Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC G.R. No. L-69401 June 23, 1987 RI !L !LI", N!SIM !LI", !IS!N !LI", MIJ!L !LI", OM!R !LI", E#RIS MU$S!N, MULSI#I %!R!#IL, &ILL' !SM!# R!MSI# !S!LI, &!N#ING USM!N, !NGG!NG "!#!NI, %!RMI$"!N "!P!, G!&R!L JI$IRI, !LL!N T!N, MUJ!"IRIN M!R!JU$I, $ENNE#' GON !LES, UR#UJ! !LI", MERL! !LI", (n) NUR!IS! !LI" *#! #E +EROLINO, petitioners, vs. M!JOR GENER!L #EL+IN C. C!STRO, IN "IS C!P!CIT' !S COMM!N#ER SOUT"COM !N# REGION!L UNI+IE# COMM!N#, REGION I,, !M&O!NG! CIT', COLONEL ERNESTO C!LUPIG, IN "IS C!P!CIT' !S COMM!N#ING O++ICER O+ T"E SPECI!L +ORCES GROUP -!IR&ORNE. !N# INTERN!L #E+ENSE COMM!N#, OT"ER%ISE $NO%N !S I)C M!JOR !RNOL# &L!NCO IN "IS C!P!CIT' !S COMM!N#ING O++ICER O+ T"E P"ILIPPINE M!RINES !N# 1ST LIEUTEN!NT #!R%IN GUERR! IN "IS C!P!CIT' !S !CTS SUPER*ISOR, INTERN!L #E+ENSE COMM!N#, !RME# +ORCES O+ T"E P"ILIPPINES, respondents.

CRU , J.: On November 2 , !"#$, a contin%ent of more than t&o hundred Philippine marines and elements of the home defense forces raided the compound occupied b' the petitioners at (ov. Alvare) street, *amboan%a Cit', in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other e+plosives. 1 ,he militar' operation &as commonl' -no&n and dreaded as a .)ona,. &hich &as not unli-e the feared practice of the kempeitai durin% the /apanese Occupation of roundin% up the people in a localit', arrestin% the persons fin%ered b' a hooded informer, and e+ecutin% them outri%ht 0althou%h the last part is not included in the modern refinement1. ,he initial reaction of the people inside the compound &as to resist the invasion &ith a burst of %unfire. No one &as hurt as presumabl' the purpose &as merel' to &arn the intruders and deter them from enterin%. 2nfortunatel', as mi%ht be e+pected in incidents li-e this, the situation a%%ravated soon enou%h. ,he soldiers returned fire and a blood' shoot3out ensued, resultin% in a number of casualties. 2 ,he besie%ed compound surrendered the follo&in% mornin%, and si+teen male occupants &ere arrested, later to be fin%er3printed, paraffin3tested and photo%raphed over their ob4ection. ,he militar' also inventoried and confiscated nine M!5 rifles, one M!$ rifle, nine rifle %renades, and several rounds of ammunition found in the premises. 3 On 6ecember 2!, !"#$, the petitioners came to this Court in a petition for prohibition and mandamus &ith preliminar' in4unction and restrainin% order. ,heir purpose &as to recover the articles sei)ed from them, to prevent these from bein% used as evidence a%ainst them, and to challen%e their fin%er3printin%, photo%raphin% and paraffin3testin% as violative of their ri%ht a%ainst self3incrimination. 4 ,he Court, treatin% the petition as an in4unction suit &ith a pra'er for the return of the articles alle%ed to have been ille%all' sei)ed, referred it for hearin% to /ud%e Omar 2. Amin of the re%ional trial court, *amboan%a Cit'. / After receivin% the testimonial and documentar' evidence of the parties, he submitted the report and recommendations on &hich this opinion is based. 6 ,he petitioners demand the return of the arms and ammunition on the %round that the' &ere ta-en &ithout a search &arrant as re7uired b' the Bill of Ri%hts. ,his is confirmed b' the said report and in fact admitted b' the respondents, .but &ith avoidance. 7 Article 89, :ection ;, of the !"<; Constitution, &hich &as in force at the time of the incident in 7uestion, provided as follo&s=

