G.R. No. 143896 - Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143896)

Key Dates

– January 31, 2006: Alleged extortion of Ariel Escobido; entrapment operation; petitioner’s arrest.  
– February 14, 2006: Information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman–Visayas.  
– February 16, 2006: Confirmatory toxicology report.  
– June 6, 2007: RTC Branch 58 of Cebu City Decision convicting petitioner.  
– June 22, 2011: Court of Appeals Decision affirming conviction.  
– February 2, 2012: CA Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.  
– July 23, 2014: Supreme Court Decision granting petition, acquitting petitioner.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Sections 2 (right against unreasonable searches and seizures) and 17 (privilege against self-incrimination).  
– Republic Act No. 9165, Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs) and enumerated offenses under Article II.

Factual Background

On January 31, 2006, NBI–Central Visayas received a complaint from Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido alleging that unknown persons, purportedly police officers, had extorted P100,000 (later reduced to P40,000) from them in exchange for the release of Ariel Escobido. The complainants were directed to Gorordo Police Office and then came to the NBI office, where they received calls and text messages from “Jamesa” demanding money. A pre-marked P500 bill treated with fluorescent powder formed part of the entrapment money. At a Jollibee branch at Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, NBI agents arrested Jaime dela Cruz during the hand-over.

Forensic Examination and Drug Test

After arrest, petitioner was taken to the NBI forensic laboratory. He was required to submit a urine sample, which he refused, insisting on testing at the PNP Crime Laboratory and requesting counsel before sampling. His requests were denied, and the NBI conducted a confirmatory test on February 16, 2006, yielding a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Prosecution’s Evidence

– Testimony of NBI agents regarding the extortion complaint, verification of text messages, entrapment operation, and arrest of petitioner.
– Toxicology Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 confirming presence of a dangerous drug in petitioner’s urine.

Defense’s Evidence

Petitioner testified that he was eating at Jollibee when NBI agents arrested him for alleged extortion. He denied involvement in drug use, refused to submit urine to NBI, and insisted on counsel and PNP laboratory testing, which were denied.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165. It imposed compulsory rehabilitation for a minimum of six months at the Cebu Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents. The RTC held that (1) petitioner was lawfully arrested; (2) petitioner was subjected to drug testing; and (3) the confirmatory test showed drug use. It ruled that providing a urine sample is a mechanical act not requiring counsel.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. It held that the laboratory examination complied with existing law, that petitioner’s guilt was established by direct evidence, and that issues concerning the validity of his arrest and hearsay could not be raised in a Rule 45 petition.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether the drug test conducted on petitioner was legal and constitutionally permissible.

Supreme Court Analysis: Scope of Section 15, R.A. 9165

Section 15 applies only to persons “arrested or apprehended” for unlawful acts enumerated under Article II of R.A. 9165 (e.g., importation, sale, possession of dangerous drugs). Extending mandatory drug tes