Case Summary (G.R. No. 160739)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Justice prosecutor who filed Informations for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Respondents
Eleven inmates of the National Bilibid Prison who tested positive in a screening test and whose samples were confirmed positive by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division; they pleaded not guilty and filed a consolidated motion asserting that the facts charged did not constitute an offense under Section 15 of RA 9165.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- June 30, 2003: Random urine screening of 38 inmates at NBP; 21 screened positive; confirmatory tests by NBI confirmed positivity.
- June 29, 2006: Respondents arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
- August 29, 2006: Respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss (grounded on the contention that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense).
- RTC (Muntinlupa, Branch 204) granted dismissal for lack of probable cause.
- May 29, 2008: Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC dismissal.
- February 26, 2009: CA denied petition for reconsideration.
- November 24, 2014: Supreme Court rendered the decision reversing the CA and RTC rulings (decision received Dec. 4, 2014).
Applicable Law and Rules
- 1987 Constitution (applicable given the decision date).
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), particularly Section 15, Article II (offense charged), Section 36, Article III (persons subject to mandatory and random drug tests), and Section 38 (procedures and periods for confirmatory testing and right to challenge results).
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117 (motion to quash): Section 2 (scope of court's consideration), Section 3(a) (ground that facts charged do not constitute an offense), Section 4 (duty to allow amendment when defect is curable), and Section 9 (waiver except enumerated exceptions).
- Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 112, Section 6 (court’s evaluation of prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence for issuance of warrant).
Procedural Posture
The respondents were charged by information with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 based on positive screening and confirmatory tests. They moved to quash (filed as a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss) contending that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense under Section 15. The RTC dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause; the CA affirmed; the People filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC dismissal of the Informations for lack of probable cause.
- Whether the trial court properly disposed of the case by dismissing for lack of probable cause rather than addressing the specific ground asserted in the motion to quash (that the facts charged did not constitute an offense).
- Whether, under Rule 117, the prosecution should have been given the opportunity to amend the Informations if the defect was curable.
Court’s Analysis on Motion to Quash and Timeliness
The Supreme Court recognized that respondents’ motion invoking that “the facts charged do not constitute an offense” is a ground enumerated in Section 3(a), Rule 117. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that failure to assert grounds of a motion to quash before plea is deemed waiver except for certain enumerated grounds, including paragraph (a). Thus respondents’ post-plea filing was not barred. The Court emphasized that the RTC exceeded its authority by dismissing for lack of probable cause — a determinate different from the ground actually raised — because Section 2 of Rule 117 confines the court to consider only the grounds stated in the motion (except for lack of jurisdiction over the offense).
Court’s Analysis on Probable Cause Distinction and Timing
The Supreme Court reiterated the established distinction between (a) the executive determination of probable cause (the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation and decision to file information) and (b) the judicial determination of probable cause (the judge’s determination as to issuance of a warrant of arrest). The Court noted that once the information had been filed and arraignment occurred, a judicial determination of probable cause for issuance of an arrest warrant had effectively been addressed; therefore, the RTC was not entitled to convert a Rule 117 motion into a post-arraignment reexamination of probable cause and dismiss the case on that basis.
Court’s Analysis on Amendment Requirement under Rule 117
Rule 117 Section 4 mandates that if a motion to quash is based on a defect curable by amendment — and specifically where “the facts charged do not constitute an offense” — the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to amend the information. The Supreme Court held that if the defect is curable the motion to quash should be denied and the prosecution ordered to file an amended information; only if the prosecution fails to amend or the information still suffers the same defect should the motion be granted. The Court found that the RTC should have given the State the opportunity to amend rather than dismiss, and that the CA erred in upholding dismissal by effectively deciding the merits based on the Informations’ allegations without permitting amendment or presentation of evidence.
Court’s Observations on Prosecutorial Role and Due Process
The Court underscored the prosecutor’s duty to present the State’s case fully and fairly and to seek to cure defects in the information so that the court’s mind may not be “tortured by doubts.” Denying the prosecution the opportunity to amend or to present evidence curtailed the State’s right to due process and its entitlement to be heard — considerations consistent with procedural fairness under the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Holding and Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review, reversed and set aside the May 29, 2008 Decision and the February 26, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and consequently reversed the RTC’s dismissal of the Informations. The matter was remanded insofar as the State should be afforded the opportunity to amend the Informations or present evidence consistent with Rule 117 procedures.
Legal Principles and Precedent Employed
The decision applied and reaffirmed the following principles as ref
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160739)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 747 Phil. 703; 111 OG No. 23, 3212 (June 8, 2015), Third Division.
- G.R. No. 187000, Decision dated November 24, 2014; Judgment notice received December 4, 2014.
- Decision penned by Justice Peralta; concurrence by Justices Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, and Jardeleza.
- Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per Special Order No. 1878, dated November 21, 2014.
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by the People of the Philippines seeking reversal and setting aside of Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 29, 2008 and CA Resolution dated February 26, 2009.
- Case arose from Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa, Branch 204, which granted respondents’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss and ordered dismissal of multiple criminal informations.
- CA denied the People’s petition for certiorari; petitioner filed motion for reconsideration which CA denied in Resolution dated February 26, 2009; petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Antecedent Facts
- On June 30, 2003, pursuant to instructions 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 of thirty-eight (38) inmates were collected and subjected to drug testing by the Chief Medical Technologist and Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic Laboratory in Quezon City.
- Out of the thirty-eight (38) samples, twenty-one (21) urine samples tested positive in the initial screen.
- Confirmatory tests by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division confirmed the positive results for those twenty-one (21) samples, including those of the respondents.
- The twenty-one (21) inmates were charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) under identical informations.
Contents of the Informations
- The Informations accused AQUILINO ANDRADE (and similarly named respondents) of violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165, alleging:
- On or about June 30, 2003, in the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, and within the court’s jurisdiction, the accused, without legal authorization, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used or in any manner introduced into the physiological system of his body Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of RA 9165.
- Informations were identical in form and substance as indicated in the records.
Respondents’ Plea and Pre-trial Events
- All respondents pleaded "Not Guilty" during arraignment on June 29, 2006.
- Case was set for pre-trial and trial initially on August 11, 2006.
- On August 29, 2006, respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss (characterized in later analysis as a Motion to Quash ground) asserting that facts alleged in the Informations did not constitute a violation of Section 15, RA 9165.
- Respondents’ counsel argued multiple points in the motion which included assertions regarding the circumstances of the testing, lack of arrest or apprehension for drug use, inapplicability of Section 36 mandatory/random testing list, and failure to inform accused of screening test results thereby precluding timely challenge by confirmatory test within fifteen (15) days.
Grounds Advanced in the Motion to Dismiss (as presented by respondents)
- Strict reading of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 shows the offense is committed by a person apprehended or arrested for using dangerous drugs and found positive after confirmatory test; respondents were not apprehended or arrested for use of drugs.
- Respondents were merely called to the Maximum Security Conference Hall and made to undergo testing pursuant to directive of then Director Santiago; they were not apprehended or arrested as contemplated by the statute.
- Section 36, Article III of RA 9165 enumerates persons subject to mandatory and random drug tests who, if found positive, shall be subject to Section 15; national penitentiary inmates or inmates of the Bureau of Corrections are not included in that enumeration.
- Even assuming arguendo that respondents were apprehended or subject to mandatory/random testing, the drug test would be invalid absent showings required by Section 38, Article II of RA 9165: testing within 24 hours after apprehension and confirmatory test within fifteen (15) days after receipt of results.
- Accused were not informed of screening test results and thus deprived of right to challenge via confirmatory test within required period.
RTC Order Granting Motion to Dismiss — Ruling and Rationale
- Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero issued an Order granting respondents’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss.
- RTC articulated essential requisites to be liable under RA 9165, including:
- Offender must have been arrested or apprehended for use of dangerous drugs or be one of those enumerated in Section 36, Article III, RA 9165 subject to testing;
- Offender must have been found positive after screening and confirmatory test;
- Offender must not have been found in possession of quantity of dangerous drug as provided under Section 11;
- Challenging a positive screening test must be done within fifteen (15) days after receipt of result via confirmatory test.
- RTC found that inmates were not apprehended nor arrested for violation of RA 9165 but were serving sentences; testing was done pursuant to Director Santiago’s request; Section 36’s enumeration did