and Essential Elements, Penalty and
Notes. Download Criminal Law Book II Outline Disclaimer: ...
Criminal Procedure Reviewer
Criminal Procedure Reviewer What is criminal procedure? Criminal procedure is the
method prescribed by law for the apprehension and...
UP LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER
UP LEGAL ETHICS REVIEWER I. THE LEGAL PROFESSION A. Supervision and Control
Regulated by the Supreme Court and NOT the PRC. Con...
Civil Law Reviewer
CIVIL LAW REVIEWER Civil Reviewer from one of the very outstanding lecturer.
Balane Civil Law Reviewer Download Uribe Obligations an...
Very useful criminal procedure notes
Very useful criminal procedure notes... I handout from my criminal procedure
instructor... very useful.. Download here Disclaimer: I d...
Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., Case
Digest G.R. No. 171101 November 22, 2011
Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al.,
Download full case digest (with efficient paper rule) ...
Sales Reviewer
SALES REVIEWER Sales Reviewer Download Disclaimer: I do not own any right or
claim to this file.
Labor Cases Compilation
Labor Cases Compilation 1.) ISAE vs Quisumbing (Download) ISAE vs Quisumbing
Brief Summary The court resolved the issue regarding t...
Case Digest: People vs Webb and Lejano vs People
Lejano vs People People vs Webb GR Nos. 176389 and 176864
January 18, 2011 Facts: The Su...
Template images by Ollustrator. Powered by Blogger.

QUOTES HOME CONTACT


LegisPinoy
Collection of case digests.

LABELS

Case Digests (32)


Legal Profession Cases (14)
List of Cases (4)
Pol Law Assigned cases (11)
ABOUT THIS BLOG

Let's all thank the contributors!!!

- Frances Kaye Miraflor


- Shiela Marie Tanguin
- Maricarl Botin
- Antonio Evasco
- June Moreno
- Aileen Abasolo
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.

blogarama.com Add to Technorati Favorites Site Meter World Website Directory


Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory Blogs2Go.net - FREE
BLOG Listings Dmegs Web Directory Academic, Learning & Educational Blogs BlogCatalog Blog Directory Blogs2Go.net - FREE BLOG Listings
SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 2009
Alih vs Castro - A case Digest

Alih vs Castro
GL. 69401

This case was in explaining Sec 3 of Art 2 of the 1987 Constitution regarding the
supremacy of the civilians.

Facts;

Zona was conducted by the men of Maj. Gen Castro in a compoud where petioners
reside and conducted illegal search and thereafter seized guns from them. The
order was carried on by his Castro's men with the contention that the petitioners are
involved in the latest killing of the town's mayor Cesar Climaco.

Issue;

Is the warrantless search and seizure legal?

Held;

The Supreme Court declared those seized in custodia legis and declared that the
operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. The respondents have all the
time to obtain a search warrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC

also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as stated in Art IV Sec 3
and 4 of the 1973 Constitution regarding illegal search and seizure. The
presumption of innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that they
cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like paraffin tests,
photographing and finger printing.

As penned by J. Cruz in this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes
of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its
provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
Posted by Philippine Tambayan Store at 6:45 AM
Labels: Case Digests
0 COMMENTS:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Your Ad Here
BLOG ARCHIVE

2009 (37)
July (24)
June (13)
Sanidad vs Comelec - A case Digest
Ynot vs IAC - A case Digest
Aglipay v. Ruiz Case Digest
Case Digest Assignment for Legal Profession
Vera vs Avelino Case Digest
Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest

Alih vs Castro - A case Digest


Case Digest - Assignment 3
Villavicencio vs Lukban - A case digest
PNB vs. Pabalan - Case Digest
Legal Profession and Legal Research
Case Digest - Phil Political Law
Classes start June 1
2008 (4)
LEAVE A MESSAGE

TOPBLOGS

Legal - Top Blogs Philippines

LINKS

PinoyTaxation
Chan Robles
Law Phil
Diego Silang Movement
The On Demand Global Workforce - oDesk

Google Custom Search


SUBSCRIBE TO

Posts
Comments
CLASSMATES

JRU Freshmen 2009 Disclaimer


This is an unofficial and personal blog of the author. Contents herein are the
personal views of the author unless explicitly expressed otherwise. Books and other
citations are results of the author's research in the internet, and other sources. Ebooks will contain missing pages as they are mere excerpts of the original.

Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008


Back to TOP

You might also like