G.R. No. L-25951 - Filipinas Investment and Fice Corp. vs. Vitug, Jr.

On June 30, 2003, pursuant to the directive of then Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Dionisio R. Santiago, a random drug test was conducted at the National Bilibid Prison (NBP).
Urine samples were collected from 38 inmates and subjected to screening by the Chief Medical Technologist and Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic Laboratory in Quezon City.
Out of the 38 samples, 21 tested positive.
Subsequent confirmatory tests by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division verified the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”) in the urine samples of these 21 inmates.

The 21 inmates were charged with the violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, based on identically drafted Informations.
The Information alleged that on or about June 30, 2003, at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City, the accused willfully and unlawfully introduced a dangerous drug into their physiological system.
The charges were predicated on the results of the screening and confirmatory tests, notwithstanding that the inmates were not apprehended or arrested for any drug-related offense at the time of the drug testing.
All respondents entered a “Not Guilty” plea during their arraignment on June 29, 2006, and the case was scheduled for pre-trial and trial on August 11, 2006, with subsequent resets due to procedural motions and an intervening typhoon.

On August 29, 2006, the respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, arguing that:

The allegations in the Information did not constitute a violation of Section 15, RA 9165.
The accused were not apprehended or arrested for the use of dangerous drugs but were merely tested administratively pursuant to the directive of the Bureau of Corrections.
Under Section 36, Article III of RA 9165, inmates of the National Penitentiary or Bureau of Corrections are not included in the list of persons subject to mandatory or random drug testing.
The testing procedure was flawed because the respondents were not informed of their positive screening results and were thus deprived of the opportunity to challenge the results through a confirmatory test within the mandatory fifteen (15)-day period.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that one of the essential requisites for liability—the apprehension or arrest of the accused—was lacking.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed the RTC decision in its May 29, 2008 Decision, and a subsequent Resolution dated February 26, 2009, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner (the People of the Philippines) subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending that:

The CA erred in upholding the RTC’s dismissal of the cases.
The dismissal was improperly based on lack of probable cause rather than on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offense—a defect curable by amendment of the Information under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The issues eventually reached the Supreme Court for review on November 24, 2014.

Whether the filing of a motion to quash based on the contention that the alleged facts do not constitute an offense is viable even after arraignment, given the exception under Section 3(a), Rule 117.
Whether the RTC erroneously dismissed the cases on the ground of lack of probable cause instead of affording the prosecution the opportunity to amend the defect in the Information, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 117.
Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s decision, particularly in its handling of the distinction between the executive and judicial determinations of probable cause.
Whether the trial court exceeded its authority by dismissing the case on a procedural technicality, thereby depriving the State of its chance to present evidence and correct a curable defect in the Information.
Whether the failure to allow amendment of the Information violated the due process rights of the State as well as the procedural guarantees under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.