Case Summary (G.R. No. 228373)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioner: People of the Philippines (Office of the Solicitor General)
Respondent: PO1 Johnny K. Sullano, police officer at Butuan City Police Station 5
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., RTC Branch 4, Butuan City
Appellate Judges: CA‐Cagayan de Oro City, Third Division
Key Dates
October 16–17, 2012: Random urine sampling and receipt of specimen
November 5, 2012: Confirmatory test positive for methamphetamine
February–April 2013: Prosecutorial resolutions on probable cause
March 7, 2014: RTC grants demurrer to evidence and dismisses case
June 10, 2016: Court of Appeals affirms RTC decision
March 12, 2018: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution of the Philippines (right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation; due process; privacy)
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), particularly:
• Section 15, Article II – Use of Dangerous Drugs (requires person “apprehended or arrested” to be prosecuted)
• Section 36, Article III – Authorized Drug Testing (mandatory testing for police officers)
Antecedents and Procedural History
Senior Superintendent Nerio T. Bermudo ordered fifty police officers to undergo random drug testing; respondent’s urine tested positive for methamphetamine in both initial and confirmatory tests. A complaint for violation of Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 was filed. Respondent filed a manifestation admitting positive result, sought dismissal, and entered rehabilitation. The prosecution initially moved to dismiss, then reversed to file information alleging unlawful use. Respondent pleaded not guilty and moved for demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rested.
RTC Ruling (March 7, 2014)
The trial court granted the demurrer to evidence, holding that Section 15 applies only to persons “apprehended or arrested” for an offense under R.A. No. 9165. Since respondent was never apprehended or arrested, the essential element of Section 15 was absent. The court dismissed the criminal charge and suggested administrative proceedings instead.
CA Ruling (June 10, 2016)
The Court of Appeals denied the People’s petition for certiorari. It agreed that Section 15’s elements include: (1) apprehension or arrest; (2) drug testing; and (3) positive confirmatory result. Finding the first element lacking, the CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal and held there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 may be applied to a person who tested positive under mandatory drug testing (Section 36, Article III) absent apprehension or arrest, when the information charges only Section 15.
Supreme Court Rationale
- Plain‐Meaning Rule and Strict Construction: Section 15 unambiguously limits criminal liability to “a person apprehended or arrested” found positive after confirmatory test. Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
- Expressio Unius: The express qualification “apprehended or arrested” excludes persons not actually apprehended or arrested from Section 15’s coverage.
- Right to Be Informed: The information charged only Section 15; inclusion of Section 36 would deprive respondent of notice of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228373)
Antecedents
- On October 16, 2012, Senior Supt. Nerio T. Bermudo ordered fifty randomly selected police officers to undergo drug testing under Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165.
- Respondent PO1 Johnny K. Sullano, assigned to Butuan City Police Station 5, submitted his urine sample on October 17, 2012.
- The Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office 13’s Initial Chemistry Report tested positive for methamphetamine.
- A confirmatory test on the same specimen, completed November 5, 2012, yielded the same result.
- Based on these results, a Complaint Affidavit was filed against respondent for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Respondent’s Manifestation
- In lieu of a counter-affidavit, respondent filed a Manifestation stating he voluntarily submitted to the test and tested positive for methamphetamine.
- He claimed non-use of the drug and lack of means to contest test veracity.
- He disclosed entry into a rehabilitation program with the Cocoon Foundation.
- He pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
Prosecution Proceedings
- Assistant City Prosecutor Cabuga-Plaza recommended dismissal of the complaint on February 1, 2013.
- Deputy City Prosecutor Go reversed the recommendation in an April 8, 2013 Order, finding probable cause.
- An information was filed charging respondent under Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for willful, unlawful, and felonious use of methamphetamine after a confirmatory test.
- Respondent pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
Trial Court Ruling
- After the prosecution rested, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing the State failed to prove apprehension or arrest, an essential element under