MY LECTURE NOTES ON REPUBLIC ACT NO.

9165
BY:
Executive Judge PABLO CABILLAN FORMARAN III

What is Republic Act No. 9165?

This Act is known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002, which was passed into law on June 7, 2002, overhauls the
30-year old Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. 6425). The new law
increases the penalties for drug related offenses while placing more
emphasis on the rebuilding of lives through rehabilitation and
treatment.1
When did it take effect?
This law was enacted on June 7, 2002, and was published in two
newspapers of general circulation (namely, the Manila Times and
Manila Standard) on June 19, 2002 and in the Official Gazette (Vol. 98
No. 32 page 4325) on August 12, 2002. It became effective fifteen
(15) days from their publication.2
What are the acts punished under the law?
The law penalizes the following unlawful acts:
1. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/ or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals the penalty is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand
P10 Million for dangerous drugs; for controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, the penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and a fine ranging from P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
2. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Destribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals the
penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500 Thousand P10 Million for dangerous drugs; for controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, the penalty is 12 years and 1
day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P100 Thousand to P500
Thousand.
3. Maintenance of Den, Dive or Resort the penalty is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand
P10 Million if dangerous drug is used or sold in any form; if
controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold, the
1 A Primer on the Dangerous Drugs Act by Congressman Antonio V. Cuenco
(Principal Sponsor of R.A. No. 9165), p. 2.
2 Section 102, Republic Act 9165

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 2

penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from

P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
4. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort the
penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from
P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
5. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals the penalty is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand
P10 Million if dangerous drug is manufactured; if controlled
precursor and essential chemical are manufactured, the penalty is
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P100
Thousand to P500 Thousand.
6. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals the penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20
years and a fine ranging from P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
7. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals the
penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from
P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
8. Possession of Dangerous Drugs the penalty is life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand
P10 Million ( Note: Depending of the quantity of any dangerous
drugs enumerated).
9. Possession of Equipment, Instruments, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs the penalty is
from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10
Thousand P50 Thousand.
10. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings the penalty is life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand P10 Million,
regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
11. Possession of Equipment, Instruments, Apparatus and
Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings the maximum penalty is 6
months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10
Thousand P50 Thousand.
12. Use of Dangerous Drugs the penalty is 6 months in
rehabilitation center for the first offense; for the second offense
6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine ranging from P50
Thousand P200 Thousand.
13. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous
Drugs the penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500 Thousand P10 Million.
14. Failure to Maintain and Keep Original Records of
Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals the penalty is 1 year
and 1 day to 6 years and a fine ranging from P10 Thousand to
P50 Thousand.
15. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs - the
penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from
P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 3

16. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs the penalty is

life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500
Thousand to P10 Million.
17. Attempt3 or Conspiracy4 to commit importation of
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemicals, sale, trading, administration, distribution and
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemicals, maintenance of den,
dive or resort where any dangerous is used in any form,
manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical, and cultivation or
culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs
the same penalty of the unlawful acts.
18. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or Employee for
Misappropriation, Misapplication or failure to account for
the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors
and
essential
chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
including the proceeds or properties obtained from the
unlawful act committed - the penalty is life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from P500 Thousand to P10 Million.
19. Planting of Evidence the penalty is death.
20. Violation of any Regulation Issued by the Dangerous
Drugs Board the penalty is 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and
a fine ranging from P10 Thousand to P50 Thousand as well as
administrative liability.
21. Issuance of False or Fraudulent Drug Test Results the
penalty is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine ranging from
P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand.
22. Violation of Confidentiality of Records the penalty is 6
months and 1 day to 6 years and a fine ranging from P1
Thousand P6 Thousand.
23. Failure or Refusal to Testify in Proceedings Involving
Offenses under this law the penalty is 12 years and 1 day to
20 years and a fine of not less than P500 Thousand.
24. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases the penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, without prejudice
to his/her prosecution under pertinent provisions of the Revised
Penal Code.
Who is the User penalized under this law?
3 There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance Art. 6, Revised Penal Code.
4 A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it Art. 8, Revised
Penal Code.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 4

As can be deduced from the definition of use, a User is a

person who engages in any act of injecting, intravenously or
intramuscularly, of consuming, either by chewing, smoking,
sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or otherwise introducing into
the physiological system of the body, any of the dangerous
drugs.5
SECTION 15. USE of Dangerous Drugs
Any person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory
test6 and who is a first-time offender, shall be committed to a
minimum of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government
center, subject to Article VIII of the law. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall then suffer
criminal liability of imprisonment from 6 years and 1 day to 12
years and a fine ranging from P50,000 to P200,000.
The person referred to herein is a natural person, because,
obviously a juridical person cannot be held liable of this offense.
Take note the second paragraph of Section 12, because it is
very relevant in the prosecution of Section 15. The provision
reads:
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the
preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor
has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected,
ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have
violated Section 15 of this Act.

