PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (OSG), PETITIONER, VS.

PO1 JOHNNY K. SULLANO, RESPONDENT.

(WHETHER OR NOT ARREST OR APPREHENSION OF
THE ACCUSED IS REQUIRED TO PENALIZE A PERSON)
G.R. NO. 228373. MARCH 12, 2018.*

Petition for review on Certiorari of the decision and resolution of CA was DENIED by SC and the resolution of CA was
AFFIRMED.

FACTS
Pursuant to Sec. 36 of, Art. III of R.A. No. 9165, the City Director of Butuan City Police Office order 50 randomly selected
police officers to undergo drug testing.
Among those selected is P01 Sullano whose urine sample tested positive for the presence of (locally known as shabu). A
confirmatory test was made on the same sample and yielded the same result.

Given the result, PS/Supt. Bermudo filed a Complaint Affidavit against P01 Sullano for the violation of Sec. 15, Art. II of R.A.
no. 9165.
Sullano filed a Manifestation in lieu of a counter-affidavit, claiming that he voluntarily submitted himself to the testing, that
the urine he submitted tested positive to the presence of methamphetamine, he did not use drugs but had no means to
refute the test, and that he entered himself into a rehabilitation program with Cocoon Foundation for Substance Abuse.
Sullano concluded by pleading to the court to dismiss the case against him.

Asst. City Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case which was reversed by the Deputy Prosecutor finding
probable cause against respondent. Consequently, an information was filed which stated that the respondent “wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously use methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug
and found positive for use, after a confirmatory test”

Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed for Demurrer to
Evidence. Respondent argued that the essential elements of the crime were not proven as it was never asserted that the
respondent was arrested or apprehended or actually caught using any dangerous drug. RTC granted the demurrer to
evidence. The Court opined that the accused should not be criminally charged but should be administratively charged for
being a user of dangerous drugs.
Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order. The same was denied.

Due to dismissal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion in
granting the demurrer to evidence. CA was not convinced of petitioner’s arguments and denied the petition. Petitioners
filed for a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied for lack of merit.

1
ISSUE/S

1) Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error when it held that the RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion
amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction in granting respondent’s demurrer to evidence.
2) Whether or not arrest or apprehension of the accused is required prior to the submission to drug examination to
penalize the individual. (Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165 in relation to Sec. 36, Art. III of RA 9165)
3) Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC judge when it held that the respondent is
only administratively liable. Petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to comply with Sec. 54, ART. VIII of RA
9165 and is not exempt from criminally liability under Sec. 55, Art. VII of RA 9165. To petitioner, a narrow
interpretation of Sec. 15 will result to absurd situation where an individual found positive for the use of dangerous
drug thru random mandatory drug test may not be penalized.
4) Whether or not the respondent is placed in double jeopardy.

HELD

1) The petition was denied and the resolution of CA was affirmed by the SC.

2) The court noted that the allegations in the information against respondent clearly state that he is only prosecuted for
Sec. 15 and not Sec. 36. Nowhere in the information was the Sec. 36 mentioned. An information must be complete and fully
state the elements of the specific offense alleged of the essentials of the crime. Convicting an accused on a ground not
alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded.
The court also mentioned that Sec. 15 is unambiguous and as such should be given its literal meaning and applied without
attempted interpretation.
3) The court finds no difficulty in harmonizing Sec. 36 with strict interpretation of Sec. 36. The last paragraph of Sec. 36
states, “In addition to the above stated penalties in this section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be
subject to the provision of Sec. 15 of this Act.” This may be construed to mean that the rehabilitation of 6 months in a
government center, as stated in Sec. 15, may be imposed on those found positive through random drug test.

This reading of the provisions would still pursue the intent of the law to encourage not the prosecution and incarceration of
those using dangerous drugs, but their rehabilitation.

Criminal Law is rooted in the concept that there is no crime unless a law specifically calls for its punishment. An act must
be pronounced criminal clearly by the statute prior to its commission.

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 strained by construction to spell out a new offense, enlarge the field of crime or multiply
felonies. Hence, in the interpretation of a penal statute, the tendency is to subject it to careful scrutiny and construe it
with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of the accused.

4. The grant of the petition would also expose respondent to double jeopardy. Under exceptional circumstances, i.e. where
the is grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC, double jeopardy will not attach. As stated by CA, the dismissal of the
case and grant of demurrer were not attended with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, neither court a quo committed any
grave abuse of discretion.