crim2cases1

8/11/2019 crim2cases1

1/17

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-!!! "anua#$ %& '(

T)E UN*TE+ STATES& plaintiff-appellee&,s.GAB*NO SOL*MAN& efenant-appellant.

#ancisco Se,illa fo# appellant.Atto#ne$-Gene#al A,ance/a fo# appellee.

CARSON, J.:

The evidence of record conclusively discloses that the defendant and appellant in thiscase, Gabino Solian, testifyin! in his on behalf in the course of another criinal casein "hich he, "ith several others, "as char!ed "ith estafa, s"ore falsely to certainaterial alle!ations of fact.

On that occasion he testified falsely that a s"orn stateent offered in evidence insupport of the char!e of estafa, "hich "as in effect an e#tra$udicial confession of his!uilt, had not been e#ecuted voluntarily, and that its e#ecution had not been procuredby the police by the use of force, intiidation and prolon!ed torture.

The trial $ud!e "ho presided in the forer case ac%uitted the accused on the !roundthat there "as roo for reasonable doubt as to "hether the e#tra$udicial confessionhad been ade voluntarily, and his action in this re!ard clearly establishes theateriality of the false testiony subitted in that case& oreover, the ateriality ofthe evidence is anifest "ithout considerin! the $ud!ent in the case in "hich it "assubitted, since, if accepted as true, this false testiony necessarily had the effect ofrenderin! "holly incopetent the evidence as to the e#tra$udicial confession "hichother"ise "ould alost conclusively sustain and necessitate a conviction. '(. S. vs.)stra*a, + -hil. Rep., /0.1

There can be no doubt that the accused "as !uilty of the crie of per$ury as definedand penali2ed in section 3 of Act No. +45 and that the sentence of si# onths6iprisonent and -300 fine iposed by the trial $ud!e "as correctly iposed underthe provisions of that statute.

7t appears ho"ever that since $ud!ent "as entered in this case on Noveber /3,+4+, section 3 of Act No. +45 has been e#pressly repealed by the enactent of the

Adinistrative Code, "hich becae effective on July +, +4+, and it has beensu!!ested that the $ud!ent convictin! and sentencin! the accused under theprovisions of that statute should not be sustained, and that the repeal of the statuteshould be held to have the effect of reittin! and e#tin!uishin! the criinalresponsibility of the accused incurred under the provisions of the repealed la" prior tothe enactent of the Adinistrative Code. 8e cannot a!ree "ith the proposition thusstated.

7n the case of (nited States vs. Cuna '+/ -hil. Rep., /9+1, "e held as follo"s:

The rule of interpretation of )n!lish and Aerican coon la", by virtue of "hich therepeal of a la" prescribin! penalties is held to have the effect of reittin! ore#tin!uishin! any penalty, loss of ri!hts or responsibility incurred under such la", as toall persons "ho have not been convicted and sentenced under the provisions of suchla" prior to the enactent of the repealin! la", is not and has not been the accepteddoctrine in these 7slands.

8here an Act of the Coission or of the -hilippine e!islature "hich penali2es anoffense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter deprivin! the courts of$urisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders char!ed "ith violations of the old la"prior to its repeal.

A %uestion does arise, ho"ever, as to the penalty "hich should be ipose upon theconvict.

7f the repealin! statute provides or has the effect of providin! ne" penalties for thecoission of the acts penali2ed under the repealed statute, should the penalty beiposed in accordance "ith the old or the ne" statute;

Article + of the -enal Code in force in these 7slands defines cries and isdeeanorsas voluntary acts or oissions penali2ed by la"& and copleentary to this provision,article /+ provides that no crie or isdeeanor shall be punished "ith a penalty

"hich has not been prescribed by la" prior to its coission. 7n accordance "iththese provisions the %uestion "hether an act is punishable or not depends upon the%uestion "hether or not at the tie of its coission, there "as a la" in force "hichpenali2ed it& this rule bein! odified, ho"ever, by article // of the sae code, "hichprovides that penal la"s shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor personsconvicted of a crie or isdeeanor.

The courts of Spain and the learned coentators on Spanish la" have construedthese provisions to ean that such penal la"s are to be !iven a retroactive effect onlyin so far as they favor the defendant char!ed "ith a crie or a isdeeanor, and that,"hen a penal la" is enacted repealin! a prior la", such repeal does not have theeffect of relievin! an offender in "hole or in part of penalties already incurred under theold la", unless the ne" la" favors the defendant by diinishin! the penalty or doin!a"ay "ith it alto!ether, and then only to the e#tent to "hich the ne" la" is favorable tothe offender. 7n other "ords, that the enactent of ne" penal la"s, not"ithstandin!the fact that they contain !eneral repealin! clauses, doe not deprive the courts of$urisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons char!ed "ith violations of the old la"prior to the date "hen the repealin! la" !oes into effect, unless the ne" la" "hollyfails to penalties the acts "hich constituted the offense defined and penali2ed in therepealed la".

Thus -acheco, coentin! upon the ne" -enal Code of +as the codeincreased the penalty; Then it is not applicable to cries coitted prior to itsenactent. >as it e#tin!uished or diinished the; Then it is clearly applicable tothe. '+ -acheco, /4.1

And a siilar construction "as placed upon the provisions of the -enal Code of +


2/17

unless the lan!ua!e of the repealin! statute or soe !eneral statute providesother"ise. '(. S. vs. Otis, +/0 (. S., / ++D.1

Eanifestly, "ith this rule in ind, section +/ of the Adinistrative Code 'Act No. /51"hich is found in Article 777, Chapter 7D dealin! "ith the for and effect of la"s in!eneral, provides that F"hen a la" "hich e#pressly repeals a prior la" is itselfrepealed the la" first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless e#pressly soprovided.F ro "hich it ay fairly be inferred that the old rule continues in force"here a la" "hich repeals a prior la", not e#pressly but by iplication, it itselfrepealed& and that in such cases the repeal of the repealin! la" revives the prior la",unless the lan!ua!e of the repealin! statute provides other"ise.

Applyin! this rule, "e conclude that the e#press repeal of section 3 of Act No. +45 bythe enactent of the Adinistrative Code 'Act No. /51 revived the provisions of the-enal Code touchin! per$ury, "hich "ere theselves repealed, not e#pressly but byiplication, by the enactent of Act No. +45.

A coparison of the penalties prescribed in the -enal Code for the coission of theacts of "hich the accused in the case at bar "as convicted, !ivin! hi as "e shouldthe benefit of the provisions of Act No. /+9/, discloses that the penalty prescribedtherein is less than that iposed upon the appellant under the provisions of section 3of Act No. +45, and "e conclude fro "hat has been said already that the penaltyiposed by the court belo" should be revoBed and that in lieu thereof the penaltyprescribed in the -enal Code should be iposed upon the convict.

A %uestion has been raised as to "hether, adittin! that the provisions of the -enalCode touchin! per$ury have been revived, the accused can be convicted and

penali2ed thereunder, it appearin! that at the tie "hen he testified falsely he "astestifyin! in his o"n behalf in a criinal case in "hich he hiself "as the accused, ontrial for the coission of a !rave offense.

7n the case of (nited States vs. Gutierre2 '+/ -hil. Rep., /41, "e said, speaBin!throu!h Chief Justice Arellano, that, F-er$ury coitted by a party in his o"n cause"ould not be punishable under Spanish le!islation, because in said le!islation no one"as a "itness in his o"n cause, and could not therefore becoe !uilty of !ivin! falsetestiony in a civil cause in "hich he "as either the plaintiff or the defendant& butunder the procedure in force by virtue of Act No. +40, a party to a suit ay testify in hiso"n behalf, and if he declares falsely under oath as a "itness in his o"n cause, liBeany other "itness, he incurs the penalty by "hich false testiony in civil atters isrepressed and punished. This court has so held, it bein! a settled rule, that the falsetestiony !iven by a liti!ant as a "itness constitutes the crie of !ivin! falsetestiony inasuch as such a declaration, accordin! to the ne" la"s in force, aydeterine a $ud!ent in his favor and to the pre$udice of the adverse party, and that aliti!ant "ho, in s"orn testiony !iven by hi as a "itness in a civil cause, shall pervert

the truth and !ive false testiony, incurs as such "itness the penalties iposed byarticle 3/+ of the -enal Code.F

