Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6



(GRs. 157870, 158633 and 161658) Date: November 3, 2008

Before the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of Section 36 of RA 9165 or theComprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 insofar as it requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office,students of secondary and
tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons chargedbefore the prosecutor ’s office with certain
offenses. According to Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a senator of the RP and a candidate for re-election in May 2004 elections, said
mandatory drug testing imposes an additional qualification for Senators beyond that which are provided by the Constitution. No
provision in the Constitution authorizes the Congress or the COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
senator. Meanwhile, SJS contends that Section 36(c)(d)(f) and (g) are constitutionally infirm as it constitutes unduedelegation of
legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. It also
violates the equal protection clause as it can be used to harass a student or employee deemedundesirable. The constitutional right
against unreasonable searches is also breached.In addition to the abovementioned contentions, Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as a
citizen and taxpayers maintainsthat said provision should be struck down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right
to privacy, the rightagainst unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the
dueprocess and equal protection guarantees.

ISSUE: WON Section 36 (c), (d), (f) and (g) are unconstitutional

Section 36 (c) and (d)as to students and employees of private and public officesUsing US authorities, the Court ruled in favor
of the constitutionality of Section 36(c) applying the following reasonable deductions: (1) schools and their administrators standin
loco parentis with respect to their students; (2) minor studentshave contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the
custody and supervision of their parents, guardians,and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the
health and well - being of their students andmay adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and
4) schools have the right toimpose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, just, and non-discriminatory.

Therefore, the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are
constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for admission,compliance with
reasonable school rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it issubject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable requirements. Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, themandatory but random drug test prescribed by
Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private officesis justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reason.

We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutors office with criminal
offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
randomness and suspicionless. In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutors office, a mandatory drug testing can
never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a
criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime
are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before
the prosecutors office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the
procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.1[40] 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 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a
persons right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to
incriminate themselves.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and
158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All
concerned agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165. No costs.
2…PEOPLE vs. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL. G.R. No. 140679. January 14, 2004]


That on or about the 12th day of August, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver mixed dried marijuana leaves, tops and seeds in brick form, wrapped
with paper placed in a plastic bag, a prohibited drug, weighing 800 grams, to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust
operation conducted by Police Officers of Laoag City, in violation of the aforesaid law.

Upon arraignment on August 29, 1994, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged.2[2] The case thereafter proceeded to trial.

On July 9, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment, the Court is morally convinced beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused Manny Domingcil is GUILTY under Sec. 4 of Art. II, RA No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Hence, the present appeal.


WON the accused is guilty of the crime charged.


What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.In this case, the prosecution
adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1
Orlando Dalusong in the entrapment operation.The testimony of SPO1 Orlando Dalusong was corroborated on
material points by SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura, then Chief of the Intelligence Section of the PNP of Laoag City who
organized and conducted the operation and was part of the buy-bust team itself.SPO4 Ventura remained
steadfast and unwavering on cross-examination despite intense grilling by the defense counsel.

Police Superintendent Theresa Ann Cid, the Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory
Center at San Fernando, La Union, confirmed3[22] Dr. Joseph Adayas initial finding4[23] that the substance seized
from the appellant was indeed marijuana, a prohibited drug.It was also fairly established by SPO3 Diosdado
Mamotos5[24] and SPO1 Loreto Anchetathat the confiscated marijuana was the same substance examined by the
forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in court

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City,
Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 7079, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, is hereby AFFIRMED.

3…People v. Florencio Doria

GR NO. 125299 January 22, 1999


Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “ Jun” [Doria] was engaged in
illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-bust operation. He was arrested. They
frisked him but did not find the marked bills on him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of
his associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her house.

The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. “ Jun” identified her as “Neneth, ” and she
was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3 Manlangit looked over her house [he was still
outside the house]. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the
box’ s flaps was open, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the marijuana
earlier sold to him by “ Jun. ” His suspicion aroused, so he entered the house and took hold of the box. He
peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered
the marked bills from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. The bricks were examined and they were found to be
dried marijuana leaves.
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in
relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy]. RTC convicted them.