However, where the person tested is also found to have in

his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this law, the provisions
therein on POSSESSION of Dangerous Drugs shall apply. It
is committed by any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall possess any dangerous drug, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:
(1)Opium (10 grams or more)7
(2)Morphine (10 grams or more)
(3)Heroin (10 grams or more)
(4)Cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride (10 grams or more)
5 Section 3(kk), Ibid.
6 Section 3(f), ibid. Confirmatory Test is an analytical test using a device, tool
or equipment with a different chemical or physical principle that is more specific
which will validate and confirm the result of the screening test.
7 The penalty is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500
Thousand to P10 Million.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 5

(5)Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu (50 grams or

more)
(6)Marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil(10 grams or more)
(7)Marijuana (500 grams or more)
(8)Other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or ecstasy,
paramethozyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine
(TMA),
lysergic
acid
diethylamine
(LSD),
gamma
hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirement, as determined and promulgated by
the Board. (10 grams or more)

When found to be positive for dangerous drugs use during

drug testing by accredited laboratories or centers, the
following persons8 shall be subject to the provisions of Section
15 of this law on Use of Dangerous Drugs:
(a) Applicants for drivers license;
(b) Applicants for firearms license and for permit to carry
firearms outside of residence;
(c)Students of secondary and tertiary schools, whether
public or private, who underwent random drug testing;
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices,
whether domestic or overseas, who underwent random
drug tests pursuant to the companys work rules and
regulations;
(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other
law enforcement agencies who underwent annual
mandatory drug tests;
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutors office with a
criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day who underwent mandatory drug test; and
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or
elected both in the national or local government who
underwent mandatory drug test.
It should be mentioned that in the consolidated cases of Social
Justice Society (SJS), Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. vs. Dangerous Drugs
Board and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and Aquilino Q.
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections,9 the Supreme Court En
Banc declared as unconstitutional Section 36 (f) and (g) or the
provisions requiring mandatory drug test to all persons charged
before the prosecutors office with a criminal offense with an
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and
one (1) day and the required mandatory drug test for all candidates
for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or
8 Section 36, ibid.
9 G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633, 161658, November 3, 2008.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 6

local government. But in the same case, the Supreme Court declared
as constitutional paragraphs c and d of Section 36 of Republic Act No.
9165, which pertain to random drug testing of students of secondary
and tertiary schools, whether public or private, and the officers and
employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or
overseas. This case is significant because persons charged before
the prosecutors office with a criminal offense with an imposable
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day could no longer be required to undergo a mandatory drug test.
What was the reason proffered by the Supreme Court? First, let us
know the principal issues of the case, and they are as follows:
(1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486
impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator?
Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for
candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the
Constitution? and
(2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165
unconstitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the right
to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure,
and the equal protection clause? Or do they constitute undue
delegation of legislative power?
Just to give you an idea with respect to the case of Senator
Pimentel, his contention is this, that Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 illegally impose an additional
qualification on candidates for senator. He points out that, subject to
the provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator needs
only to meet the qualifications laid down in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the
Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy,
(4) age, and (5) residency.
Beyond these stated qualification
requirements, candidates for senator need not possess any other
qualification to run for senator and be voted upon and elected as
member of the Senate. The Congress cannot validly amend or
otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot
disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or
alter or enlarge the Constitution. The Supreme Court sustained the
contention of Senator Pimentel and declared Section 36 (g)
unconstitutional.
On the other hand, in upholding the constitutionality of the
provision on random drug testing for students of secondary and
tertiary schools, the Supreme Court held:
In sum, what can reasonably be deduced from the above two
cases and applied to this jurisdiction are: (1) schools and their
administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students; (2)
minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are
subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and
schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the
health and well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 7

may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools

have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are
fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court
is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA 9165
requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing
of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the
prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a
condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school
rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to
enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable requirements.