Analo!ous reasonin! leads to a liBe conclusion as to the criinal liability for per$ury ofa defendant in a criinal case testifyin! falsely in his o"n behalf. (nder the provisionsof General Orders No. < an accused person ay, if he so desires, testify under oathin his o"n behalf, and in that event, Fif he declares falsely as a "itness in his o"ncause, liBe any other "itness, he incurs the penalty by "hich false testionyF incriinal atters Fis repressed and punished.F

7t has been su!!ested that such a rulin! "ill have a tendency to e#pose accusedpersons to ve#atious criinal prosecutions by prosecutin! officers, "ho, havin! failedto secure a conviction on the ori!inal char!e, ay be disposed to institute criinalprosecutions for per$ury fro a vindictive un"illin!ness to let the defendant escapescot free fro the eshes of the la". 7t is said also that the fear of subse%uentprosecution for per$ury "ill tend to ebarrass accused persons in their efforts todefend theselves by testifyin! in their o"n behalf. ut siilar ob$ections ay beadvanced a!ainst the prosecution of any of the "itnesses called for the defense onchar!es of per$ury, and it ust not be for!otten that the ri!ht of an accused person totestify under oath in his o"n behalf is secured to hi, not that he ay be enabled tointroduce false testiony into the record, but to enable hi to spread upon the recordthe truth as to any atter "ithin his Bno"led!e "hich "ill tend to establish hisinnocence.

Of course uch ust be left to the !ood sense and sound $ud!ent of the prosecutin!officer in deterinin! "hether a prosecution for per$ury should be instituted a!ainst anaccused person "hose testiony in his o"n behalf "ould see to be per$ured.

?ue re!ard for the situation in "hich an accused person finds hiself "hen testifyin!in his o"n behalf in a criinal proceedin! "ill restrain a prudent prosecutin! officerfro the filin! of char!es of per$ury in every case in "hich he ay have reason tobelieve that the accused has not adhered strictly to the truth, in his an#iety to shield

hiself fro punishent. ut "hen, as in the case at bar, an accused persovoluntarily !oes upon the "itness stand and falsely iputes soe other person thecoission of a !rave offense, it "ould see to be hi!hly proper that he should becalled to account in a criinal action for per$ury upon the coplaint of the persona!ainst "ho such false char!es are ade.

Article 3+4 of the -enal Code is as follo"s:

Any person "ho shall !ive false testiony in favor of a defendant in a criinal caseshall suffer a penalty ran!in! fro arresto ayor in its a#iu de!ree to prisioncorreccional in its ediu de!ree and a fine of not less than three hundred andseventy=five and not ore than three thousand seven hundred and fifty pesetas, if thecase "ere for a felony, and the penalty of arresto ayor if it "ere for a isdeeanor.

8e conclude that the $ud!ent of conviction entered in the court belo" should beaffired but that the sentence iposed therein should be reversed, and that !ivin! theaccused the benefit of the provisions of Act No. /+9/, a penalty of 9 onths and + dayof arresto ayor and a fine of -5 "ith subsidiary iprisonent as prescribed by la"should be iposed upon hi in lieu of that iposed by the trial $ud!e, "ith the costs othis instance de officio. So ordered.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECON+ +*0*S*ON

G.R. No. 1(22 Au3ust 4'& 4221

AR5 TRA0EL E6PRESS& *NC.& Petitione#&,s.The P#esiin3 "u3e of the Re3ional T#ial Cou#t of Ma7ati& B#anch !2& )ON8EUS ABROGAR& 0*OLETA BAGU*O an LORELE* *RA& Responents.

? ) C 7 S 7 O N

A(STR7A=EART7N)H, J.:

efore us is a petition for certiorari under Rule of the Rules of Court seeBin! tonullify the Order dated October /, +44< issued by the Re!ional Trial Court 'RTC1 ofEaBati City 'ranch +01 in Civil Case No. 4erein petitioner ArB Travel )#press, 7nc. 'ArB Travel for brevity1 filed "ith the City-rosecutor of EaBati a criinal coplaint for alse Testiony in a Civil Case underArticle +


3/17

position as cashier, "as false inasuch as the clai based on the stateent ofaccounts of ARK, 7nc. ')#hibits F)F to FGGF are, in truth and in fact, valid, le!al andunpaid accounts of NEA, 7nc. "ith ARK Travel 7nc., herein represented by privatecoplainant EA. -AH A)RTO, to the daa!e and pre$udice of the latter.

CONTRARM TO A8./

-rivate respondents filed a petition for revie" of the City -rosecutorIs resolution datedNoveber /0, +44 "ith the ?epartent of Justice '?OJ1. 7n a resolution dated Earch4, +44o"ever, on Eay +, +44 et al. vs. CAG.R. No. ++3430 proul!ated on Earch , +44.

A readin! of the inforation sufficiently alle!es the facts "hich aBe out the offensechar!ed and in Beepin! "ith the above rulin! of the Supree Court, this court herebydenies the Eotion for Reconsideration.

Set this case for arrai!nent of both accused on July 30, +44< at


4/17

andLor ade%uate reedy& and that herein petition does not violate the principle ofhierarchy of court because it presents a %uestion of la".

8e shall first address the procedural aspect.

The issue raised in the present petition concerns the $urisdiction of the RTC in orderin!the disissal of the criinal cases pendin! before the ETC and therefore, the properreedy is certiorari. As such, the present petition for certiorari ou!ht to have beendisissed for late filin!. The assailed Order dated October /, +44< "as received byArB Travel on October +, +44avin! ac%uired $urisdiction over the casethe trial court is not bound by such resolution but is re%uired to evaluate it beforeproceedin! further "ith the trial/0 and should ebody such assessent in the ordedisposin! the otion./+

The sub$ect ETC Orders do not sho" that the ETC ade an independent assessentof the erits of the Eotion to 8ithdra" 7nforations. The ETC erely based its firstorder on the rulin! of the ?OJ that probable cause e#isted. 7n the second order, theETC erely stated that fro its readin! of the 7nforations, and in Beepin! "ith theCrespo rulin!, it is denyin! the otion for reconsideration.+Q"phi+

The ETC should have ade an independent evaluation and ebodied its assessenin at least one of its assailed orders, especially considerin! that the ?OJ had issuedcontradictin! rulin!s on the e#istence of probable cause. >ence, on this point, "ea!ree "ith the RTC that the ETC coitted !rave abuse of discretion.

ut the RTC, actin! on the petition for certiorari before it, not only coitted !raveabuse of discretion but acted in e#cess of or beyond its $urisdiction in considerin! thecriinal cases pendin! in the ETC as "ithdra"n, "hich in effect, causes the disissaof the t"o criinal cases. irst, the sub$ect cases are not "ithin the $urisdiction of theRTC to disiss. The only issue brou!ht to it is "hether or not the ETC coitted!rave abuse of discretion in denyin! the otion to "ithdra" "ithout aBin! anyindependent evaluation as to "hether or not there is a probable cause. Second, "hilerulin! that the ETC should have ade an independent assessent on the erits ofthe Eotion to 8ithdra" 7nforations, the RTC itself oitted to do the very thin! that itprescribed the ETC to do. 7t uncereoniously considered the criinal cases as"ithdra"n, "ithout evaluation or deterination of the e#istence of the probable cause.

The RTC should have only nullified the sub$ect ETC Order and reanded the case tothe ETC for its deterination of the e#istence of probable cause pursuant to theaforeentioned Crespo and edesa cases.

>o"ever, inasuch as "e have taBen co!ni2ance of this case in the interest of speedy$ustice and considerin! that the entire records have been for"arded to us, it is befittin!that "e deterine the e#istence of probable cause to put an end to this issue "hichad been unresolved since +44


5/17

S)C. 5 )leents of -re$udicial %uestion. P The eleents of a pre$udicial %uestion are:'a1 the previously instituted civil action involves an issue siilar or intiately related tothe issue raised in the subse%uent criinal action& and 'b1 the resolution of such issuedeterines "hether or not the criinal action ay proceed.

Section , Rule +++ of the Revised Rules of Criinal -rocedures provides:

S)C. . Suspension by reason of pre$udicial %uestion. P A petition for suspension ofthe criinal action based upon the pendency of a pre$udicial %uestion in a civil actionay be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conductin! the preliinaryinvesti!ation. 8hen the criinal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to

suspend shall be filed in the sae criinal action at any tie before the prosecutionrests. ')phasis supplied1

>ence, pendin! deterination of the falsity of the sub$ect testionies of privaterespondents in the civil case, the criinal action for false testiony ust perforce besuspended. As such, under the attendant circustances, althou!h there is no otionto suspend proceedin!s on the part of the private respondents, orderly adinistrationof $ustice dictates that the criinal cases should be suspended.

