CITATION: G.R. No.

187000 DATE: November 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
AQUILINO ANDRADE, ROMAN LACAP, YONG FUNG YUEN, RICKY YU, VICENTE SY,
ALVIN SO, ROMUALDO MIRANDA, SINDAO MELIBAS, SATURNINO LIWANAG,
ROBERTO MEDINA and RAMON NAVARRO, Respondents

MODE OF APPEAL/ REVIEW TO THE SC:

Petition for Review on Certiorari

FACTS:
A random drug test was conducted in the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) pursuant to the
instructions of the Dionisio R. Santiago (Director of the Bureau of Corrections). The urine samples of
thirty-eight (38) inmates were collected and subjected to drug testing by the Chief Medical Technologist
and Assistant Medical Technologist of the Alpha Polytechnic Laboratory in Quezon City. Out of thirty-
eight (38), twenty-one (21) urine samples tested positive. The twenty- one (28) inmates who tested
positive in shabu including the respondents were charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). During the arraignment, all of the twenty- one (21) inmates pleaded
not guilty. Thereafter, the case was set for pre-trial and trial on August 11, 2006. Respondents file a
Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute a
violation of Section 15, RA 9165.

ISSUE:
Whether or not they can be held liable for the violation of Section 15, RA 9165

RULING:
Finding no probable cause for the offense charged in the Information these cases are ordered
DISMISSED with cost de officio

CONTENTION:
The petitioner’s contention that the facts charged do not constitute an offense

DOCTRINE:
Failure to move up to quash or to allege any ground thereof.

APPLICATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

According to Rule 117 Section 1 Time to Move quash — At any time before entering his plea,
the accused may move to quash the complaint or information. This means that, no motion to quash can be
entertained by the court except under the circumstances mention in Section 9 of Rule 117.

Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
waiver of any objections based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3
of this Rule.

Applying the doctrine to this case, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information
based on the grounds provided in Section 3 paragraph (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense.

Here, the accused were not one of those persons enumerated in Section 36 of the said Act who
may be subjected to mandatory drug testing (National penitentiary inmates or inmates of the Bureau of
Corrections are not included in the enumeration. Thus, even if the accused have been found positive in the
mandatory or random drug test conducted by BUCOR, they cannot be held liable under Section 15). The
first essential requisite has not been complied with. If one essential requisite is absent, the Court believes
that these inmates cannot be held liable for the offense charged. They may be held liable administratively
for violation of the Bureau of Corrections or NBP rules and regulations governing demeanor of inmates
inside a penitentiary but not necessarily for violation of Sec. 15 of R.A. 9165.