In upholding also the constitutionality of the provision on the

random drug test for officers and employees of public and private
offices, the Supreme Court held:
The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the
nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which effects
a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution,
intrudes. In this case, the office or workplace serves as the backdrop for
the analysis of the privacy expectation of the employees and the
reasonableness of drug testing requirement. The employees privacy
interest in an office is to a large extent circumscribed by the companys
work policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, entered into
by management and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the
employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their
privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is, in fine,
reduced; and a degree of impingement upon such privacy has been
upheld.
xxx
xxx In the case of students, the testing shall be in accordance
with the school rules as contained in the student handbook and with
notice to parents. On the part of officers/employees, the testing shall
take into account the companys work rules. In either case, the random
procedure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be subjected
to drug test shall be picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And in all
cases, safeguards against misusing and compromising the
confidentiality of the test results are established.
xxx
To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a measure to stamp out
illegal drug in the country and thus protect the well-being of the citizens,
especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs.
The law intends to achieve this through the medium, among others, of
promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the
workplace via a mandatory random drug test. To the Court, the need for
drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to
override the individuals privacy interest under the premises. The Court
can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts across gender, age group,
and social- economic lines. And it may not be amiss to state that the
sale, manufacture, or trafficking of illegal drugs, with their ready

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 8

market, would be an investors dream were it not for the illegal and
immoral components of any of such activities. The drug problem has
hardly abated since the martial law public execution of a notorious drug
trafficker. The state can no longer assume a laid back stance with
respect to this modern-day scourge. Drug enforcement agencies
perceive a mandatory random drug test to be an effective way of
preventing and deterring drug use among employees in private offices,
the threat of detection by random testing being higher than other
modes. The Court holds that the chosen method is a reasonable and
enough means to lick the problem.
Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the
reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees,
the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search,
and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly
guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we
hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the
limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo,
constitutional.
Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials
and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions
imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all
enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if
RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the
more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by
constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to
the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.

And lastly, in declaring Section 36 (f) as unconstitutional, the

Supreme Court held:
Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165,
the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for
persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional
viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing
for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of
their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their
voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school
authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the
constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless
drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy
and requirement.
We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons
charged before the public prosecutors office with criminal offenses
punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The
operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are randomness
and suspicionless. In the case of persons charged with a crime
before the prosecutors office, a mandatory drug testing can never be
random or suspicionless.
The ideas of randomness and being
suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a
criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are
charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The
persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the
prosecutors office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing,

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

Page 9

if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone
waive their right to privacy. To impose mandatory drug testing on the
accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for
criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug
testing in this case would violate a persons right to privacy
guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse
still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
themselves.

With such pronouncement of the Supreme Court, does it mean

that persons who are apprehended or arrested for violation of
Republic Act No. 9165 could no longer be subjected to drug test?
The answer is no. This has been clarified in the case of Jaime Dela
Cruz vs. People10 wherein the Supreme Court speaking thru Chief
Justice Sereno held:
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and
understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested
or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.
Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for,
among others, the "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation", "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during
parties, social gatherings or meetings"; being "employees and visitors of a den, dive
or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of
controlled precursors and essential chemicals" ; "manufacture or delivery" or
"possession" of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of
dangerous drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings" ; "unnecessary" or
"unlawful" prescription thereof; "cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs or are sources thereof"; and "maintenance and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals." To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended
for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning.
Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion.

Who is a Pusher?
A Pusher is any person who sells, trades, administers, dispenses,
delivers or gives away to another, on any terms whatsoever, or
distributes, dispatches in transit or transports dangerous drugs or
who acts as a broker in any such transactions, in violation of this
Act.11 The unlawful act applicable to pusher is Section 5.
SECTION
5.
SALE,
TRADING,
ADMINISTRATION,
DISPENSATION,
DELIVERY,
DISTRIBUTION
and
TRANSPORTATION of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
10 G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014.
11 Section 3(ff), Ibid.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 10

This act is committed by any person, who, unless authorized by

law, shall sell12, trade, administer13, dispense14, deliver15, give
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions. It may also be violated by any
person who, unless authorized by law, shall so sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute ,
dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and
essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
Any person who acts as a protector/coddler of any violator of
Section 5 shall also be punished.
What Circumstances Qualify the Imposable Penalty to its
Maximum?
I.

