PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.
After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? (2.5%)
Suggested Answer:
Yes. Answer
Under jurisprudence, to impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution. Drug testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. Evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy is inadmissible as evidence Rule
In the case at bar, PO1 Adrian was caught in an entrapment operation for bribery. The imposition of mandatory drug testing on him violated his right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. That being the case, the drug test result should be inadmissible as evidence. Apply
Thus, PO1 Adrian’s contentions are correct. Conclusion