ISSUE: WON the accused are guilty of the crime charged.


In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale
took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court.

 Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he received, Doria sold and
delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer
 Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug


4. PEOPLE VS CERVANTES (GR NO. 181494, MARCH 17, 2009)


That, on or about April 5, 2000, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused ISIDRO ARGUSON y ARENDELA, @ Tisoy, MONALYN
Richard, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, acting in common accord, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P500,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, sell, deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer, FOUR
METHAMPHETAMINE [HYDROCHLORIDE], commonly known as shabu, a regulated drug, without
authority of law or the corresponding license therefor. Accused-appellant and her co-accused pleaded
not guilty to the charge. In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the oral testimonies
of William Todavia, PO3 Reynaldo Ramos of the Philippine National Police Regional Office IV (PNP
R-IV), and P/Sr. Inspector Lorna Tria, a forensic chemical officer of the same regional office.

On April 23, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment acquitting Del Monte and Requiz but finding accused-
appellant guilty as charged and meting upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua. By its Decision dated July
19, 2007, the CA, finding the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to have sufficiently
been satisfied and the identification of accused-appellant having been established, affirmed her conviction.

ISSUE: WON the accussed is guilty of the crime charged.


In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial is the identity of the buyer and
seller, the object and its consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment for it. Implicit in these
cases is first and foremost the identity and existence, coupled with the presentation to the court of the traded
prohibited substance, this object evidence being an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession
or selling of regulated/prohibited drug. There can be no such crime when nagging doubts persist on whether the
specimen submitted for examination and presented in court was what was recovered from, or sold by, the
accused. Essential, therefore, in appropriate cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with
moral certainty. This means that on top of the key elements of possession or sale, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be
established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. And as we stressed in
Malillin v. People, the chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removedSo it is that in a slew of cases the Court has
considered the prosecutions failure to adequately prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination
was the same one supposedly seized from the offending seller or possessor as ground for acquittal

WHEREFORE, the CA Decision dated July 19, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00476, affirming that of
the RTC, Branch 53 in Manila which found her guilty of violating Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425 and imposed
upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of PhP 500,000, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

5. PEOPLE vs. WILLY YANG [G.R. No. 148077. February 16, 2004]


Appellant Willy Yang (Yang Yung-hi) a.k.a. Alex Yu, Yang Xing Li, and Willy Yeung is a Chinese
citizen, having been born in Xianmen, China. He claims to be a legitimate businessman engaged in the trading
of dry goods and garments, in partnership with his Filipina common-law wife, one Gemma Cabad.Operatives of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), however, believed that appellant was involved in drug trafficking.
An entrapment operation was laid for the suspected malefactors. It went sour, the suspects escaped, and the NBI
operatives were left holding 4.450 kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in street parlance.

When arraigned, appellant with the assistance of a Chinese interpreter pleaded not guilty6[9] to the
charge. Thereafter, trial ensued.

The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible. It disbelieved
appellants bare denial and alibi. Accordingly, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to suffer the penalty
of death.

Hence, this automatic review.


Whether The Evidence For The Prosecution Suffices To Prove His Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt


We find that appellants guilt in selling, distributing, dispensing and transporting of regulated drugs has
been proven with moral certainty. The prosecution eyewitness categorically and positively pointed to him as the
suspect in the buy-bust operation, who fled the scene of the crime and was later apprehended in Valenzuela
City. The laboratory report disclosed that the white crystalline powder amounting to 4.450 kilograms, which
appellant delivered to the NBI poseur-buyer was shabu. As against the positive identification and the physical
evidence, all that appellant can show are bare denial and an alibi corroborated in the main by his common-law
spouse and her sister. Before us, appellant then belatedly changed his theory of defense to instigation or
inducement, an act which only reinforces our conviction that his previous defenses were mere concoctions.
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, dated March
13, 2001, finding appellant Willy Yang (Yang Yung-hi) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article III,
Section 15, in relation to Article IV, Section 21 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty imposed on appellant is hereby
REDUCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, appellant is ORDERED to pay a FINE of One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00), pursuant to said law plus, the costs.