If the sale, trading16, administration, dispensation,

deliver, distribution or transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the
school17.

12 Section 3 (ii), ibid. Sell refers to any act of giving away any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or
any other consideration.
13 Section 3 (a), ibid. Administer refers to any act of introducing any
dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without his/her knowledge,
by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of
indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to
himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of
medication.
14 Section 3 (m), ibid. Dispense refers to any act of giving away, selling or
distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or without the use of
prescription.
15 Section 3 (k) ibid. Deliver refers to any act of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or
without consideration.
16 Section 3 (jj), ibid. Trading refers to transactions involving the illegal
trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messages, and chat
rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions whether for money or any
other consideration in violation of RA 9165.
17 Section 3 (gg), ibid. School refers to any educational institution, private or
public, undertaking educational operation for pupils/students pursuing certain

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

II.

III.
IV.
V.

P a g e 11

If the offender is a drug pusher who uses minors or

mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers
and messengers, or in any other capacity directly
connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals trade.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally
incapacitated individual.
If a dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical involved in any offense under this
Act is the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof.
If the offender organizes, manages or acts as a
financier of any of the illegal activities prescribed in
Section 5 of the law.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5,

Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.18
Usually, Section 5 is enforced thru a buy-bust operation. In People
vs. Tecson Lim, et al.,19 the Supreme Court explained the concept of a
buy-bust operation, to wit:
Primarily, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby
ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Unless
there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust
team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full
faith and credit. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust
operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the
courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their
duties regularly. The courts, nonetheless, are advised to take caution in
applying the presumption of regularity. It should not by itself prevail
over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected
rights of the individual. Thus, this Court discussed in People v. Doria
the "objective" test in buy-bust operations to determine the credibility of
the testimonies of the police officers involved in the operation:
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust
operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must
start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery
studies at defined levels, receiving instruction from teachers , usually located in a
building or a group of buildings in a particular physical or cyber site.
18 People vs. Bertha Presas y Tolentino, G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011.
19 G.R. No. 187503, September 11, 2009.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 12

of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the
initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant,
the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust"
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the
informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of
strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are
not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be
caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining
the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring
the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is
overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or
plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered.
Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition
of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant
to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.

Corollary to this, it is important to know the distinction between

instigation and entrapment. In the case of People vs. Victorio
Pagkalinawan20, the distinction of the two was explained in this wise:
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him.
On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such
ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
lawbreaker.
In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, the Court laid down the
distinction between entrapment and instigation, to wit:
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION.--While it has been said that
the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose
of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while
instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often
been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the
act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it
is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its
commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the
criminal act was done at the `decoy solicitation' of persons
seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning
complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in
its commission. This is true especially in that class of cases
where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and
the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of
conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not shield
defendant, if the offense was committed by him, free from the
influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent
of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no
defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the
original design was formed independently of such agent; and
where a person approached by the thief as his confederate
notifies the owner or the public authorities, and, being
authorized by them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out
the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally
held that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of
20 G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 13

liquor that the purchase was made by a `spotter,' detective, or

hired informer; but there are cases holding the contrary.
One form of entrapment is the buy-bust operation. It is legal
and has been proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

Who is the Manufacturer contemplated in this law?

As can be deduced from the definition of manufacture,21 a
Manufacturer is any person who is engaged in the production,
preparation, compounding or processing of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly
or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin or
independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a
combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall
include any packaging or repackaging of such substances, design
or configuration of its form, or labelling or relabeling of its
container; except that such terms do not include the preparation,
compounding, packaging or labelling of a drug or substance in the
course of his/her professional practice including research, teaching
and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that
are not intended for sale or for any other purpose.
The unlawful act applicable to manufacturer is
SECTION 8 MANUFACTURE of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
This is committed by any person, who, unless authorized by
law, shall engage in the manufacture of any dangerous drug
and/or any controlled precursor and essential chemical.
Any person who acts as a protector/coddler of any violator
of Section 8 shall also be punished.
The presence of any controlled precursor and essential
chemical or laboratory equipment 22 in the clandestine
laboratory23 is a prima facie proof of manufacture of any
dangerous drug.
It shall be considered an aggravating
circumstance.
21 Section 3(u), ibid. Manufacture refers to the production, preparation,
compounding or processing of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from
substances of natural origin or independently by means of chemical synthesis or
by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any
packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form,
or labelling or relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include
the preparation, compounding, packaging or labelling of a drug or substance in
the course of his/her professional practice including research, teaching and
chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not intended
for sale or for any other purpose.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 14

What Circumstances Qualify the Imposable Penalty to its

Maximum?
I.