8>)R)OR), the assailed Orders dated October /, +44< and Noveber /3, +44< ofthe Re!ional Trial Court are N(77)? and S)T AS7?) insofar only as said court,actin! as an appellate court, considered Criinal Cases Nos. /00)R)AS, by re%uirin! candidates to under!o andatory dru! test, the public "iBno" the %uality of candidates they are electin! and they "ill be assured that onlythose "ho can serve "ith utost responsibility, inte!rity, loyalty, and efficiency "ouldbe elected # # #.

NO8 T>)R)OR), The COE))CD, pursuant to the authority vested in it under theConstitution, atas -abansa l!.


6/17

On Earch /, /009, in addition to the dru! certificates filed "ith their respectiveoffices, the Coelec Offices and eployees concerned shall subit to the a"?epartent t"o '/1 separate lists of candidates. The first list shall consist of thosecandidates "ho coplied "ith the andatory dru! test "hile the second list shallconsist of those candidates "ho failed to coply # # #.

S)C. 9. -reparation and publication of naes of candidates. = efore the start of thecapai!n period, the COE))CD shall prepare t"o separate lists of candidates. Thefirst list shall consist of those candidates "ho coplied "ith the andatory dru! test"hile the second list shall consist of those candidates "ho failed to coply "ith said

dru! test. # # #

S)C. . )ffect of failure to under!o andatory dru! test and file dru! test certificate. =No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until hehas under!one andatory dru! test and filed "ith the offices enuerated underSection / hereof the dru! test certificate herein re%uired. ')phasis supplied.1

-etitioner A%uilino . -ientel, Jr., a senator of the Republic and a candidate for re =election in the Eay +0, /009 elections,+ filed a -etition for Certiorari and -rohibitionunder Rule . 7n it, he seeBs '+1 to nullify Sec. 3'!1 of RA 4+ and COE))CResolution No. 9e says that both the Con!ress and COE))C, by re%uirin!, via RA 4+ andResolution No. 9e adds that there is no provision in theConstitution authori2in! the Con!ress or COE))C to e#pand the %ualificationre%uireents of candidates for senator.

G.R. No. +5


7/17

ipose %ualifications on candidates for senator in addition to "hat the Constitutionprescribes. 7f Con!ress cannot re%uire a candidate for senator to eet such additional%ualification, the COE))C, to be sure, is also "ithout such po"er. The ri!ht of aciti2en in the deocratic process of election should not be defeated by un"arrantedipositions of re%uireent not other"ise specified in the Constitution.+3

Sec. 3'!1 of RA 4+, as sou!ht to be ipleented by the assailed COE))Cresolution, effectively enlar!es the %ualification re%uireents enuerated in the Sec.3, Art. 7 of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 3'!1 unistaBably re%uires acandidate for senator to be certified ille!al = dru! clean, obviously as a pre = conditionto the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, "ith liBe effect, a condition

sine %ua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaied as senator = elect. TheCOE))C resolution copletes the chain "ith the proviso that FnDo person elected toany public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has under!oneandatory dru! test.F ie"ed, therefore, in its proper conte#t, Sec. 3'!1 of RA 4+and the ipleentin! COE))C Resolution add another %ualification layer to "hatthe +4


8/17

institutions to re%uire, as a condition for adission, copliance "ith reasonable schoolrules and re!ulations and policies. To be sure, the ri!ht to enroll is not absolute& it issub$ect to fair, reasonable, and e%uitable re%uireents.

The Court can taBe $udicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited dru!s in the countrythat threatens the "ell = bein! of the people,/+ particularly the youth and schoolchildren "ho usually end up as victis. Accordin!ly, and until a ore effective ethodis conceptuali2ed and put in otion, a rando dru! testin! of students in secondaryand tertiary schools is not only acceptable but ay even be necessary if the safetyand interest of the student population, doubtless a le!itiate concern of the!overnent, are to be prooted and protected. To borro" fro ernonia, FdDeterrin!

dru! use by our Nation6s schoolchildren is as iportant as enhancin! efficientenforceent of the Nation6s la"s a!ainst the iportation of dru!sF& the necessity forthe State to act is a!nified by the fact that the effects of a dru! = infested school arevisited not $ust upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty.//Needless to stress, the rando testin! schee provided under the la" ar!ues a!ainstthe idea that the testin! ais to incriinate unsuspectin! individual students.

Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary level students, the andatory but randodru! test prescribed by Sec. 3 of RA 4+ for officers and eployees of public andprivate offices is $ustifiable, albeit not e#actly for the sae reason. The Court notes inthis re!ard that petitioner SJS, other than sayin! that Fsub$ectin! alost everybody todru! testin!, "ithout probable cause, is unreasonable, an un"arranted intrusion of theindividual ri!ht to privacy,F/3 has failed to sho" ho" the andatory, rando, andsuspicionless dru! testin! under Sec. 3'c1 and 'd1 of RA 4+ violates the ri!ht toprivacy and constitutes unla"ful andLor unconsented search under Art. 777, Secs. + and/ of the Constitution./9 -etitioner aserna6s laent is $ust as siplistic, s"eepin!, and

!ratuitous and does not erit serious consideration. Consider "hat he "rote "ithoutelaboration:

The (S Supree Court and (S Circuit Courts of Appeals have ade various rulin!son the constitutionality of andatory dru! tests in the school and the "orBplaces. The(S courts have been consistent in their rulin!s that the andatory dru! tests violate aciti2en6s constitutional ri!ht to privacy and ri!ht a!ainst unreasonable search andsei2ure. They are %uoted e#tensively hereinbelo"./

The essence of privacy is the ri!ht to be left alone./ 7n conte#t, the ri!ht to privacyeans the ri!ht to be free fro un"arranted e#ploitation of one6s person or frointrusion into one6s private activities in such a "ay as to cause huiliation to aperson6s ordinary sensibilities. /5 And "hile there has been !eneral a!reeent as tothe basic function of the !uarantee a!ainst un"arranted search, Ftranslation of theabstract prohibition a!ainst unreasonable searches and sei2ures6 into "orBable broad!uidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult tasB,F to borro" fro C.Caara v. Eunicipal Court./< Authorities are a!reed thou!h that the ri!ht to privacy

yields to certain paraount ri!hts of the public and defers to the state6s e#ercise ofpolice po"er./4

As the "arrantless clause of Sec. /, Art 777 of the Constitution is couched and as hasbeen held, FreasonablenessF is the touchstone of the validity of a !overnent searchor intrusion.30 And "hether a search at issue he"s to the reasonableness standard is$ud!ed by the balancin! of the !overnent = andated intrusion on the individual6sprivacy interest a!ainst the prootion of soe copellin! state interest.3+ 7n thecriinal conte#t, reasonableness re%uires sho"in! of probable cause to be personallydeterined by a $ud!e. Given that the dru! = testin! policy for eployees==andstudents for that atter==under RA 4+ is in the nature of adinistrative searchneedin! "hat "as referred to in ernonia as Fs"ift and inforal disciplinaryprocedures,F the probable = cause standard is not re%uired or even practicable. e thatas it ay, the revie" should focus on the reasonableness of the challen!edadinistrative search in %uestion.

The first factor to consider in the atter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacyinterest upon "hich the dru! testin!, "hich effects a search "ithin the eanin! of Sec./, Art. 777 of the Constitution, intrudes. 7n this case, the office or "orBplace serves asthe bacBdrop for the analysis of the privacy e#pectation of the eployees and thereasonableness of dru! testin! re%uireent. The eployees6 privacy interest in anoffice is to a lar!e e#tent circuscribed by the copany6s "orB policies, the collectivebar!ainin! a!reeent, if any, entered into by ana!eent and the bar!ainin! unit,and the inherent ri!ht of the eployer to aintain discipline and efficiency in the"orBplace. Their privacy e#pectation in a re!ulated office environent is, in fine,reduced& and a de!ree of ipin!eent upon such privacy has been upheld.

