G.R. No. 200748
July 23, 2014
CASE PRINCIPLE
Mandatory drug testing is only applicable to those who has violated the provisions of Article II of RA 9165. It is not applicable to all crimes. Hence, subjecting a person who was not arrested for violation of RA 9165 to a mandatory drug test is a violation of his rights to privacy and against self-incrimination.
FACTS
The records of the case showed that the petitioner was to be arrested for illegal extortion. However, an entrapment operation was executed against petitioner. After the entrapment operation, petitioner was immediately brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI where forensic examination was done. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology.
Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted with violation of Section 15 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contended that the CA overlooked prevailing jurisprudence, which states that drug testing conducted under circumstances similar to his would violate a person’s right to privacy. He alleged that the forensic laboratory examination was conducted despite the fact that he was not assisted by counsel is in clear violation of his constitutional right. Moreover, he also assailed the use of hearsay evidence as basis for his conviction and the questionable circumstances surrounding his arrest and drug test.
On the other hand, the lower court reasoned that “a suspect cannot invoke his right to counsel when he is required to extract urine because, while he is already in custody, he is not compelled to make a statement or testimony against himself. Extracting urine from one’s body is merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.”
ISSUE
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.
RULING
NO.
Firstly, The drug test in Section 15 of RA 9165 only covers persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful acts listed under Article II of Ra 9165. In other words, the procedure for drug test shall only be applicable to persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law, and not for any other crime. Making the phrase “a person apprehended or arrested” in Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime. In this case, accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion. Hence, the mandatory drug testing is not applicable to him.
Secondly, the drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion. Generally, testimonial compulsion is not allowed. However, testimonial compulsion has been allowed provided that the pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest. In this case, urine sample cannot be considered as material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was “merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation,”
Lastly, the drug test was in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that a person has the right to privacy. Moreover, Section 17 thereof provided that a person has the right against self-incrimination. In this case, the petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances.
From all the above circumstances, the drug test conducted against petitioner is ILLEGAL. Hence, petitioner is acquitted.
“While we express our commendation of law enforcement agents as they vigorously track down offenders in their laudable effort to curb the pervasive and deleterious effects of dangerous drugs on our society, they must, however, be constantly mindful of the reasonable limits of their authority, because it is not unlikely that in their clear intent to purge society of its lawless elements, they may be knowingly or unknowingly transgressing the protected rights of its citizens including even members of its own police force.”