If the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or

established under the following circumstances:
(a)
Any phase of the manufacturing process was
conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s.
(b)
Any phase or manufacturing process was
established or undertaken within one hundred (100)
meters of a residential, business, church or school
premises.
(c)Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected
with booby traps.
(d)
Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with
legitimate business operations.
(e)
Any employment of a practitioner 24, chemical
engineer, public official or foreigner.

II.

If the offender organizes, manages or acts as a

financier 25 of any of the illegal activities prescribed in
Section 8 of the law.

Who is a Protector/Coddler?
A Protector/Coddler refers to any person who knowingly and
wilfully consents to the unlawful acts provided for in RA 9165 and
uses his/her influence, power or position in shielding, harbouring,
screening or facilitating the escape of any person he/she knows, or
has reasonable grounds to believe on or suspects, has violated the
provisions of said Act in order to prevent arrest, prosecution, and
conviction of the violator.26
22 Section 3(t), ibid. Laboratory Equipment refers to the paraphernalia,
apparatus, materials or appliances when used, intended for use or designed for
use in the manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical, such as reaction vessel, preparative/purifying equipment,
fermenters, separatory funnel, flask, heating mantle, gas generator, or their
substitute.
23 Section 3(e), ibid. Clandestine Laboratory refers to any facility used for
the illegal manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
24 Section 3(dd), ibid. Practitioner refers to any person who is a licensed
physician, dentist, chemist, medical technologist, nurse, midwife, veterinarian or
pharmacist in the Philippines.
25 Section 3 (q), ibid. Financier refers to any person who pays for, raises or
supplies money for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities under this Act.
26 Section (ee), Ibid.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 15

What unlawful acts of a protector/coddler are penalized

under RA 9165?
1. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 4);
2. Sale,
Trading,
Administration,
Dispensation,
Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5);
3. Maintenance of a Den, Drive or Resort (Sec. 6);
4. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 8); and
5. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or
are Sources Thereof (Sec. 16).
The penalty to be imposed to any person who acts as a
protector/coddler under any of the Sections of RA 9165
mentioned above is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and a fine ranging from P100 Thousand to P500 Thousand. If a
protector/coddler is a government official or employee, the
maximum penalties of the unlawful acts mentioned above shall be
imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any
public office. This can be deduced from Section 28 (Criminal liability
of Government Officials and Employees) of RA 9165.
What is Planting of Evidence?
Planting of Evidence refers to the wilful act by any person
or maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
whatever quantity or any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical in the person, house, effects or
in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose
of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any
violation of RA 9165. [Section3(cc)]
Under SECTION 29 of RA 9165 (PLANTING of EVIDENCE),
any person found guilty of planting any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity
and purity thereof, shall be liable under this law, and the penalty is
DEATH.
At this juncture, let us now discuss Section 21 of RA 9165, a
provision which provides for the proper handling and preservation of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. In the case
of People vs. Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, 27 the Supreme Court,
speaking through Justice Arturo D. Brion, said that complying with the
standard safeguards set forth under Section 21 and/or the Chain of
Custody Rule, - which requires that the marking of the seized
items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter
27 G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 16

the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation, is a step which initiates the
process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted
searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers
from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under
Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is
embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
which states:
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. [Emphasis ours]

This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: x x x Provided, further that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items. [Emphasis supplied]

What is the effect of failure to comply with the requirements

of Section 21 of RA 9165?
In the said case of People vs. Sanchez, the Supreme Court
answered the question in this manner: We recognize that the strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may
not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates
under varied conditions, many of them far from ideal, and cannot at
all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling
of confiscated evidence. The participation of a representative from
the DOJ, the media or an elected official alone can be problematic.
For this reason, the last sentence of the implementing rules provides
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 17

custody over said items. Thus, non-compliance with the strict

directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to
the prosecutions case; police procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present
case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to
have been preserved.
In the same case of People vs. Sanchez, the Supreme Court
extensively discussed the Chain of Custody Rule and its
application, to wit:

Under Section 5, Article II of R.A.. No. 9165, the elements

necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Implicit
in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of
corpus delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the
confiscated illicit drug.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering
exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact
necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it
ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed. In a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the
prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory
examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.
Blacks Law Dictionary explains chain of custody in this wise:
In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as
narcotics in a trial of drug case, must account for the custody of the
evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody until the
moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such evidence goes to
the weight not to admissibility of evidence. Com. V. White, 353 Mass.
409, 232 N.E.2d 335.

