Validity of the Mandatory Drug Testing Requirement Under RA 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

In Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870 (and other consolidated petitions), November 3, 2008, the petitioners sought the nullification of the drug testing requirement under Sec. 36, paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

More particularly, the consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory drug testing on (1) students of secondary and tertiary schools; (2) officers and employees of public and private offices; and (3) persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a crime with an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day, and (4) candidates for public office.

The Abadilla 5 Case : Lumanog vs. People (and other consolidated cases), G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla.

The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed assigned at 211 Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City, where the ambush-slay happened. As a purported eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful day, including the faces of the accused. 

Probable Cause in Anti-Film Piracy Campaign : Presentation of the Master Tape of the Alleged Copyrighted Film During the Application for Search Warrant

In 20th Century Fox Film vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988, petitioner 20^th Century Fox sought the assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films.

The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by the private respondents.  The lower court issued the desired search warrants. The NBI, accompanied by the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items described in the three warrants.

Vital Matters to Remember in the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest

In the issuance of a warrant of arrest against a person criminally charged in court, the following vital matters need to be kept in mind, to wit:

"First . . . the determination of [the existence of] probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e. whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. . .