Just as definin! as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authori2ed by thechallen!ed la". Reduced to a %uestion for, is the scope of the search or intrusionclearly set forth, or, as forulated in Ople v. Torres, is the enablin! la" authori2in! asearch Fnarro"ly dra"nF or Fnarro"ly focusedF;3/

The poser should be ans"ered in the affirative. or one, Sec. 3 of RA 4+ and itsipleentin! rules and re!ulations '7RR1, as couched, contain provisions specificallydirected to"ards preventin! a situation that "ould unduly ebarrass the eployees oplace the under a huiliatin! e#perience. 8hile every officer and eployee in aprivate establishent is under the la" deeed fore"arned that he or she ay be apossible sub$ect of a dru! test, nobody is really sin!led out in advance for dru! testin!.The !oal is to discoura!e dru! use by not tellin! in advance anyone "hen and "ho isto be tested. And as ay be observed, Sec. 3'd1 of RA 4+ itself prescribes "hat, inOple, is a narro"in! in!redient by providin! that the eployees concerned shall besub$ected to Frando dru! test as contained in the copany6s "orB rules anre!ulations # # # for purposes of reducin! the risB in the "orB place.F

or another, the rando dru! testin! shall be undertaBen under conditions calculatedto protect as uch as possible the eployee6s privacy and di!nity. As to thechanics of the test, the la" specifies that the procedure shall eploy t"o testin!ethods, i.e., the screenin! test and the confiratory test, doubtless to ensure asuch as possible the trust"orthiness of the results. ut the ore iportanconsideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals inaccess = controlled laboratories onitored by the ?epartent of >ealth '?O>1 tosafe!uard a!ainst results taperin! and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.33 7naddition, the 7RR issued by the ?O> provides that access to the dru! results shall beon the Fneed to Bno"F basis&39 that the Fdru! test result and the records shall be BeptDconfidential sub$ect to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of thetest results.F3 Notably, RA 4+ does not obli!e the eployer concerned to report tothe prosecutin! a!encies any inforation or evidence relatin! to the violation of theCoprehensive ?an!erous ?ru!s Act received as a result of the operation of the dru!testin!. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the eployees6 privacy, under RA 4+, is

accopanied by proper safe!uards, particularly a!ainst ebarrassin! leaBa!es of tesresults, and is relatively inial.

To reiterate, RA 4+ "as enacted as a easure to stap out ille!al dru! in thecountry and thus protect the "ell = bein! of the citi2ens, especially the youth, fro thedeleterious effects of dan!erous dru!s. The la" intends to achieve this throu!h theediu, aon! others, of prootin! and resolutely pursuin! a national dru! abuspolicy in the "orBplace via a andatory rando dru! test.3 To the Court, the need fodru! testin! to at least inii2e ille!al dru! use is substantial enou!h to override theindividual6s privacy interest under the preises. The Court can consider that the ille!adru! enace cuts across !ender, a!e !roup, and social = econoic lines. And it aynot be aiss to state that the sale, anufacture, or trafficBin! of ille!al dru!s, "ith theirready arBet, "ould be an investor6s drea "ere it not for the ille!al and ioracoponents of any of such activities. The dru! proble has hardly abated since theartial la" public e#ecution of a notorious dru! trafficBer. The state can no lon!erassue a laid bacB stance "ith respect to this odern = day scour!e. ?ru!enforceent a!encies perceive a andatory rando dru! test to be an effective "ay

of preventin! and deterrin! dru! use aon! eployees in private offices, the threat ofdetection by rando testin! bein! hi!her than other odes. The Court holds that thechosen ethod is a reasonable and enou!h eans to licB the proble.

TaBin! into account the fore!oin! factors, i.e., the reduced e#pectation of privacy onthe part of the eployees, the copellin! state concern liBely to be et by the searchand the "ell = defined liits set forth in the la" to properly !uide authorities in theconduct of the rando testin!, "e hold that the challen!ed dru! test re%uireent isunder the liited conte#t of the case, reasonable and, er!o, constitutional.

iBe their counterparts in the private sector, !overnent officials and eployees alsolabor under reasonable supervision and restrictions iposed by the Civil Service la"and other la"s on public officers, all enacted to proote a hi!h standard of ethics inthe public service.35 And if RA 4+ passes the nor of reasonableness for privateeployees, the ore reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, "ho, byconstitutional coand, are re%uired to be accountable at all ties to the people andto serve the "ith utost responsibility and efficiency.3e accepted the envelope and opened it and looB inside and sa" the oneythen closedD it a!ain and placedD it in front of hi.

8hat happened ne#t;

-J GARC7TOR)NA

And after you turned over the envelope to hi, you still hadD a conversation "ith

hi;

A No, your >onor, 7 iediately pressedD the bu22er and then the Niediately caDe out.

-J GARC>7TOR)NA

Er. Caoili.

-ROS. CAO77

8hen the N7 a!ents cae to your roo after pressin! the button, "hahappened ne#t;

A There "as a cootion, sir, and it happened so fast that 7 don6t reebeanyore but they brou!ht hi out of y office "ith an instruction for e to follo".

?id you understand "here to follo";D

A Mes, sir, in the N7 office at Taft Avenue.

And did you do that Er. 8itness;

A Mes, sir.

Then "hat happened at the N7 office;

A 7 "as asBed to aBe an affidavit of "hat happened "hich 7 didD and si!ned it.'TSN Au!ust +/, +443 pp. +4=/+ 16D

FCorroboratin! the declaration of the coplainin! "itness, "itness Rafael H. Ra!os anN7 A!ent testified that on October ++, +44+ he "as handed a letter ')D#hibit A1 byN7 ?eputy ?irector Antonio Ara!on "ith instruction to handle the coplaint of theauthor = ?r. Antonio eliciano. >e then contacted the physician = coplainant andre%uested hi to e#ecute an affidavit ')#hibit C1. After studyin! the affidavit, hedecided to!ether "ith other N7 a!ents to conduct an entrapent operation. Thus, 30pieces of one=hundred peso bills "ere secured and subitted to the orensic CheisSection for arBin!. >e ade arran!eent "ith ?r. eliciano that on October +9+44+, he, "ith the ebers of his tea "ould standby at the office of the said doctorto conduct the entrapent. Nothin! cae out of their plan as the t"o '/1 accused didnot appear. The follo"in! day, he "ith < or +0 N7 a!ents returned to the office beforelunch tie and "aited for the t"o '/1 suspects. The arran!eent "as that, the Na!ents "ould stay in one of the roos of the clinic, "ould "ait for the si!nal of the?octor "hich "asD the sound of the bu22er, and "hen the bu22er "asD heard they"ould proceed to arrest the sub$ect of the operation.

FAt around 9:30 p.., accused -eli!rino arrived, and so upon hearin! the sound of thebu22er, he Ra!osD, to!ether "ith his co=N7 a!ents iediately proceeded to theroo of ?r. eliciano, and on seein! the accused in possession of the bro"n envelope

10


11/17

"hich contained the arBed oney, arrested hi, and ade a body search on hi. Aninventory of the thin!s found in the possession of the accused "as ade ')#hibit T1.The follo"in! "ere sei2ed fro accused -eli!rino:

+. -rudential ChecB No. 4+9055&

/. 7R Authority to 7ssue -ayent Order dated /< Au!ust +44+ "ith stated aount of-+9,04/.4/&

3. 7R Authority to 7ssue -ayent Order dated /< Au!ust +44+ "ith stated aount of-/3,50.3&

9. 7R Authority to 7ssue -ayent Order dated /< Au!ust +44+ "ith stated aount of-+9,O0.30&

. 8orBsheet labeled 6COEE7TT)) ON S-)C7A -ROJ)CTS6 "ith Dist of Ta#payers"ho "ereD ?octors&

. +4undred -eso bDills.

FThe accused "as then brou!ht to the N7 Office in Eanila "here he "as e#ainedfor the detection of the fluorescent po"der oDn his hands and body. >e then preparedhis report ')#hibit 1 after the coplainant e#ecuted a "ritten stateent.

FN7 a!ent Raul A. Ancheta also tooB the "itness stand and declared that on October+9, +44+ A!ent Ra!os assi!ned hi to !et the stateent of ?r. eliciano, after "hichhe "as instructed to prepare 6boodle6 oney to be subitted to the orensic Cheist?ivision of the N7 in preparation for the entrapent. Accordin!ly, "ith thirty '301pieces of !enuine oney, he subitted the sae to the orensic Cheist for dustin!sand proper arBin!s. >e "as present in the initial process of dustin! the articles "ithfluorescent po"der but did not "itness the entire proceedin!s. >e thereafter retrievedthe oney fro the orensic Cheist, placed it in an envelope, and delivered thesae to A!ent Ra!os.