Likewise, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.

1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines chain of
custody as follows:
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 18

and the final disposition.

Although this regulation took effect on October 18, 2002 (or after
the commission of the crime charged), it is nonetheless useful in
illustrating how the process of preserving the integrity of the chain of
custody of the seized drugs is ensured and maintained. That the police
failed to approximate these safeguards and the prosecution failed to
prove the identity of the specimen allegedly seized and the specimen
submitted as evidence during the trial is evident from SPO2 Sevilla
himself who testified as follows:
FISCAL GIBSON ARAULA:
Q:

After informing [the accused] of his constitutional right what

happened Mr.
Witness?

SPO2 LEVI SEVILLA

did

A:

We brought him to our station.

Q:

How about the transparent plastic sachet, where is it?

A:

It is in my possession.

Q:

How about the buy-bust money in the amount of P100.00?

A:

I recovered it from the right pants pocket.

Q:

Now you said that you brought the accused to the Police Station,
what happened to the Police Station?

A:

We turn him over to the Desk Officer.

Q:

What did you turn over?

A:

The accused and the evidences, the plastic shabu sir.

Q:

Before you turn over that plastic sachet Mr. Witness, what
you put there?

A:

I put my initial and initial of the accused.

xxxx
Q:

By the way Mr. Witness after you turned over to the investigator
the plastic sachet, did you happen to know where the
brought the plastic sachet?

A:

I gave that plastic sachet first to the table of the Desk

investigator
Officer

and the Desk Officer gave it to the investigator.

FISCAL GIBSON ARAULA:
That would be all for the witness.

Significantly, this was the only testimony in the case that touched
on the chain of custody of the seized evidence. It failed to disclose the
identities of the desk officer and the investigator to whom the custody of
the drugs was given, and how the latter handled these materials. No
reference was ever made to the person who submitted the seized
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Likewise, no
one testified on how the specimen was handled after the chemical
analysis by the forensic chemist. While we are aware that the RTC's
Order of August 6, 2003 dispensed with the testimony of the forensic
chemist because of the stipulations of the parties, we view the
stipulation to be confined to the handling of the specimen at the forensic

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 19

laboratory and to the analytical results obtained. The stipulation does

not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the
possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his possession. To be
sure, personnel within the police hierarchy (as SPO2 Sevillas testimony
casually mentions) must have handled the drugs but evidence of how
this was done, i.e., how it was managed, stored, preserved, labeled and
recorded from the time of its seizure, to its receipt by the forensic
laboratory, up until it was presented in court and subsequently
destroyed is absent from the evidence adduced during the trial. To
repeat an earlier observation, even the time and place of the initial
marking of the alleged evidence are not at all certain as the testimony
on this point varies.
The recent case of Lopez v. People28 is particularly instructive on
how we expect the chain of custody or movement of the seized
evidence to be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of
custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real
evidence is not distinctive and is not really identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness
has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise
obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the
exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering
without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not
dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody
rule. [Emphasis ours]

Where is the venue of physical inventory and photograph

requirement under Section 21 vis-a-vis the marking of
seized evidence?
People vs. Sanchez provided the answer, to quote:
While the first sentence of Section 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 states
28 G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 (citations omitted).

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 20

that the apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same,
the second sentence makes a distinction between warrantless
seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
(a) x x x Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. [Emphasis supplied]

Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and

photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether
the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through
a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical
inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place
where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in
case of warrantless seizures such as a buy- bust
operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; however,
nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from
immediately
conducting
the
physical
inventory
and
photography of the items at the place where they were seized,
as it is more in keeping with the laws intent of preserving their
integrity and evidentiary value.
What Section 21 of R.A. No.9165 and its implementing
rules do not expressly specify is the matter of marking of the
seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the
evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to inventory and photography when these activities
are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of
arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires
that the marking of the seized items to truly ensure
that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in
the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation.

