Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE 1

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    The Supreme Court ruled that a drug test conducted on a suspect without consent violated his constitutional rights. Police had arrested Ariel Escobedo on drug charges and demanded a bribe from his family for his release. Entrapment operations were then conducted, leading to the arrest of the accused. At the police station, authorities required and tested his urine sample for drugs without his consent. The Court held that the drug test was illegal as the suspect was arrested for extortion, not a drug offense, and that it violated his privacy and right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE 1

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    21 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a drug test conducted on a suspect without consent violated his constitutional rights. Police had arrested Ariel Escobedo on drug charges and demanded a bribe from his family for his release. Entrapment operations were then conducted, leading to the arrest of the accused. At the police station, authorities required and tested his urine sample for drugs without his consent. The Court held that the drug test was illegal as the suspect was arrested for extortion, not a drug offense, and that it violated his privacy and right against self-incrimination.

    Original Title

    DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE 1.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a drug test conducted on a suspect without consent violated his constitutional rights. Police had arrested Ariel Escobedo on drug charges and demanded a bribe from his family for his release. Entrapment operations were then conducted, leading to the arrest of the accused. At the police station, authorities required and tested his urine sample for drugs without his consent. The Court held that the drug test was illegal as the suspect was arrested for extortion, not a drug offense, and that it violated his privacy and right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE 1

    Uploaded by

    Erikha Araneta
    The Supreme Court ruled that a drug test conducted on a suspect without consent violated his constitutional rights. Police had arrested Ariel Escobedo on drug charges and demanded a bribe from his family for his release. Entrapment operations were then conducted, leading to the arrest of the accused. At the police station, authorities required and tested his urine sample for drugs without his consent. The Court held that the drug test was illegal as the suspect was arrested for extortion, not a drug offense, and that it violated his privacy and right against self-incrimination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DELA CRUZ vs.

    PEOPLE
    G.R. No. 200748

    July 23, 2014

    FACTS:

    Complainants alleged that a certain Ariel Escobedo was picked up by several unknown male persons believed to be
    police officers for allegedly selling drugs. Complainants were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Station.
    They met “James” at the Police Station, who demanded from them P100,000.00 which was later lowered to
    P40,000.00, in exchange for the release of Ariel.

    The accused was nabbed after an entrapment operation was conducted. The accused was later brought to the
    forensic laboratory where he was required to submit his urine for drug testing. The test yielded a positive result for
    presence of dangerous drugs.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal. (NO)

    HELD:

    The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for
    unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

    The drug test was in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is
    incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy