The sachet and shabu searched and seized were likewise not subjected to mandatory confirmatory test.
Finally, the urine samples and the shabu itself admittedly did not undergo CONFIRMATORY TESTS. In fact, the trial court had acquitted the three accused in Crim. Case No. xxx [Sec. 15 (use of shabu), RA 9165] for lack of a confirmatory test by PCI xxx on the urine samples of the three accused.
The sachet and the shabu did not undergo confirmatory test via a scientific Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry [GCMS] chemical test. The theory that only urine sample must undergo initial screening and confirmatory tests is wrong, unfair and unjust.
The reading of the appellant xxx is that RA 9165 does not expressly prohibit the mandatory confirmatory tests of the sachets and shabu searched and seized. The law does not expressly limit the confirmatory test to the urine samples retrieved from the urinary system of the accused.
In the instant case, no confirmatory test was done on the sachet and the shabu [0.035 gram] using the mandatory GCMS instrument.
Section 15 of RA 9165 provides that “a person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. Xxx.”
[The trial court had previously acquitted the three accused in Crim. Case No. xxx (Sec. 15, for alleged use of shabu, RA 9165) precisely because no confirmatory tests were conducted].
Sec. 38 of RA 9165 provides that “a positive screening laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.” The same section commands the use of “gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment [GCMS] or some such modern and accepted method” for confirmatory tests.
Note that Sec. 3 [Definitions], Article I, of RA 9165 speaks only of “screening test”, which it defines as a “rapid test performed to establish potential/presumptive positive result”. The section does not speak of “confirmatory tests” expressly.
Nothing in RA 9165 exclusively limit confirmatory tests to urine samples only. The law does not expressly and clearly prohibit confirmatory tests for the sachet and the shabu seized.
This is a novel issue that the Philippine Judiciary must clarify and resolve.
