act of hoarding is clearly in contravention of the very purpose of the law, which is to
Manipulation of drug prices
BY PERSIDA ACOSTA ON FEBRUARY 27, 2018
Dear PAO,
My friend has a drug store business. I found out that she is hoarding a prescription
medicine for high-blood pressure, because she had prior information that in a few
months’ time the price will increase. Is she violating any law because over what she
is doing?
Sincerely yours,
Timoteo
Dear Timoteo,
For your information, the law that addresses your situation is in Sections 23 and 24
of Republic Act (RA) 9502, otherwise known as the “Universally Accessible Cheaper
and Quality Medicines Act of 2008.” Sections 23 and 24 of the said law provide:
“Section 23. List of Drugs and Medicines that are Subject to Price Regulation – The
list of drugs and medicines that are subject to price regulation shall include, inter
alia:
(a) All drugs and medicines indicated for treatment of chronic illnesses and life
threatening conditions, such as x x x;
(b) Drugs and medicines indicated for prevention of diseases, eg, vaccines,
immunoglobulin, anti-sera;
(c) Drugs and medicines indicated for prevention of pregnancy, eg, oral
contraceptives;
(d) Anesthetic agents;
(e) Intravenous fluids;
(f) Drugs and medicines that are included in the Philippine National Drug Formulary
(PNDF) Essential Drug List; and
(g) All other drugs and medicines which, from time to time, the Secretary of the
Department of Health determines to be in need of price regulation.
“Section 24. Illegal Acts of Price Manipulation. – Without prejudice to the provisions
of existing laws on goods not covered by this Act, it shall be unlawful for any
manufacturer, importer, trader, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, or any person
engaged in any method of disposition of drugs and medicines to engage in acts of
price manipulation such as hoarding, profiteering, or illegal combination or forming
cartel, as defined under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7581, otherwise known as the
Price Act, and all other acts committed in restraint of trade.”
Relatedly, any violation of the abovementioned law shall be meted with a penalty
pursuant to its Section 8 (h), which reads:
“Section 25. Penalty for Illegal Acts of Price Manipulation. – Any person or entity
who commits any act of illegal price manipulation of any drug and medicine subject
to price regulation shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of not less
than five years nor more than 15 years or shall be imposed a fine of not less than
P100,000 nor more than P10 million, at the discretion of the court. The court may
also order the suspension or revocation of its license to operate (LTO), professional
or business license.
Whenever any act of illegal price manipulation of any drug and medicine subject to
price regulation is committed by a juridical person, its officials or employees, or in
case of a foreign corporation or association, its agent or representative in the
Philippines who are responsible for the violation, shall be held liable therefor.”
It is clear from the provisions stated above that it is unlawful for any trader or dealer
engaged in the disposition of drugs to engage in price manipulation such as
hoarding. Any person who shall be held liable of committing such act shall be meted
with a penalty of a fine or imprisonment or both, at the discretion of the court. The
make accessible to the public cheaper and quality medicines.
In your friend’s situation, her practice of hoarding medicines for the purpose of
selling them when prices are high is evidently in contravention of the law. This act of
hoarding of medicines is illegal and may subject your friend to an imprisonment or
fine or both, if proven guilty by the court.
Double jeopardy: Protection from
endless litigation
BY PERSIDA ACOSTA ON FEBRUARY 25, 2018
Twitter
Dear PAO,
I am a domestic helper. I was charged with qualified theft by my boss in
December 2017. The Office of the Prosecutor, however, dismissed the complaint
for lack of evidence. Today, I received another complaint for robbery. I
consulted a friend of my mother who is a law student. She advised me that my
boss can no longer charge me for another crime, considering that double
jeopardy has set in. I raised it with the handling prosecutor but the latter
ignored me. Now, I am confused. Can you please enlighten me about the concept
of double jeopardy, and is it applicable to my case?
Thank you very much,
Marie
Dear Marie,
Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “no person
shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense xxx.” In its bare
essence, the double jeopardy clause provided by the Bill of Rights of our
Constitution is a form of protection for individuals from endless litigation.
Moreover, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 7, Rule 117,
illustrates when the right of the accused against double jeopardy may be invoked, to
wit:
“Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused
has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a
valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance
to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same
or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
xxx”
This was emphasized in a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sally Go
Banyagan vs. Resally De Asis Delfin penned by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza
(G.R. No. 172792, October 19, 2011), which states that double jeopardy attaches if
the following elements are present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the
defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Applying the foregoing to your case, it may be noted that your right against double
jeopardy may not be invoked for the reason that: first, there was no information filed
in a court of competent jurisdiction; second, you have not yet pleaded to the charge
filed against you; lastly, the dismissal of the case was not done by the court of
competent jurisdiction. To reiterate the foregoing, the case for qualified theft was
dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of evidence and before the same has been filed
in a court of competent jurisdiction. Clearly, the above-mentioned enumerations
were met.