:ec. ;. ,he ri%ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects a%ainst unreasonable searches and sei)ures of &hatever nature and for an' purpose shall not be violated, and no search &arrant or &arrant of arrest shall issue e+cept upon probable cause to be determined b' the 4ud%e, or such other responsible officer as ma' be authori)ed b' la&, after e+amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the &itnesses he ma' produce, and particularl' describin% the place to be searched, and the persons or thin%s to be sei)ed. 8t &as also declared in Article 89, :ection $021 that3 :ec. $021 An' evidence obtained in violation of this or the precedin% section shall be inadmissible for an' purpose in an' proceedin%. ,he respondents, &hile admittin% the absence of the re7uired such &arrant, sou%ht to 4ustif' their act on the %round that the' &ere actin% under superior orders. 8 ,here &as also the su%%estion that the measure &as necessar' because of the a%%ravation of the peace and order problem %enerated b' the assassination of Ma'or Cesar Climaco. 9

:uperior orders. cannot, of course, countermand the Constitution. ,he fact that the petitioners &ere suspected of the Climaco -illin% did not e+cuse the constitutional short3 cuts the respondents too-. As elo7uentl' affirmed b' the 2.:. :upreme Court in E+ parte Milli%an= 10
,he Constitution is a la& for rulers and people, e7uall' in &ar and in peace, and covers &ith the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involvin% more pernicious conse7uences, &as ever invented b' the &it of man than that an' of its provisions can be suspended durin% an' of the %reat e+i%encies of %overnment. ,he precarious state of la&lessness in *amboan%a Cit' at the time in 7uestion certainl' did not e+cuse the non3 observance of the constitutional %uarant' a%ainst unreasonable searches and sei)ures. ,here &as no state of hostilities in the area to 4ustif', assumin% it could, the repressions committed therein a%ainst the petitioners. 8t is so eas' to sa' that the petitioners &ere outla&s and deserved the arbitrar' treatment the' received to ta-e them into custod'> but that is a criminal ar%ument. 8t is also fallacious. 8ts obvious fla& lies in the conclusion that the petitioners &ere un7uestionabl' %uilt' on the stren%th alone of unsubstantiated reports that the' &ere stoc-pilin% &eapons. ,he record does not disclose that the petitioners &ere &anted criminals or fu%itives from 4ustice. At the time of the .)ona,. the' &ere merel' suspected of the ma'or?s sla'in% and had not in fact even been investi%ated for it. As mere suspects, the' &ere presumed innocent and not %uilt' as summaril' pronounced b' the militar'. 8ndeed, even if &ere assumed for the sa-e of ar%ument that the' &ere %uilt', the' &ould not have been an' less entitled to the protection of the Constitution, &hich covers both the innocent and the %uilt'. ,his is not to sa', of course, that the Constitution coddles criminals. @hat it does simpl' si%nif' is that, lac-in% the shield of innocence, the %uilt' need the armor of the Constitution, to protect them, not from a deserved sentence, but from arbitrar' punishment. Ever' person is entitled to due process. 8t is no e+a%%eration that the basest criminal, ran%ed a%ainst the rest of the people &ho &ould condemn him outri%ht, is still, under the Bill of Ri%hts, a ma4orit' of one. 8f the respondents did not actuall' disdain the Constitution &hen the' made their ille%al raid, the' certainl' %ave ever' appearance of doin% so. ,his is trul' re%rettable for it &as incumbent on them, especiall' durin% those tense and tinder' times, to encoura%e rather than undermine respect for the la&, &hich it &as their dut' to uphold. 8n actin% as the' did, the' also defied the precept that .civilian authorit' is at all times supreme over the militar'. so clearl' proclaimed in the !"<; Constitution. 11 8n the instant case, the respondents simpl' b'3passed the civil courts, &hich had the authorit' to determine &hether or not there &as probable cause to search the petitioner?s premises. 8nstead, the' proceeded to ma-e the raid &ithout a search &arrant on their o&n unauthori)ed determination of the petitioner?s %uilt.

,he respondents cannot even plead the ur%enc' of the raid because it &as in fact not ur%ent. ,he' -ne& &here the petitioners &ere. ,he' had ever' opportunit' to %et a search &arrant before ma-in% the raid. 8f the' &ere &orried that the &eapons inside the compound &ould be spirited a&a', the' could have surrounded the premises in the meantime, as a preventive measure. ,here &as absolutel' no reason at all &h' the' should disre%ard the orderl' processes re7uired b' the Constitution and instead insist on arbitraril' forcin% their &a' into the petitioner?s premises &ith all the menace of a militar' invasion. Concedin% that the search &as trul' &arrantless, mi%ht not the search and sei)ure be nonetheless considered valid because it &as incidental to a le%al arrestA :urel' not. 8f all the la& enforcement authorities have to do is force their &a' into an' house and then pic- up an'thin% the' see there on the %round that the occupants are resistin% arrest, then &e mi%ht as &ell delete the Bill of Ri%hts as a fuss' redundanc'. @hen the respondents could have easil' obtained a search &arrant from an' of the ,EN civil courts then open and functionin% in *amboan%a Cit', 12 the' instead simpl' bar%ed into the belea%uered premises on the verbal order of their superior officers. One cannot 4ust force his &a' into an' man?s house on the ille%al orders of a superior, ho&ever loft' his ran-. 8ndeed, even the humblest hovel is protected from official intrusion because of the ancient rule, revered in all free re%imes, that a man?s house is his castle.

8t ma' be frail> its roof ma' sha-e> the &ind ma' enter> the rain ma' enter. But the Bin% of En%land ma' not enter. All the forces of the Cro&n dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. 13
8f the arrest &as made under Rule !!;, :ection , of the Rules of Court in connection &ith a crime about to be committed, bein% committed, or 4ust committed, &hat &as that crimeA ,here is no alle%ation in the record of such a 4ustification. Parentheticall', it ma' be observed that under the Revised Rule !!;, :ection 0b1, the officer ma-in% the arrest must have personal -no&led%e of the %round therefor as stressed in the recent case of People v. Burgos.14 8f follo&s that as the search of the petitioners? premises &as violative of the Constitution, all the firearms and ammunition ta-en from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in an' of the proceedin%s a%ainst the petitioners. ,hese articles are .fruits of the poisonous tree. 1/ As /ud%e Cearned Dand observed, .Onl' in case the prosecution &hich itself controls the sei)in% officials, -no&s that it cannot profit b' their &ron%, &ill the &ron% be repressed. 16 Pendin% determination of the le%alit' of such articles, ho&ever, the' shall remain in custodia legis, sub4ect to such appropriate disposition as the correspondin% courts ma' decide. 17 ,he ob4ection to the photo%raphin%, fin%erprintin% and paraffin3testin% of the petitioners deserves sli%ht comment. ,he prohibition a%ainst self3incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion onl'. As /ustice Dolmes put it in Dolt v. 2nited :tates, 18 .,he prohibition of compellin% a man in a criminal court to be a &itness a%ainst himself is a prohibition of the use of ph'sical or moral compulsion to e+tort communications from him, not an e+clusion of his bod' as evidence &hen it ma' be material.. ,he fearful da's of hamletin% salva%in%, .)ona. and other dreaded operations should remain in the past, banished &ith the secret marshals and their covert license to -ill &ithout trial. @e must be done &ith la&lessness in the name of la& enforcement. ,hose &ho are supposed to uphold the la& must not be the first to violate it. As Chief /ustice Claudio ,eehan-ee stressed in his concurrin% opinion in Lacanilao v. De Leon, 19 .8t is time that the martial la& re%ime?s le%ac' of the la& of force be discarded and that there be a return to the force and rule of la&.. All of us must e+ert efforts to ma-e our countr' trul' free and democratic, &here ever' individual is entitled to the full protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Ri%hts can stand as a stolid sentinel for all, the innocent as &ell as the %uilt', includin% the basest of criminals. @DEREEORE, the search of the petitioners? premises on November 2 , !"#$, is hereb' declared 8CCE(AC and all the articles sei)ed as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence a%ainst the petitioners in an' proceedin%s. Do&ever, the said articles shall remain in custodia legis pendin% the outcome of the criminal cases that have been or ma' later be filed a%ainst the petitioners. :O OR6ERE6.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, &armiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

elencio!"errera, #utierre$, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, #anca%co, Padilla, Bidin,

+oo0no0e1 ! Rollo, p. #!. 2 '(id., pp. #!3#2. ; 'd., p. #2. $ 'd, pp. ;3!5. id, p. $;. 5 id, pp. <53#$. < id, p. #;. # id. " id. !F $ @all. 2. !! Art. 88, :ec. #, !"<; Constitution. !2 Anne+es .E., .E3l., .E32., .E3;., .E3$., .E3 ., .E35., .E3<., .E3# ., and .E3" .. !; 2.:. v. Arceo, ; Phil. ;#!. !$ !$$ :CRA !. ! :ilverthorne Cumber Co. v. 2.:., 2 ! 2.:. ;# . !5 Pu%liese 0!"$ 1 !;; E. 2 ed. $"<. !< Roan v. (on)ales, !$ :CRA 5#<. !# 2!# 2.:. 2$ . !" (.R. No. <5 ;2, prom. /an. 25, !"#<.