G.R. No.

L-342 May 4, 1946

AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner,

vs.
ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL., respondent.

This is a petition for certiorari with injunction originally filed with the Supreme Court.

FACTS: Petitioner has been accused of treason. At the hearing on his petition for bail,
the prosecution presented, as part of its evidence, certain documents which had been
allegedly seized by soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by Filipino
guerrillas, in the petitioner's house. Petitioner immediately objected to the presentation
of said documents, and called the attention of the respondent judges to the fact that he
had filed a petition, in which he protested against the procedure of the government in
the seizure of said documents, and asked for their return to the petitioner.

Petitioner alleged that their seizure was illegal and that their presentation would be
tantamount to compelling him to testify against himself, in violation of his constitutional
rights. He further claims that the respondent judges, in denying the petition for the
return of said documents, acted without jurisdiction and committed a grave
abuse in the exercise of their discretion, alleging that even the seizure of
documents by means of a search warrant legally issued, constitutes a violation of
the rights guaranteed in paragraphs 3 and 18 of section 1 of Article III of the
Constitution, and, consequently, when their seizure cannot be justified by the
corresponding search warrant, the court should order their immediate return.

ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure is an encroachment of the petitioner’s constitutional

right.

HELD: No. The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest the
petitioner, as a collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers, without
any search warrant, in the zone of military operations, is unquestionable, under
the provisions of article 4, Chapter II, Section I, of the Regulations relative to the
Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907,
authorizing the seizure of military papers in the possession of prisoners of war;
and also under the proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as Commander in
Chief of the United States Army, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the
Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy, in violation of the
allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, when apprehended, from any position of political and economic influence in
the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war.

The majority of the states have held that the privilege against compulsory self-
incrimination, which is also guaranteed by state constitutional provisions is not
violated by the use in evidence of articles obtained by an unconstitutional search
and seizure.

1
Petitioner filed a petition, demanding the return of certain papers and documents
allegedly seized and taken from his house at the time of his arrest; but when he
consented to their presentation, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the
hearing on his petition for bail and at the trial of the case on the merits, without
having insisted that the question of the alleged illegality of the search and seizure
of said papers and documents should first have been directly litigated and
established by a motion, made before the trial, for their return, he was and should
be deemed to have waived his objection to their admissibility as part of the
evidence for the prosecution ; since the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination
may be waived.

The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and

seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and
unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under
legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations
when attempted. But it does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking
advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of
state law.

As the soldiers of the United States Army, that took and seized certain papers and
documents from the residence of herein petitioner were not acting as agents or on
behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that those
papers and documents came into the possession of the authorities of the
Commonwealth Government, through the Office of the CIC of the United States Army in
Manila, the use and presentation of said papers and documents, as evidence for
the prosecution against the petitioner, at the trial of his case for treason, before
the People's Court, cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or
unreasonable searches and seizures, or on any other constitutional ground, as
declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases.

The court dismissed the petition for certiorari with injunction for utter lack of merit.

G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II
of R.A.) 9165 by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of
the Ombudsman – Visayas.

2
On January 31, 2006, at Cebu City, Philippines, accused, JAIME D. DE LA CRUZ, a
public officer, having been duly appointed and qualified to such public position as Police
Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned in the Security Service Group
of the Cebu City Police Office, after having been arrested by agents of the NBI in an
entrapment operation, was found positive for use of METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE after a confirmatory test conducted on said accused after agents
and special investigators of the (NBI-CEVRO), received a complaint that several
unknown male persons believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs .

According to the prosecutor, a team was immediately formed to implement an

entrapment operation, which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen.
Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City.

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.

Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic
examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. He was required to
submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of
dangerous drugs. The defense presented the petitioner as the lone witness. He denied
the charges and testified that while eating at Jollibee, he was arrested allegedly for
extortion by NBI agents. When he was at the NBI’s Office, he was required to extract
urine for drug examination, but he refused saying he wanted it to be done by the PNP
Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was, however, denied. He also
requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no
avail.

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15,
Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of compulsory
rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months.

Thus, petitioner filed an appeal assigning as error the RTC’s validation of the
result of the urine test despite its dubiousness having been admitted in spite of
the lack of legal basis for its admission .

He alleges that the forensic laboratory examination was conducted despite the
fact that he was not assisted by counsel, in clear violation of his constitutional
right.

The CA found the appeal devoid of merit and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.

RULING: No. The court declares that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is
not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.
3
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 R.A. 9165.

The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-
incrimination. 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.

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. However, in the
instant case, the court fails to see how a urine sample could be 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."

The pertinent provisions in Article III Sec 17 of the Constitution clearly states that no
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

In the face of these constitutional guarantees, the court cannot condone drug
testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime or offense for which the
arrest is being made.

Hence, the assailed Decision and the Resolution dated 2 February 2012 issued by the
former of the CA are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.