Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Dela Cruz v. People

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    Dela Cruz v. People - G.R. No. 200748 (July 23, 2014) Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Dela Cruz v. People

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    2K views2 pages
    Dela Cruz v. People - G.R. No. 200748 (July 23, 2014) Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dela Cruz v. People - G.R. No. 200748 (July 23, 2014) Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Dela Cruz v. People

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    Dela Cruz v. People - G.R. No. 200748 (July 23, 2014) Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 200748 Dela Cruz v.

    People July 23, 2014

    Jaime D. Dela Cruz, People of the Philippines,


    petitioner respondent
    Sereno, C.J.

    FACTS:
    The petitioner here was Jaime De La Cruz, a police officer, who was charged of violation of Sec 15, Art 2
    of RA 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
    According to the prosecution, the NBI received a complaint from Corazon and Charito that Ariel, who
    was the live-in partner of Corazon and the son of Charito was picked up by unknown persons whom were
    believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs.
    After that, an errand boy came and gave a phone number to the complainants. During the call,
    complainants were instructed to go to Gorordo Police Office wherein they met James who demanded them
    money worth P100,000 which was lowered to P40,000 in exchange of the release of Ariel. After the
    meeting, they went to the NBI to file a complaint. Thus, the NBI conducted an entrapment operation.
    During the course of entrapment, the officers were able to nab Jaime Dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500
    bill dusted with fluorescent powder which was made part of the amount demanded by James and handed
    by Corazon. After that, petitioner Jaime was required to submit his urine for drug testing which produces
    a positive result for having presence of dangerous drug. However, petitioner denied the charge against him.
    Petitioner claimed that he refused the urine sample collection and requested to be allowed to call his lawyer
    prior to the taking of his urine sample but to no avail.
    The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165.
    The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the urine drug test of the petitioner arrested of extortion be used against him without violating
    his right against self-incrimination.

    HELD:
    NO.
    The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
    compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
    when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not
    thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The essence of
    the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself
    through a testimonial act.
    In Gutang vs. People, the Court considered the taking of a urine sample as a mechanical act of the accused
    since this was material, in relation, to his drug case. In the present case, though, petitioner was arrested for
    extortion. The Court failed to see how urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. It is
    incontrovertible that 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. Therefore,
    the drug test was a violation of petitioners right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
    Drug tests can be made upon persons who were apprehended or arrested under the situations listed in Art.
    2 of RA9165. It must be noted that the accused was here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion.
    G.R. No. 200748 Dela Cruz v. People July 23, 2014

    Extortion is not listed in Art. 2 of RA9165. Thus, drug test in Sec. 15 does not cover persons apprehended
    or arrested for any crime, but only for unlawful acts listed under Art. 2 of RA9165.

    You might also like