Case Digest (G.R. No. 200748)
Facts:
Jaime D. Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014, First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas in an Information dated 14 February 2006 for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 (use of dangerous drugs). The Information alleged that petitioner, a Police Officer 2 assigned to the Cebu City Police Office, was arrested in an NBI entrapment operation and was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride after a confirmatory test.According to the prosecution, NBI-CEVRO agents investigated a complaint by Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido that their relative Ariel Escobido had been taken by persons believed to be police officers and that a “James” demanded money for his release. An NBI entrapment was staged at a Jollibee branch; petitioner was arrested there after a pre‑marked P500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder (part of the money handed by the complainant) was used. Petitioner was brought to the NBI forensic laboratory where he allegedly was required to submit urine; the Toxicology (Dangerous Drugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006 showed a positive confirmatory test.
Petitioner testified as lone defense witness, denied the charges, and said he was arrested for extortion by NBI agents. He stated he refused the NBI urine test, asked that testing be done by the PNP Crime Laboratory, and asked to call counsel, but was denied both requests. The trial court record does not disclose whether petitioner faced a separate extortion charge.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, in a Decision dated 6 June 2007, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, R.A. 9165, and sentenced him to compulsory rehabilitation of not less than six months. The Court of Appeals (Twentieth Division) affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated 22 June 2011 (CA‑G.R. C.R. No. 00670), and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconside...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Section 15 of R.A. 9165 authorize drug testing of a person arrested for an offense not listed under Article II of the law (i.e., can Section 15 be applied to all persons arrested for any crime)?
- Is the compelled extraction of a urine sample in the circumstances of this case a permissible non‑testimonial mechanical act (thus not violating the right against self‑incrimination)?
- Did the drug test and its admission violate petitioner’s constitutional rights to privacy and against self‑incrimination...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)