G.R. No. 175315 - People vs. Beduya

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175315)

Factual Background and Investigative Results

On the order of the Butuan City Police Director, fifty police officers were randomly selected for mandatory drug testing under Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165. Respondent submitted a urine specimen that produced a positive initial chemistry report and a confirmatory test positive for methamphetamine (shabu). Based on those results, a Complaint Affidavit was filed against respondent alleging violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165. Respondent submitted a manifestation acknowledging the positive result, stating he did not use drugs, that he lacked means to contest the test’s veracity, and that he entered a rehabilitation program.

Charging Instrument and Pleadings

The information charged respondent solely under Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, alleging that he willfully and unlawfully used methamphetamine and was found positive after a confirmatory test. The information did not allege that respondent was apprehended or arrested, nor did it reference Section 36 of the Act. Respondent pleaded not guilty and, after the prosecution rested, filed a demurrer to evidence asserting insufficiency of proof under Section 15 because the information lacked the elemental allegation that he was apprehended or arrested while committing an offense.

RTC Ruling: Grant of Demurrer to Evidence

The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the criminal case. The trial court reasoned that Section 15 presupposes that the person charged was apprehended or arrested, and that respondent was not apprehended or arrested but subjected to a random drug examination under superior directive. The RTC concluded that respondent’s conduct should be dealt with administratively rather than through prosecution under Section 15.

Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmance of RTC

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari filed by the People and affirmed the RTC. The CA distilled the elements of Section 15 as: (1) a person is apprehended or arrested; (2) the person was subjected to a drug test; and (3) the person tested positive after confirmatory testing. Finding the first element absent because respondent was not apprehended or arrested, the CA agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution under Section 15. The CA relied on prior jurisprudence (notably Dela Cruz v. People) and concluded there was no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

Prosecutor’s Arguments on Review

The People argued before the Supreme Court that Section 15 should not be read to require apprehension or arrest as a precondition to prosecution; once a mandatory drug test (Section 36) yields a positive confirmatory result, criminal prosecution under Section 15 is permissible. The prosecution contended that a narrow reading would produce an absurdity leaving persons who test positive via mandatory random testing unpunished criminally. The People also argued that Section 36 allows random testing without prior arrest and that respondent’s failure to comply with rehabilitation provisions (Sections 54 and 55, Article VIII) supported criminal liability. Finally, the prosecution disputed that the dismissal resulted in double jeopardy or that the RTC’s action constituted grave abuse of discretion.

Respondent’s Position and Defenses

Respondent maintained that Section 15 applies only to persons who were apprehended or arrested and later found positive; that the information alleged only Section 15 and did not tie the charge to Section 36; that conflating Section 15 with Section 36 would deny the accused the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations; and that the dismissal by the RTC therefore should stand without exposing him to double jeopardy.

Supreme Court’s Statutory and Doctrinal Analysis

The Supreme Court applied the plain-meaning rule to the text of Section 15, noting the unambiguous phrase “a person apprehended or arrested” immediately qualifies the subject of the provision; under expressio unius est exclusio alterius, this express limitation excludes others. The Court emphasized penal-law construction principles—nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege and that penal statutes are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused (in dubiis reus est absolvendus). The Court concluded that expanding Section 15 by implication to cover persons simply subjected to random testing under Section 36 (absent an allegation of apprehension/arrest) would improperly create a new or broader offense by construction.

Harmonization of Sections 15 and 36 and Constitutional Considerations

The Court considered harmonizing Section 36 and Section 15 and found such harmonization possible without rewriting Section 15. Section 36’s final paragraph referencing Section 15 was read to permit imposition of rehabilitation (a remedy in Section 15) for those found positive through random testing, consistent with the law’s rehabilitative objectives. However, that statutory relationship does not eliminate the textual prerequisite of “apprehended or arrested” in Section 15 for the criminal charge as framed. The Court also relied on prior precedent (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and PDEA) cautioning against mandatory, suspicionless testing used as a tool for criminal prosecution because of privacy and self-incrimination concerns, noting that treating all persons who test positive via random or mandatory work-place testing as criminally chargeable without the statutory predicate would run counter to constitutional protections.

Due Process and Adequacy of the Information

The Court underscored that an information must allege all elements of the charged offense and that prosecuting on grounds not alleged would deprive the accused of the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to prepare a defense. Because the information charged only Section 15 and did not allege apprehension/arrest or invoke Section 36, building into Section 15 the Section 36 predicate by judicial interpretation would unfairly expand the prosecution’s case and violate due process norms.

Double Jeopardy and the Grave-Abuse Exception

The Supreme Court observed that respondent’s demurrer-based dismissal, absent a showing of grave abuse of dis

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175315)

Title, Citation and Court

Case title as extracted from the source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. PO1 JOHNNY K. SULLANO, RESPONDENT.
Reported at 827 Phil. 613; Third Division; G.R. No. 228373.
Decision promulgated March 12, 2018; opinion penned by Justice Gesmundo.
Members of the Court who concurred: Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Martires, JJ.
Case stems from CA-G.R. SP No. 06247-MIN and Criminal Case No. 16757 (RTC, Butuan City, Branch 4).

Antecedent Facts (Factual Background)

On October 16, 2012, Senior Superintendent Nerio T. Bermudo (P/SSupt. Bermudo), City Director of the Butuan City Police Office, ordered fifty (50) randomly selected police officers under the Butuan City Police Office to undergo drug testing pursuant to Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165.
Respondent PO1 Johnny K. Sullano, a police officer assigned to Butuan City Police Station 5, was among those selected and submitted a urine specimen.
Respondent’s urine specimen was received on October 17, 2012.
The Initial Chemistry Report of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 13 indicated a positive result for methamphetamine in respondent’s urine specimen.
A confirmatory test on the same specimen, completed on November 5, 2012, yielded the same positive result for methamphetamine.
Following the positive test results, P/SSupt. Bermudo filed a Complaint Affidavit against respondent for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Procedural Posture and Timeline of Proceedings

Following the filing of the Complaint Affidavit, respondent filed a Manifestation in lieu of a counter-affidavit stating:
- He voluntarily submitted to the random drug test ordered by P/SSupt. Bermudo;
- The urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine;
- He denied using the dangerous drug but asserted he had no means to contest the test’s veracity;
- He had entered a rehabilitation program with the Cocoon Foundation for Substance Abuse; and
- He pleaded for dismissal of the complaint against him.
Assistant City Prosecutor Isabel Corazon Cabuga-Plaza recommended dismissal of the complaint in a Resolution dated February 1, 2013 (the source notes the year should likely be 2013 given the timeline).
Deputy City Prosecutor Aljay O. Go reversed that recommendation in an Order dated April 8, 2013 and found probable cause; an information was filed charging violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The information alleged that on October 17, 2012 at Butuan City respondent “wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously use methamphetamine hydrochloride… and found positive for use, after a confirmatory test.”
Respondent pleaded not guilty; trial ensued; after the prosecution rested, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
RTC (Butuan City, Branch 4):
- RTC Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. granted respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence by Order dated March 7, 2014.
- RTC’s rationale: Section 15 presupposes that the accused was apprehended or arrested; respondent was only subjected to a random drug examination and was not arrested or apprehended; therefore, the matter was more properly administrative rather than criminal; demurrer granted and case dismissed for insufficiency of evidence; bail bond of P30,000 ordered cancelled and released to the bondsman (Mr. Juanito A. Sullano).
- Motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied by RTC Resolution dated April 8, 2014.
Court of Appeals (Cagayan de Oro City), CA-G.R. SP No. 06247-MIN:
- Petitioner (People) filed petition for certiorari; CA denied the petition in Decision dated June 10, 2016, affirming the RTC.
- CA reasoning: Elements of Section 15 include (1) person apprehended or arrested; (2) subjected to a drug test; and (3) found positive after confirmatory test — the first element was absent here because respondent was not apprehended or arrested.
- CA found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC; relied on jurisprudence including Dela Cruz v. People.
- Motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied (resolution promulgated November 17, 2016).
Supreme Court:
- Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 228373).
- The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision (March 12, 2018), holding Section 15 requires apprehension or arrest in the specific facts of the case and that neither the RTC nor the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Question Presented

Whether Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires that a person be apprehended or arrested for the provision to apply, such that a person who only underwent a mandatory/random drug test (pursuant to Section 36, Article III) but was not apprehended or arrested may be criminally prosecuted under Section 15.

Statutory Provisions at Issue (as quoted in the source)

Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (quoted in full in the source):
- “Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. a A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.” (emphasis in source)
Section 36, Article III, R.A. No. 9165 (relevant portions quoted in the source):
- Authorized drug testing shall be done by government forensic laboratories or DOH-accredited labs, employing screening and confirmatory tests.
- The following shall be subjected to drug testing: (e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies — they shall undergo an annual mandatory drug test.
- “In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs u