People vs. Sullano

Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires as an essential element that the accused be "apprehended or arrested" for an unlawful act under Article II of the same Act; a person discovered to be positive for dangerous drug use through random drug testing under Section 36, Article III, without having been apprehended or arrested for an Article II offense, cannot be validly prosecuted under Section 15.

Senior Superintendent Nerio T. Bermudo, City Director of the Butuan City Police Office, ordered fifty randomly selected police officers to undergo mandatory drug testing pursuant to Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165. PO1 Johnny K. Sullano, assigned to Butuan City Police Station 5, was among those selected. The testing formed part of the annual mandatory drug testing required for law enforcement personnel under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Random Drug Testing:
On October 16, 2012, P/SSupt. Nerio T. Bermudo ordered fifty randomly selected police officers under the Butuan City Police Office to undergo drug testing pursuant to Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165. Respondent, a police officer assigned to Butuan City Police Station 5, was among those selected and submitted to the testing.

The Positive Results:
Respondent's urine sample was received on October 17, 2012. The Initial Chemistry Report of the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office 13 indicated a positive result for methamphetamine. A confirmatory test completed on November 5, 2012 yielded the same result.

The Administrative and Criminal Proceedings:
In lieu of a counter-affidavit, respondent filed a Manifestation admitting he voluntarily submitted to the random drug test and that his sample tested positive, but claiming he did not use dangerous drugs and had no means to contest the test's veracity. He further stated he entered into a rehabilitation program with Cocoon Foundation for Substance Abuse and pleaded for dismissal. Assistant City Prosecutor Cabuga-Plaza initially recommended dismissal, but Deputy City Prosecutor Go reversed this finding and ordered the filing of an Information charging respondent with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Information alleged that respondent "wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously use methamphetamine hydro chloride... and found positive for use, after a confirmatory test," without alleging that respondent was apprehended or arrested.

The Demurrer and Lower Court Rulings:
Respondent pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, he filed a Demurrer to Evidence arguing that the State failed to prove the essential elements of the crime because it was never asserted that he was apprehended or arrested while using dangerous drugs. The RTC granted the demurrer, ruling that Section 15 presupposes the accused was arrested or apprehended committing a crime, and that respondent should instead be charged administratively. The CA affirmed, holding that the first element of Section 15—apprehension or arrest—was absent.

• Statutory Construction: Petitioner argued that Section 15 should be read in conjunction with Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165, and that the phrase "apprehended or arrested" does not exclusively apply to circumstances where the accused was caught in flagrante delicto. To petitioner, once mandatory drug testing yields positive results, the person may be prosecuted under Section 15 regardless of apprehension.

• Absurd Result Avoidance: Petitioner maintained that a narrow interpretation of Section 15 would create an absurd situation where individuals found positive through random drug testing could not be penalized, rendering Section 36 meaningless.

• Administrative vs. Criminal Liability: Petitioner claimed the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that respondent should only face administrative charges, arguing that respondent failed to comply with the exemption provisions under Sections 54 and 55 of Article VIII of R.A. No. 9165.

• Double Jeopardy Exception: Petitioner argued that the dismissal did not constitute double jeopardy because the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Elements of the Crime: Respondent countered that Section 15 requires three elements: (1) apprehension or arrest; (2) drug testing; and (3) positive confirmatory result. The first element was absent as respondent was never apprehended or arrested, having merely undergone random testing.

• Statutory Distinction: Respondent argued that Section 15 and Section 36 are distinct and not interchangeable; an indictment under Section 15 cannot be sustained by facts falling solely under Section 36. Expanding Section 15 to cover random testing would violate respondent's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Double Jeopardy: Respondent asserted that the dismissal of the case constituted an acquittal that placed him in jeopardy, and the petition for certiorari was barred by the rule against double jeopardy absent grave abuse of discretion.

• Elements of Section 15: Whether Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires apprehension or arrest as an essential element for conviction.

• Applicability to Random Testing: Whether a person discovered to be positive for drug use through random drug testing under Section 36, Article III of R.A. No. 9165 may be prosecuted under Section 15, Article II without allegation or proof of apprehension or arrest.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence.

• Elements of Section 15: Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 unambiguously requires that the accused be "apprehended or arrested" as an indispensable element. The phrase immediately follows "a person" in the statutory text, qualifying the subject and limiting the provision's application to those taken into custody for unlawful acts under Article II of the Act.

• Applicability to Random Testing: A person subjected only to random drug testing under Section 36, without having been apprehended or arrested for an Article II offense, cannot be validly prosecuted under Section 15. The information in this case alleged only Section 15 and made no mention of Section 36 or of apprehension or arrest; to sustain the charge by importing Section 36 would violate respondent's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Harmonious Construction: Section 36 may be harmonized with Section 15 by interpreting the former's reference to Section 15 as applying only to the rehabilitative provisions (six-month rehabilitation) rather than the criminal penalty, consistent with the legislative intent to encourage rehabilitation over prosecution for users discovered through random testing.

• Strict Construction of Penal Laws: Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege; in dubiis reus est absolvendus). Courts must not bring cases within provisions not clearly embraced by the statute; the express mention of "apprehended or arrested" excludes all others under expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The RTC and CA correctly applied the law; absent capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, the dismissal of the case did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the principle of double jeopardy bars further prosecution.

• Strict Construction of Penal Statutes — Penal laws must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by implications, intendments, analogies, or equitable considerations. Acts innocent in themselves cannot be held criminal unless there is a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent to make them such. Whatever is not plainly within the provisions of a penal statute should be regarded as without its intendment.

• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius — The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. Where the terms of a statute expressly limit it to certain matters, it may not by interpretation be extended to others. Congress confined liability under Section 15 to those apprehended or arrested; the omission of random testing subjects indicates intentional exclusion from criminal prosecution under this provision.

• Double Jeopardy — The elements of double jeopardy are: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) a competent court; (3) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. Where dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence and constitutes an acquittal, the rule against double jeopardy applies absent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.

• Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation — An information must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged. Convicting an accused of a ground not alleged while he concentrates his defense against the ground alleged violates due process and the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• "Section 15 is unambiguous: the phrase 'apprehended or arrested' immediately follows 'a person,' thus qualifying the subject person. It necessarily follows that only apprehended or arrested persons found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug may be prosecuted under the provision."

• "The legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned."

• "Urging the inclusion of Section 36 in accusing the respondent of the crime will deprive the latter of the opportunity to prepare his defense and violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."

• "For, it is a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by implications, intendments, analogies or equitable considerations."

• "Whatever is not plainly within the provisions of a penal statute should be regarded as without its intendment. The purpose of strict construction is not to enable a guilty person to escape punishment through a technicality but to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts."

• Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines, 739 Phil. 578 (2014) — Distinguished but relied upon for interpretation of the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in Section 15, holding that the provision comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. No. 9165, not for any crime whatsoever.

• Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393 (2008) — Cited for the principle that mandatory drug testing cannot be random and suspicionless when applied to persons charged with crimes, as they are singled out and impleaded against their will.

• People v. Martinez — Referenced for the proposition that Section 15 expresses legislative intent to rehabilitate persons apprehended for enumerated unlawful acts rather than charge them with heavier penalties.

• Centeno v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, 306 Phil. 219 (1994) — Cited for the rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly and that express mention excludes others.

• Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines the offense of use of dangerous drugs, requiring that "a person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test" shall suffer the prescribed penalties.

• Section 36, Article III, R.A. No. 9165 — Mandates authorized drug testing for certain categories of persons, including officers and members of the military, police, and other law enforcement agencies who shall undergo annual mandatory drug testing; provides that those found positive "shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act."

• Article VIII, Sections 54 and 55, R.A. No. 9165 — Provisions regarding exemption from criminal liability for drug users who comply with rehabilitation requirements; petitioner argued respondent failed to satisfy these conditions.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concurred.