FODn the ornin! of October +9, A!ent Ra!os called all the ebers of theentrapent tea and ade the necessary briefin!s. They, thereafter proceeded to theoffice of ?r. eliciano, and "aited for the accused but nobody appeared, and A!entRa!os instructed the ebers of the tea to be on the stand by status the follo"in!day.

FThe ne#t day, October +, the N7 a!ents posted theselves at the different parts ofthe clinic and "aited for the 7R e#ainers. >is A!ent Ra!o6sD assi!nent "as atDthe ain door of the clinic to secure the tea ebers fro outside forces. y 9:00p.., only accused )uti%uio -eli!rino arrived. >e sa" hi enter the clinic, !oD directlyto the secretary "ho picBed up the phone, and then he sa" ?r. eliciano !oin! out ofthe roo and conferrin!D "ith the accused. Thereafter, they entered the roo of ?r.eliciano. About + to /0 inutes, he sa" the other ebers of the tea rushin! tothe office of the doctor, and after a short "hile, they cae out fro the office "ithaccused -eli!rino. A!ent Ra!os handed hi the bro"n envelope and the blue ba! ofthe accused, and then they proceeded to the N7 office "here he brou!ht the accusedto the Office of the orensic Cheist "ho e#ained hi upon presentation of the

re%uest ')#hibit )=l1. After the e#aination, he "as !iven a certification by theorensic Cheist ')#hibit )1.

F?ipna ?acudao ere$o, a orensic Cheist of the N7 declared:

6D Eiss 8itness, do you reeber "hether you "ere in your office on Octobe+, +44+;

A Mes, sir.

?id you !ive any technical assistance durin! that date;

A Mes, sir.

8hat Bind of technical assistance did you !ive on that date;

A AtD :00 of October +, a certain a!ent Raul Ancheta cae to y laboratory "itha letter re%uest asBin! for a detection of fluorescent po"der onD a person.

### ### ###

-ROS. CAO77

Eay 7 re%uest, Mour >onor, that this letter re%uest for Cheistry e#ainationdisposition for dated October +, +44+ be arBed as )#hibit )=+.D

### ### ###

8hat did you do upon !ettin! this re%uest for e#aination Eiss 8itness;

A 7 e#ained the letter re%uest "hether the contents "ereD in order, then 7 asBedhi to brin! the sub$ect in y presence and 7 ri!ht a"ay proceeded to ye#aination.

Are you failiar "ith the sub$ect;

A Mes, sir.

7f he is in this Court, "ill you be able to identify hi;

A Mes, sir.

### ### ###

'8itness pointin! to a person in Court "ho "hen asBed !ave his nae as Er. )uti%uio-eli!rino.1

>o" did you conduct the e#aination;

A 7 brou!ht the person toD our darB roo and then 7 e#posed his left and ri!hars,D palaDr aspect,D under the ( li!ht.

-J GARC>7TOR)NA

8hat is ( li!ht;

A (ltra=iolet li!ht.

-ROS. CAO77

8hat "ereD your findin!s;

A The said -eli!rino "as found to be positive forD the presence of fluorescenpo"der.

?id you putD your findin!s in "ritin!;

A Mes, sir.

There is already here a certification "hich is already arBed as )#hibit ) si!nedby one ?ipna ere$o. 8ill you please !o over the sae and tell e if you Bno" thisdocuent;

A Mes, 7 "as the one "ho ade that docuent.

### ### ###

11


12/17

7t states here that this is only a teporary certification and theD official reportfollo"s. ?id you aBe that official report;

A Mes, sir.

8here is it no";

A 8itness presentin! a docuent to the iscal "hich is entitled -hysics ReportNuber -=4+=+90 dated +5 October +44+.

On this report, there is a si!nature above the type"ritten nae ?ipnaere$o&D "hose si!nature is that;

A Ey si!nature, sir.

-ROS. CAO77

Eay 7 re%uest your >onor, that this -hysics Report No. -4+=+90 be arBed as )#hibit)=/.

Aside fro your report, did you prepare any dia!nosis sho"in! "here you foundthis fluorescent po"der in the person of Er. -eli!rino;

A Mes, sir.

### ### ###

-ROS. CAO77

Mour >onor, ay 7 re%uest that these t"o '/1 dia!noseDs presented by the "itness bearBed as )#hibit )=3 for theD dorsal portion and )#hibit )=9 for the palaDr side.

### ### ###

There is a note "ritten in pencil in )#hibit )=3, onD the botto portion. 8ill youplease e#plain to the >onorable Court "hat is that note;

A That note states that sub$ect "as found to have fluorescent po"der oDn the frontshirt, pants and ri!ht ar.

### ### ###

Eiss 8itness, "hose hands are those "hich "ere e#ained supposed to beD;

A TheyD belon!ed to the sub$ect -eli!rino.

>o" about the palaDr section, does it also belon! to the sub$ect )uti%uio-eli!rino;

A Mes, sir.6D

FThe records disclose that the prosecution presented docuentary evidenceconsistin! of )#hibit A "hich is a letter=coplaint dated +0L++L4+ of the coplainin!"itness addressed to ?irector A lfredo i of the N7&D )#hibit an N7 routine slipeanatin! fro Asst. ?irector Ara!on& t"o '/1 s"orn stateents of ?r. elicianoarBed as )#hibitsD C and ? "hich "ere all offered as part of the testiony of thesaid doctor& )#hibit ) "hich is a certification dated October +, +44+ by the N7orensic Cheist ?ipna ere$o to!ether "ith her -hysics Report No. -4+=+90')#hibit )=/1& all offered as part of the declaration of "itness ere$o& )#hibit = #ero#copy of the !enuine thirty -+00 bill&D three authorities to issue payent order ')#hibits>, 7 @ J1& a letter of authority issued by 7R ?irector iray ')#hibit K1& )#hibit "hich isthe Joint Affidavit of Arrest of N7 A!ents& )#hibits E and N,D the booBin! sheet andArrest Report and Arrest 7nforation Sheet respectively for accused -eli!rino& )#hibitsO and -,D the booBin! sheet @ Arrest Report and Arrest 7nforation Sheet respectivelyfor accused uenafe& )#hibit &D the Report of the Arrestin! N7 A!ents re!ardin! theentrapent& )#hibit R "hich consists ofD soe notes of ?r. eliciano& )#hibit S "hichis a letter dated ++L/L4/ of 7R ?eputy Coissioner Santos to ?r. eliciano& )#hibitT,D the inventoryLlist of docuents sei2ed fro accused -eli!rino&D and )#hibitD (,Dthe referral letter of ?irector Alfredo i of the N7 to the Obudsan. These e#hibits"ere aditted as part of the testionies of the "itnesses "ho testified thereon.F4

ersion of the ?efense

7nasuch as petitioner did not subit his version of the facts, "e %uote theSandi!anbayan6s narration of the defense evidence as follo"s:

FThe defense "as ab$ect denial. Stoutly assertin! their innocence, and ab$urin! theinculpation "ith veheence, both accused tooB the "itness stand, and presented-rosecutor Carlos Eonteayor of the Office of the Special -rosecutor to drive hoeDtheir point. They also subitted as docuentary evidence )#hibits + to /+ "hich "ereaditted by the Court in its Resolution of October /e told the accountant of his coputation "horetorted that she "ould infor the doctor of the sae.

About the end of Au!ust +44+, the accountant called hi in his office and relayed theinforation that the doctor "asD aenable to pay fifty thousand '-D0,000.001 pesosore or less, and so he consulted his superior and assessin! that it "as reasonableanD authority to issue payent order 'AT7-O1 "as prepared. ')#hibits >, K and J also)#hibits +0, +0=A @ +0= respectively1. The a!!re!ate aount to be paid by thecoplainant includin! surchar!es, interest and coproises as appearin! in the threeAT7-O "asD -+,


13/17

entertained by the ?octor "ho told hi that the checB for the payent "as not yetprepared, and re%uested the to return the follo"in! day. A!ain "hen they "ent therethe ne#t day, the ?octor infored the the checB "asD not yet ready since he "asvery busy.

6On October +, +44+ "hile in his Eanila ?istrict Office //, co=accused uenafe !avehi three '31 copies of ADuthority to 7Dssue -Dayent ODrder and instructed hi todeliver the sae to ?r. eliciano, and !et the checB if it is already prepared. >e arrivedat the Office of the ?octor at around 9:00 to 9:30 p.. and "ent directly to thereception hall "here he told the receptionist that his purpose in !oin! there "asD toinfor the ?octor of the due date of the AT7-O, and to picB up the checB if it "asD

already ready.

6>e "as allo"ed to enter the clinic "here he !ave the ?octor the copies of AT7-O. The?octor asBed the "hereabouts of Atty. uenafe and re%uested the copies of the AT7-Ofor #ero#in!. 8hile "aitin! for the AT7-O to be #ero#ed, ?r. eliciano asBed hi if he"ould accept payent in cash to "hich he said No and he "ould accept only checBpayable to the 7R. Thereafter, the ?octor tooB a bro"n envelope fro his dra"er,thre" it in front of hi and said 6yan an! bayad.6 The envelope landed close to hisars and so he pushed it asBin!: 68hat is that sir; Ey purpose in coin! here is to!et the checB in payent for the 7R6. 7nstead of ans"erin! hi, the ?octor stood upand told hi he "asD !oin! to !et the #ero# copy of the AT7-O.

6The ?octor returned follo"ed by t"o '/1 persons one of "ho !rabbed his hands frobehind "hile the other standin! behind hi "anted hi to hold the envelope but heresisted,D placin! his hands a!ainst his chest, and since the t"o en reali2ed hecouldD not be forced to hold the envelope, they let hi !o, picBed the envelope and

pressed it a!ainst his breast.

6>e "as brou!ht to the N7 office "here in one roo, a cheist e#ained hi todetect the presence of fluorescent po"der. ?urin! the e#aination, he asBed thecheist "hich of his hands "asD containated and the cheist ans"ered 6none6.Then, she looBed up to the escort behind hi, and after that, started e#ainin! hishands, shirt and pants, and then be!an encirclin! portions on the dia!ra in front ofher. Then he "as fin!erprinted.

6The follo"in! day, October +, +44+ his co=accused arrived and they "ere brou!htbefore iscal Eonteayor of the Obudsan "ho asBed the N7 "hy the envelopesupposedly containin! the oney "as still sealed. >e couldD not reeber ho" theN7 a!ents replied, but iscal Eonteayor let !o ofD his co=accused "hile he "asasBed to post bail.6

FThe defense also presented Carlos Eonteayor, 4 years old, arried and a Special-rosecutor 777 in the Office of the Special -rosecutor, Obudsan,D "ho testified as

follo"s:

6D Er. 8itness, can you tell us "hether a bi! bro"n envelope "as presented toyou by the N7 durin! the in%uest preliinary investi!ation;

A 7 can not e#actly reeber if there "as an envelope subitted by the N7 durin!the in%uest investi!ation. 8hat 7 reeber havin! # # # seen and havin! beenDpresented by the N7 "ere theD #ero#ed copy of the arBed oney and severalaffidavits.

Mou entioned that "hat "ereD presented "ere only #ero#ed copies of thearBed oney. ?id you see the ori!inal of the arBed oney;

A 7 a not sure "hether it "as presented to e or not.

>o" about the dia!ra of the hands of the alle!ed persons andD the presenceof fluorescent po"der, can you tell if you have seen the on that day;

A No, "hat "as presented .to e "as the orensic Cheistry Report.6D

FAns"erin! the %ueries of the Court, he declared:

6D-J GARC>7TOR)NA

Er. Eonteayor, at that tie that you "ere conductin! the in%ueste#aination,D "as the accused -eli!rino presented to you;

A Mes, your >onor.

?id you asB hi any %uestion;

A 8ell, y copanions asBed hiD %uestions # # # because "e "ere three "hoconducted the in%uest e#aination.

### ### ###

8as there any %uestion addressed by the panel to Er. -eli!rino at the tie "ithrespect to the evidence;

A Mes, your >onor.

### ### ###

8as Er. -eli!rino asBed about the entrapent itself;

A 7 believe so.

8as he confronted in soe "ay "ith the findin!s of the N7 "ith re!ard to theforensic po"der;

A 7 can not reeber anyore, sir.

8as the orensic Report of the N7 presented inD his presence;

A Mes, sir.

?id he protest in any"ay the process by "hich the forensic e#aination "asconducted;

A No, because he "aived the ri!ht to preliinary investi!ation.

e that as it ay, did he in any "ay protestD the proceedin!s or protestD that theforensic e#aination "as irre!ular or other"ise...

A No protest "hatsoever.

8as he confronted "ith any stateent;

A >e "as confronted "ith the testiony or alle!ations of ?r. eliciano.D

?id he aBe any coent;

A >e denied theD.

8as the denial !eneral or specific;

A General.

>e denied any attept to e#tort oney fro ?r. eliciano;

A Mes, Mour >onor.

?id he aBe any protest orD isbehavior by the N7;

A No, sir.

?id you see hi under soeD Bind of fear or stress about the N7; ?id he feeafraid;

A 7 have not noticed any unusual appearance of the accused -eli!rino, Mou>onor.

### ### ###

And in this particular case Er. -eli!rino "as cal and apparently not at aunsettled;

A Mes, Mour >onor.

>e "as cal in other "ords;

A Mes, Mour >onor.

And in his cal condition he did not say the N7 altreated hi;

A No, Mour >onor.

13


14/17

Or that the entrapent or any of the proceedin!s "ere conducted in any annerdifferent fro "hat the N7 should do;

A >e did not protest.6D

FThe docuentary evidence adduced by the defense consistsD of )#hibits + and /,"hich areD the affidavits of accused uenafe dated Nov. 5 and ?eceber +ospital Adinistrator to ### 7R CDoissioner On!coendin! uenafe respectively.

F8hile )#hibits + to /+ "ere aditted by the Court in its Einute Resolution of October/e"as a eber of the Special -ro$ect Coittee tasBed to verify the ta# liabilities ofprofessionals, particularly physicians, "ithin the $urisdiction of Revenue Re!ion No. 9=A, Eanila.

ased on the testiony of private coplainant, the N7 a!ents6 entrapent schee,and the positive results of the cheical e#aination done on petitioner, the latter "asfound by the anti=!raft court to have deanded and received oney for his personalbenefit in connection "ith private coplainant6s ta# liabilities. After notin! that they hadno iproper otive to testify a!ainst petitioner, the court a %uo accorded full faith andcredence to the testionies of the N7 a!ents and the coplainin! "itness.

As re!ards uenafe, ho"ever, the Sandi!anbayan held that there "as no sufficientproof that he had conspired "ith petitioner: FADll told, as to this accused, there "ere"hispers of doubt anent his culpability, "hich the prosecution despite its coendableefforts, has failed to still. Such doubt ust set hi free.F+/

>ence, this -etition by -eli!rino.

7ssues

7n his Eeorandu, petitioner raises the follo"in! issues:

F7. That the Sandi!anbayan erred in findin! that petitioner deanded and received theenvelope "ith the boodle oney&

F77. That the Sandi!anbayan erred in convictin! the petitioner on the basis of the lonetestiony of ?r. eliciano an adittedly discredited "itness&

F777. That petitioner "as denied his ri!ht to e%ual protection of the la".F+3

This Court6s Rulin!

The -etition+9 has no erit.

irst 7ssue:

?eand and Receipt ofFoodle EoneyF

Section 3'b1 of the Anti=Graft and Corrupt -ractices Act 'RA 30+4, as aended1provides:

FS)C. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. == 7n addition to acts or oissions opublic officers already penali2ed by e#istin! la", the follo"in! shall constitute corruppractices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unla"ful:

### ### ###

F'b1 ?irectly or indirectly re%uestin! or receivin! any !ift, present, share, percenta!eor benefit, for hiself or for any other person, in connection "ith any contract ortransaction bet"een the Governent and any other party, "herein the public officer in

his official capacity has to intervene under the la".

