GUTANG vs.

PEOPLE/ 335 SCRA 476

Dayle Martin D. Manlod

FACTS

David Gutang, together with Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar de
Venecia, Jr. was arrested by policemen in connection with the enforcement of
a search warrant in his residence at Greenhills, San Juan. Several drug
paraphernalia, which later tested positive for marijuana and
methamphetamine hydrochloride, were seized along with a small quantity of
marijuana fruiting tops.

The four were brought to Camp Crame and were subjected to a drug-
dependency test and were asked to give a sample of their urine to which they
complied. Their urine samples all tested positive for shabu.

De Venecia, Jr. voluntarily submitted himself for treatment, rehabilitation and

confinement. Gutang, Regala and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. They were
found guilty of possession and use of prohibited drugs.

Gutang argued that the urine sample is inadmissible in evidence because he

had no counsel during the custodial investigation when it was taken. In effect,
it is an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and a violation of the
Constitution.

ISSUE

Whether or not the urine samples taken were admissible in evidence.

RULING:

The Court ruled that it was admissible. The right to counsel begins from
the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the
commission of crime. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot
be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral

compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of
his body in evidence, when it may be material to ascertain physical attributes
determinable by simple observation and not to unearth undisclosed facts.

An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or

measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his
body to enable the foregoing things to be done without going against the
proscription against testimonial compulsion.