Title
Dela Cruz vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 200748
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2014
A police officer was acquitted after the Supreme Court ruled that a drug test conducted during an extortion entrapment violated his constitutional rights, as it was unrelated to the charge and inadmissible as evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198010)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz, a Police Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police assigned to Cebu City, was charged under Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) by the Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas in an Information dated 14 February 2006.
    • He pleaded not guilty. The records do not indicate any extortion charge.
  • Narrative of Events
    • Complaint and Entrapment Operation
      • On 31 January 2006, complainants Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido alleged their kin was abducted by purported police officers for drug-selling, then ransomed for P100,000 (later P40,000).
      • They reported to NBI–CEVRO; an entrapment team replaced part of the ransom with a pre-marked P500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder.
      • At a Jollibee branch in Cebu City, agents arrested petitioner when he accepted the money.
    • Forensic Examination
      • Petitioner was taken to the NBI forensic laboratory.
      • He initially refused a urine drug test by NBI, demanding PNP Crime Lab testing and counsel presence.
      • Despite objections, his urine was extracted and yielded a positive confirmatory result for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on 16 February 2006 (Toxicology Report No. 2006-TDD-2402).
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • RTC (Branch 58, Cebu City) Decision dated 6 June 2007
      • Convicted petitioner for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165.
      • Imposed compulsory rehabilitation for six months at the Cebu Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents.
    • CA (Twentieth Division) Decision dated 22 June 2011 and Resolution dated 2 February 2012
      • Affirmed RTC’s conviction and sentence.
      • Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
  • Petition for Review on Certiorari
    • Filed under Rule 45, raising legality of drug test, hearsay evidence, and circumstances of arrest.
    • Respondent (People) contended issues raised involve factual questions not reviewable by certiorari; arrest and laboratory procedure were valid.

Issues:

  • Whether the urine drug test conducted on petitioner, who was arrested for alleged extortion, was legal under R.A. 9165 and the Constitution.
  • Whether the compulsory extraction of petitioner’s urine violated his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.