# # # # # # # # #.

The eleents of this offense "ere sued up in Ee$ia v. -aaran,+ and "e restatethe here: '+1 the offender is a public officer '/1 "ho re%uested or received a !ift, apresent, a share, a percenta!e, or a benefit '31 on behalf of the offender or any otheperson '91 in connection "ith a contract or transaction "ith the !overnent '1 in"hich the public officer, in .an official capacity under the la", has the ri!ht to intervene

-etitioner is a 7R e#ainer assi!ned to the Special -ro$ect Coittee tasBed F# # #to undertaBe verification of ta# liabilities of various professionals particularly doctors"ithin the $urisdiction of Revenue Re!ion No. 9=A, Eanila # # #.F Since the sub$ectransaction involved the reassessent of ta#es due fro private coplainant, the ri!hof petitioner to intervene in his official capacity is undisputed. Therefore, eleents '+1'91 and '1 of the offense are present.

>o"ever, petitioner disputes the prosecution evidence establishin! that he deandedand received !rease oney in connection "ith the transaction.

Specifically, he contends that the Sandi!anbayan6s conclusion that he deandedoney fro coplainant "as based erely on an assuption that "as not supportedby any evidence. >e avers that he erely infored coplainant of his ta# deficienciesand that it "as the latter "ho re%uested the reduction of the aount claied.

8e are not convinced. Section 3'b1 of RA 30+4 penali2es three distinct acts == '+deandin! or re%uestin!& '/1 receivin!& or '31 deandin!, re%uestin! and receivin! =any !ift, present, share, percenta!e, or benefit for oneself or for any other person, inconnection "ith any contract or transaction bet"een the !overnent and any otheparty, "herein a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the la"These odes of coittin! the offense are distinct and different fro each other-roof of the e#istence of any of the suffices to "arrant conviction.+ The lacB odeand is iaterial. After all, Section 3 'b1 of RA 30+4 uses the "ord or bet"eenre%uestin! and receivin!.

Averrin! that the incident in coplainant6s clinic "as a frae=up, petitioner contendsthat there could not have been any payoff, inasuch as there "as no deand.

iBe bribery, this crie is usually proved by evidence ac%uired durin! an entrapentas the !iver or briber is usually the only one "ho can provide direct evidence of thecoission of this crie. Thus, entrapent is resorted to in order to apprehend apublic officer "hile in the act of obtainin! undue benefits.+5 >o"ever, "e have todistin!uish bet"een entrapent and insti!ation.

7n Finsti!ation,F officers of the la" or their a!ents incite, induce, insti!ate or lure theaccused into coittin! an offense, "hich the latter other"ise "ould not coit andhas no intention of coittin!. 7n Fentrapent,F the criinal intent or desi!n to coithe offense char!ed ori!inates in the ind of the accused, and the la" enforceentofficials erely facilitate the coission of the crie.+ence, "here the !ivin! of the oney affords the accused noopportunity either to refuse or to return it to the !iver, no punishable offense ensues./0-etitioner clais that the 90 seconds or less that the boodle oney "as in his hands"as erely a oentary possession that could not prove Freceipt,F "hich the la"

re%uires for the offense char!ed to be consuated.

8e disa!ree. 7n Cabrera v. -a$ares, acceptance "as established because the accused$ud!e placed the bribe oney bet"een the pa!es of his diary or appointent booB,despite his protestations that the oney bills landed on the open pa!es of his diary,only after he had flun! the bacB to the coplainant./+

7n orille2a v. Sandi!anbayan,// this Court overruled the findin! of acceptance,because it "as iprobable for the accused to accept bribe oney in front of her officeates and in a public place, even if the oney had been handed to her under thetable. urtherore, the accused therein shouted at the coplainant, F8hat are youtryin! to do to e;F That is not the noral reaction of one "ith a !uilty conscience.

urtherore, the Court held in the said case that there ust be a clear intention on thepart of the public officer to taBe the !ift so offered and consider it as his or her o"nproperty fro then on. Eere physical receipt unaccopanied by any other si!n,

circustance or act to sho" acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to concludethat the crie has been coitted. To hold other"ise "ould encoura!e unscrupulousindividuals to frae up public officers by siply puttin! "ithin their physical custodysoe !ift, oney or other property./3

The duration of the possession is not the controllin! eleent in deterinin! receipt oracceptance. 7n the case at bar, petitioner opened the envelope containin! the boodleoney, looBed inside, closed it and placed the envelope beside hi on the table. Suchreaction did not si!nify refusal or resistance to bribery, especially considerin! that he"as not supposed to accept any cash fro the ta#payer. The pro#iity of the enveloperelative to petitioner, as testified to by N7 A!ent Ra!os, also belies petitioner6scontention that he refused the bribe.

A person found in possession of a thin! taBen fro the recent e#ecution of a "ron!fulact is presued to be both the taBer and the doer of the "hole act./9

Second 7ssue:

Credibility of Coplainin! 8itness

-etitioner faults the Sandi!anbayan "ith inconsistency. Supposedly, "hile statin! onthe one hand that coplainant "as not a credible "itness on account of his character,on the other hand it accorded credibility to his testiony that petitioner had receivedthe boodle oney. iBe"ise, petitioner adds, the sae court found coplainant6stestiony insufficient to establish uenafe6s coplicity, yet deeed the saetestiony sufficient to prove petitioner6s !uilt.

The Sandi!anbayan findin!s adverted to are as follo"s:

F8hile the Court is reluctant to consider this declaration of the offended party assatisfactory proof that the accused therein petitionerD re%uested or deanded # # #the su of -/00,000 not only because it "as veheently denied by the accused butliBe"ise considerin! the nature and character # # # orD person of the said offendedparty ')#hibit +9 to +ence, this recourseust fail.

8>)R)OR), the -etition is ?)N7)?, and the assailed ?ecision and ResolutionA7RE)?. Costs a!ainst petitioner.+Q"phi+.nt

SO OR?)R)?.

US 0S. SOL*MAN

ACTS:

Gabino Solian, the defendantLappellant, "as found !uilty for false testiony 'per$uryin another criinal case, for falsely iputin! to soe other persons the coission ofthe crie of estafa. The trial $ud!e on the !round that there "as roo for reasonabledoubt ac%uitted hi. >o"ever, appellant "as sentenced to onths iprisonenand -300 fine "as iposed by the trial $ud!e for there can be no doubt that theaccused "as !uilty of the crie of per$ury as defined and penali2ed in Act No. +4Sec .3 .

The enactent of the Adinistrative Code 'Act No. /51 "as alle!ed to have#pressly repealed Act No. +45 Sec 3 "here the forer becae effective on July ++4+. On the other hand, the $ud!ent "as entered on Noveber /3, +4+. 7t "assu!!ested that the repealed Act No. +45 Sec.3 should be held to have the effect oreittin! and e#tin!uishin! the criinal responsibility of the accused incurred undethe provisions of the repealed la" prior to the enactent of the Adinistrative Code.

7SS():

8ON the enactent of Adinistrative Code repealin! Act No. +45 Sec.3 relievedSolian of his penalties.

>)?:

The repealed Act No . +45 does not have the effect of relievin! an offender in "holeor in part of penalties already incurred under the old la", unless the ne" la" favors thedefendant by diinishin! the penalty or doin! a"ay "ith it alto!ether, and then only tothe e#tent to "hich the ne" la" is favorable to the offender.

15


16/17

7t "ill not be presued that in the absence of an e#press lan!ua!e, that it "as theintention of the le!islator to let false s"earin! as to a aterial atter in a court of$ustice !o unpunished, and such "ould be the effect of the repealed Act No. +45,unless it be held that the repeal had the effect of revivin! the old statute 'Act No./+9/1.

The Adinistrative code 'Act No /5 Sec. +/1 "hich repealed Act No. +45 dealt "iththe for and effect of la"s in !eneral, providin! that U"hen a la" "hich e#presslyrepeals a prior la" is itself repealed the la" first repealed shall not be thereby revivedunless e#pressly so provided.F

The court ruled that the e#press repeal of Act No. +45 by the enactent of theAdinistrative Code 'Act No. /51 revived the provisions of the -enal Code touchin!per$ury, "hich "ere theselves repealed, not e#pressly but by iplication, by theenactent of Act No. /5. Coparin! the penalties prescribed in the -enal Code,Solian should be !iven the benefit of the provisions of Act No. /+9/ "herein thepenalty prescribed therein is less than that iposed upon hi under Act No. +45.

