View full case

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charge stemmed from an entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) wherein petitioner was allegedly found positive for the use of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "Shabu". Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and was arraigned. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the complainants alleged that petitioner demanded money in exchange for the release of their relative who was arrested for allegedly selling drugs. The entrapment operation resulted in petitioner's arrest and the subsequent positive drug test. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied the charges and claimed that he was arrested for extortion by NBI agents while eating at a Jollibee branch. He alleged that his request for drug testing to be conducted by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory was denied, as was his request to call his lawyer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty of the drug charge and sentenced him to compulsory rehabilitation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the legality of the drug test conducted on him.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.

  2. Whether the elements of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 were established in the case.

  3. Whether the possession of drug paraphernalia with residue should be charged under Section 12 or Section 14 of RA 9165.

  4. Whether the mandatory drug testing of a person apprehended or arrested for any crime violates the right to privacy.

  5. Whether the urine sample taken from the petitioner is admissible in evidence despite him claiming that it was derived from an uncounselled extrajudicial confession.

  6. Whether the other pieces of evidence, aside from the urine sample, are sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt for the crimes charged.

RULING:

  1. The drug test conducted upon the petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.

  2. The lower court and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the elements of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 were established in the case.

  3. The possession of drug paraphernalia with residue should be charged under Section 14 of RA 9165, not Section 12. The maximum penalty under Section 14, which pertains to possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or meetings, shall be imposed on any person who possesses such items. Section 12, on the other hand, pertains to possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs in general. The court called on law enforcers and prosecutors to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is solely in the form of residue and a positive confirmatory test is obtained. The filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found.

  4. Mandatory drug testing of a person apprehended or arrested for any crime would violate the person's right to privacy guaranteed under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. Imposing mandatory drug testing on the accused is an attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution and is contrary to the objectives of RA 9165. It also violates the right against self-incrimination.

  5. The urine sample is admissible in evidence. The Court clarified that the prohibition under the Constitution is against the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not against the inclusion of the accused's body in evidence when it may be material. In this case, the urine sample was derived through a mechanical act and was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. Furthermore, the petitioner and his co-accused voluntarily gave their urine samples when requested to undergo a drug test. Therefore, the urine sample is admissible.

  6. Even assuming that the urine samples are inadmissible in evidence, there are other pieces of credible evidence, including the testimonial evidence of the prosecution, that point to the petitioner's culpability for the crimes charged. Thus, the trial court's decision to convict the petitioner based on the other evidence is upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The drug test in Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the same law.

  • Persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 are subjected to drug tests, including those arrested for "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation," "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals, possession thereof during parties, social gatherings or meetings, being "employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort," "maintenance of a den, dive or resort," "illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and essential chemicals," "manufacture or delivery" or "possession" of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals, possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings, "unnecessary" or "unlawful" prescription thereof, "cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof," and "maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals."

  • The purpose of charging and convicting individuals under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 is to rehabilitate first-time offenders of drug use instead of subjecting them to other crimes with heavier penalties. The provision is meant to give drug users a chance to recover and have a second chance at life.

  • In cases where the presence of dangerous drugs is solely in the form of residue and a positive confirmatory test is obtained, discretion should be used in filing charges for possession of dangerous drugs. Separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than residue, should be found to warrant charging for possession under Section 12 of RA 9165.

  • Mandatory drug testing of a person apprehended or arrested for any crime violates the right to privacy guaranteed under the Constitution. The right against self-incrimination prohibits the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. Purely mechanical acts, not requiring testimonial acts, are excluded from the prohibition.

  • The right against self-incrimination guarantees that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

  • The right to privacy protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

  • The inclusion of the accused's body in evidence, when it may be material, is not prohibited as long as there is no physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused.