CASE DIGEST: DAVID GUTANG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 135406. July 11, 2000

FACTS:

The house of petitioner was searched by police officers by virtue of a search warrant issued by Judge Villarama of Pasig RTC. Police officers have found and confiscated suspected shabu and marijuana which were positively confirmed in a later examination conducted in the crime laboratory of PNP at Camp Crame. Immediately after petitioner was placed under arrest, he was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for urine test which the petitioner complied and submitted his urine samples to determine the presence of prohibited drugs. Result shows that the urine sample of petitioner is positive for the presence of Shabu. Petitioner was then charged with violation of Sections 8 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended. 

Gutang entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and claimed that the Chemical and Physical Reports are inadmissible in evidence since his urine sample was derived in effect from an uncounseled extrajudicial confession.

ISSUE:

Whether the reports on urine samples were inadmissible and violate his rights under custodial investigation.

RULING:

No. The constitutional provision on custodial investigation prohibits the use of Physical or Moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of accused's body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done, without running afoul of the prescription against testimonial compulsion. 

This case also falls within the exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be examined came from the body of the accused. This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. Moreover, the accused was not actually compelled to give his urine samples, he voluntarily gave the sample when he was requested to undergo the said test by the Chemist in the PNP crime laboratory.