The enactent of ne" penal la"s, not"ithstandin! the fact that they contain !eneralrepealin! clauses, does not deprive the courts of $urisdiction to try, convict andsentence persons char!ed "ith violations of the old la" prior to the date "hen therepealin! la" !oes into effect, unless the ne" la" "holly fails to penali2e the acts"hich constituted the offense defined and penali2ed in the repealed la". The courttherefore concluded that Uin any case in "hich a statute prescribin! a penalty for thecoission of a specific offense is repealed, and in "hich the ne" statute providesne" and distinct penalties for the coission of such offense, the penalty "hich ustbe iposed on one "ho coitted the offense prior to the enactent of the repealin!

statute is that one "hich is ore favorable to the convictV.

The $ud!ent of conviction entered in the trial court "as affired but the sentenceiposed "as reversed !ivin! the accused the benefit of the provisions of Act No./+9/, a penalty of 9 onths and + day of arresto ayor and a fine of -5 "ithsubsidiary iprisonent as prescribed by la" should instead be iposed.

SOC*AL "UST*CE SOC*ET; 0. +ANGEROUS +RUGS BOAR+& G.R. NO. !(9(2


17/17

parentis, have a duty to safe!uard the health and "ell=bein! of their students and ayadopt such easures as ay reasonably be necessary to dischar!e such duty& and'91 schools have the ri!ht to ipose conditions on applicants for adission that arefair, $ust, and non=discriinatory.

Guided by ernonia, supra, and oard of )ducation, supra, the Court is of the vie"and so holds that the provisions of RA 4+ re%uirin! andatory, rando, andsuspicionless dru! testin! of students are constitutional. 7ndeed, it is "ithin theprero!ative of educational institutions to re%uire, as a condition for adission,copliance "ith reasonable school rules and re!ulations and policies. To be sure, theri!ht to enrol is not absolute& it is sub$ect to fair, reasonable, and e%uitable

re%uireents.

As to para!raph 'd1, coverin! officers and eployees of public and private offices

As the "arrantless clause of Sec. /, Art 777 of the Constitution is couched and as hasbeen held, UreasonablenessV is the touchstone of the validity of a !overnent searchor intrusion. And "hether a search at issue he"s to the reasonableness standard is$ud!ed by the balancin! of the !overnent=andated intrusion on the individual6sprivacy interest a!ainst the prootion of soe copellin! state interest. 7n the criinalconte#t, reasonableness re%uires sho"in! of probable cause to be personallydeterined by a $ud!e. Given that the dru!=testin! policy for eployeesWand studentsfor that atterWunder RA 4+ is in the nature of adinistrative search needin! "hat"as referred to in ernonia as Us"ift and inforal disciplinary procedures,V theprobable=cause standard is not re%uired or even practicable. e that as it ay, therevie" should focus on the reasonableness of the challen!ed adinistrative search in%uestion.

The first factor to consider in the atter of reasonableness is the nature of the privacyinterest upon "hich the dru! testin!, "hich effects a search "ithin the eanin! of Sec./, Art. 777 of the Constitution, intrudes. 7n this case, the office or "orBplace serves asthe bacBdrop for the analysis of the privacy e#pectation of the eployees and thereasonableness of dru! testin! re%uireent. The eployees6 privacy interest in anoffice is to a lar!e e#tent circuscribed by the copany6s "orB policies, the collectivebar!ainin! a!reeent, if any, entered into by ana!eent and the bar!ainin! unit,and the inherent ri!ht of the eployer to aintain discipline and efficiency in the"orBplace. Their privacy e#pectation in a re!ulated office environent is, in fine,reduced& and a de!ree of ipin!eent upon such privacy has been upheld.

Just as definin! as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authori2ed by thechallen!ed la". Reduced to a %uestion for, is the scope of the search or intrusionclearly set forth, or, as forulated in Ople v. Torres, is the enablin! la" authori2in! asearch Fnarro"ly dra"nF or Fnarro"ly focusedF;

The poser should be ans"ered in the affirative. or one, Sec. 3 of RA 4+ and itsipleentin! rules and re!ulations '7RR1, as couched, contain provisions specificallydirected to"ards preventin! a situation that "ould unduly ebarrass the eployees orplace the under a huiliatin! e#perience. 8hile every officer and eployee in aprivate establishent is under the la" deeed fore"arned that he or she ay be apossible sub$ect of a dru! test, nobody is really sin!led out in advance for dru! testin!.The !oal is to discoura!e dru! use by not tellin! in advance anyone "hen and "ho isto be tested. And as ay be observed, Sec. 3'd1 of RA 4+ itself prescribes "hat, inOple, is a narro"in! in!redient by providin! that the eployees concerned shall besub$ected to Urando dru! test as contained in the copanyIs "orB rules andre!ulations # # # for purposes of reducin! the risB in the "orB place.V

or another, the rando dru! testin! shall be undertaBen under conditions calculatedto protect as uch as possible the eployee6s privacy and di!nity. As to theechanics of the test, the la" specifies that the procedure shall eploy t"o testin!ethods, i.e., the screenin! test and the confiratory test, doubtless to ensure asuch as possible the trust"orthiness of the results. ut the ore iportantconsideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals inaccess=controlled laboratories onitored by the ?epartent of >ealth '?O>1 tosafe!uard a!ainst results taperin! and to ensure an accurate chain of custody. 7naddition, the 7RR issued by the ?O> provides that access to the dru! results shall beon the Uneed to Bno"V basis& that the Udru! test result and the records shall be BeptDconfidential sub$ect to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of thetest results.V Notably, RA 4+ does not obli!e the eployer concerned to report tothe prosecutin! a!encies any inforation or evidence relatin! to the violation of theCoprehensive ?an!erous ?ru!s Act received as a result of the operation of the dru!testin!. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the eployeesI privacy, under RA 4+, isaccopanied by proper safe!uards, particularly a!ainst ebarrassin! leaBa!es of testresults, and is relatively inial.

TaBin! into account the fore!oin! factors, i.e., the reduced e#pectation of privacy onthe part of the eployees, the copellin! state concern liBely to be et by the search,

and the "ell=defined liits set forth in the la" to properly !uide authorities in theconduct of the rando testin!, "e hold that the challen!ed dru! test re%uireent isunder the liited conte#t of the case, reasonable and, er!o, constitutional.

iBe their counterparts in the private sector, !overnent officials and eployees alsolabor under reasonable supervision and restrictions iposed by the Civil Service la"and other la"s on public officers, all enacted to proote a hi!h standard of ethics inthe public service. And if RA 4+ passes the nor of reasonableness for privateeployees, the ore reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, "ho, byconstitutional coand, are re%uired to be accountable at all ties to the people andto serve the "ith utost responsibility and efficiency.

As to para!raph 'f1, coverin! persons char!ed before the prosecutorIs office "ith acrie "ith an iposable penalty of iprisonent of not less than years and + day

(nliBe the situation covered by Sec. 3'c1 and 'd1 of RA 4+, the Court finds no valid$ustification for andatory dru! testin! for persons accused of cries. 7n the case ostudents, the constitutional viability of the andatory, rando, and suspicionless dru!testin! for students eanates priarily fro the "aiver by the students of their ri!ht toprivacy "hen they seeB entry to the school, and fro their voluntarily subittin! theipersons to the parental authority of school authorities. 7n the case of private and publiceployees, the constitutional soundness of the andatory, rando, and suspicionlessdru! testin! proceeds fro the reasonableness of the dru! test policy andre%uireent.

8e find the situation entirely different in the case of persons char!ed before the publicprosecutor6s office "ith criinal offenses punishable "ith years and + da

iprisonent. The operative concepts in the andatory dru! testin! areUrandonessV and Ususpicionless.V 7n the case of persons char!ed "ith a crie beforethe prosecutor6s office, a andatory dru! testin! can never be rando osuspicionless. The ideas of randoness and bein! suspicionless are antithetical ttheir bein! ade defendants in a criinal coplaint. They are not randoly picBedneither are they beyond suspicion. 8hen persons suspected of coittin! a crieare char!ed, they are sin!led out and are ipleaded a!ainst their "ill. The personsthus char!ed, by the bare fact of bein! haled before the prosecutorIs office andpeaceably subittin! theselves to dru! testin!, if that be the case, do nonecessarily consent to the procedure, let alone "aive their ri!ht to privacy. To iposeandatory dru! testin! on the accused is a blatant attept to harness a edical testas a tool for criinal prosecution, contrary to the stated ob$ectives of RA 4+. ?ru!testin! in this case "ould violate a personIs ri!ht to privacy !uaranteed under Sec. /Art. 777 of the Constitution. 8orse still, the accused persons are veritably forced toincriinate theselves.

17

Documents

crim2cases1