What are the implications of failure to comply with Sec. 21,

paragraph 1?
People vs. Sanchez held:
In People v. Orteza, the Court had the occasion to
discuss the implications of the failure to comply with Section
21, paragraph 1, to wit:

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 21

In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to

mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the
apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation
from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations
produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed
to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura,
where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the
seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to
observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that
the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the
markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory
on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the
identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the
accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the
identity of the shabu. [Emphasis supplied]

Another important provisions of RA 9165 that you should be

reminded are:
1) SECTION 27. Public Officer or Employee Liable for
MISAPPROPRIATION, MISAPPLICATION or FAILURE to
ACCOUNT
for
the
Confiscated,
Seized
and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment Including the Proceeds
or Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act
Committed
Any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies
or fails to account for confiscated, seized or surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or
properties obtained from the unlawful acts shall be liable under
this law and shall suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from
any public office. The penalty is life imprisonment to death and
fine ranging from P500 Thousand to P10 Million.
If said offender is an elective local or national official found to
have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of
dangerous drugs, or have received any financial or material
contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons
found guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs, he shall be removed
from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any
elective or appointive positions in the
government, its
divisions,
subdivisions,
and
intermediaries,
including
government-owned or controlled corporations.

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 22

2) SECTION 91.
FAILURE or REFUSAL to TESTIFY in
PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING OFFENSES UNDER THIS LAW
This is committed by any member of law enforcement agencies
or any other government official and employee who, after due
notice, fails or refuses intentionally or negligently, to appear as
a witness for the prosecution in any proceedings, involving
violations of this law, without any valid reason. His criminal
liability hereunder is without prejudice to the administrative
liability that may be imposed on him by his immediate superior
and/or the appropriate body. The penalty is imprisonment of 12
years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of not less than
P500,000.00.
The offenders immediate superior or responsible government
officer shall likewise be liable under this law and may suffer
perpetual absolute disqualification from public office in the
event that:
(a) Despite due notice to him and to the witness
concerned, he (the immediate superior or government
officer) does not exert reasonable effort to present such
witness to the court.
(b) He (the immediate superior or government officer)
does not notify the court where the case is pending of
the order to transfer or re-assign the aforementioned
member of the law enforcement agency or government
employee within twenty-four (24) hours from its
approval. The penalty is imprisonment of not less than 2
years but not more than 6 years, fine with accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification to hold
public office.
3) SECTION
92.
DELAY
and
PROSECUTION of Drug Cases

BUNGLING

in

the

Any government officer or employee tasked with the

prosecution of drug-related cases under this law, who, through
patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or
deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or
dismissal of the said drug cases, shall be liable hereunder. The
penalty is imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20
years without prejudice to his/her prosecution under the
pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal Forfeiture of the Proceeds and Instruments of

the Unlawful Act
How are confiscated, seized and forfeited dangerous drugs
disposed of?

My Lecture Notes on R.A No. 9165

P a g e 23

SECTION 20.
CONFISCATION and FORFEITURE of the
PROCEEDS or INSTRUMENTS of the Unlawful Act, Including
the PROPERTIES or PROCEEDS Derived from the Illegal
Trafficking29 of Dangerous Drugs and/or Precursors and
Essential Chemicals
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale,
trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution,
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, the cultivation or
culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the
possession of any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drug including other laboratory
equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation and
forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all the proceeds and
properties derived from the unlawful act, including, but not
limited to money and other assets obtained thereby, and
the instruments or tools with which the particular unlawful
act was committed, unless they are the property of a third
person not liable for the unlawful act, but those which are not of
lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay.
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered,
for proper disposition. (Section 21)
The Land and/or greenhouses on which plant sources of
dangerous drugs are cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated
and escheated in favour of the State, unless the owner thereof can
prove lack of knowledge of such cultivation or culture despite the
exercise of due diligence on his/her part. (Section 16)
Moreover, if the den, dive or resort where any prohibited drug is
used or sold in any form, is owned by a third person, the same
shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the government.
However, the criminal complaint must name the owner of the
place as an accused and must specifically allege that said place is
intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime.
The
prosecution must also prove intent on the part of the owner to use
the property for such purpose. (Section 6)

29 Section 3(r), ibid. Illegal Trafficking refers to the illegal cultivation, culture,
delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture, sale, trading, transportation,
distribution, importation, exportation and possession of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical.