GR 200748; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014
Jaime D. Dela Cruz, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jaime D. Dela Cruz, a Police Officer 2, was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for use of dangerous drugs. The charge stemmed from an entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) based on a complaint alleging he demanded money in exchange for the release of a detainee. During the entrapment, he was arrested and later required to submit a urine sample at the NBI forensic laboratory. The test yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him, sentencing him to compulsory rehabilitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner argued that the drug test was illegal, conducted without counsel and without legal basis, and that his arrest was for alleged extortion, not for a drug-related offense.
ISSUE
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED petitioner Jaime D. Dela Cruz. The Court ruled that the drug test conducted was illegal and not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence. The Court held that Section 15 of R.A. 9165, which penalizes the use of dangerous drugs based on a confirmatory test following an arrest, applies only to persons apprehended or arrested for unlawful acts specifically listed under Article II of R.A. 9165 (such as importation, sale, possession, etc. of dangerous drugs). It does not apply to persons arrested for any other crime, such as the alleged extortion in this case. To apply it otherwise would unduly expand its meaning. Furthermore, the Court found that subjecting a person arrested for a non-drug-related offense to a drug test constitutes an unreasonable search, violating constitutional rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. The positive drug test result was therefore inadmissible as evidence. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution were set aside.