Jaime D. Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.

200748, 23 July 2014

Facts: Petitioner Jaime D. Dela Cruz was charged in an Information for violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the positive use of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Evidence for the prosecution reveals that agents of the NBI received a complaint from Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido
claiming that Ariel Escobido (live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito) was picked up by several unknown persons
believed to be police officers for Ariels alleged sell of illegal drugs.

Corazon and Charito were instructed to go to Gorordo Police Office where they met James who demanded 100,000.00,
later lowered to 40,000.00, for the release of Ariel. After said meeting, complainants proceeded to the NBI to file a
complaint and narrate the circumstances. Thereafter, a team was formed for the entrapment operation. NBI was able to
nab petitioner by using pre-marked 500.00 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was part of the amount demanded
by James. Petitioner was then brought at the NBIs forensic laboratory. There, he was required to submit his urine
for drug testing, which yielded positive result.

For his defense, petitioner denied the charges and was allegedly arrested for extortion. When he was brought to the
NBI Office, he was required to extract urine for drug examination, but he refused the same.

When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. The records however do not reveal whether he was likewise
charged for extortion.

The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
Petitioner appealed assailing that the RTCs validation of the result of the urine test despite its dubiousness having been
admitted in spite of lack of legal basis for its admission.

The Court of Appeals found the appeal devoid of merit and affirmed the RTC. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied.

Issue: Whether the drug test conducted upon petitioner is legal.

Ruling: No, the drug test conducted is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.

The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only
for unlawful acts listed under Article II of RA 9165 (Note: He supposedly committed extortion). A person
arrested cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime, but instead, Section 15 comprehends
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of RA 9165. Otherwise, to make the Section 15
applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for all other crimes is tantamount to mandatory drug testing for any
crime. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 6195. Drug testing in this case would violate a person's right to privacy
guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
themselves.

The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion. Cases where non-testimonial compulsion
has been allowed reveal that the evidence were material to the principal cause of the arrest. Here, a urine sample is not
material to the charge of extortion. Thus, the RTC and CA erred when they held that extraction of urine sample for purposes
of drug testing was merely a mechanical act falling outside the concept of custodial investigation. Note that petitioner was
arrested for extortion; he resisted having his urine sample taken; and finally, his urine sample was the only available
evidence used as basis for his conviction for use of illegal drugs.

The drug test was in violation of petitioners right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Petitioner
was compelled to submit his urine for drug testing despite his resistance. The constitutional guarantee to the right to privacy
and against self-incrimination were violated. The drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime of offense for
which the arrest is being made cannot be condoned.

In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court acquitted Jaime D. Dela Cruz.