Name: REY T.

LABITA
Course: Bachelor of Law
Year/Semester: 1st Year, 1st Sem

SUMMARY ON PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 9165

for College Students majoring in Dentistry

Republic Act 9165 otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002 was approved on June 7, 2002 which overhauls the 30-year old Republic
Act 6425 otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. It provides a stiffer
penalty for violations of the prohibited acts stipulated under Article II of this Act.

The dangerous drugs (DDs) and/ or controlled precursors and essential

chemicals (CPECs) mentioned in this Act is listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol and in the
Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Its
importation, trading, delivery, transportation, distribution manufacturing, diversion
(CPECs), possession (DDs), use, cultivation (marijuana and/or opium), and prescription
are prohibited unless authorized by law. The manufacturing, delivery, and possession of
equipment, instruments, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for DDs are likewise
prohibited except otherwise authorized again by law. These acts are punishable under
Sections 4 to 16, 18 and 19 of Article II of this Act.

Medical practitioners like dentist, have to bear in mind that no medical

practitioner shall prescribe a dangerous drug and/or its preparation in any dosage form,
or drug preparations containing a controlled chemical without a valid S-2 license issued
by the PDEA (Section 6(3), Article III, DDB Reg. No. 1, s. 2014) which is punishable
under Section 18 (unnecessary prescription of DDs) and Section 19 (unlawful
prescription of DDs) of this Act with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with
Php500,000.00 fine plus the revocation of the license of the practitioner and life
imprisonment with Php10,000,000.00 fine respectively. It is also punishable under
Section 32 of this Act for violating any regulation issued by the Dangerous Drugs Board
(DDB).

It is further prescribed under Section 17 of this Act that all original records
relating to transactions/ activities involving DDs and CPECs shall be kept and maintain
in accordance to Section 40 of this Act. Failure to comply, the maximum penalty of 6
years and a fine of Php50,000.00 shall be imposed.

Unlawful selling, trading, administering, dispensing, delivering, distributing, and

transporting of DDs and CPECs are prohibited under Section 5 of this Act. If it involves
DDs, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of Php10,000,000.00
regardless of quantity and purity. Aggravating circumstances to the act are the
employment of minors or mentally incapacitated persons as runners, couriers, and
messengers, the latter being the victim of the act which proximately cause the death of
the same, and the act is done within 100-meter radius from a school.

Illegal possession of DDs is prohibited under Section 11 of this Act. The

quantities with its corresponding penalties are listed thereby. However, it is emphasized
that the degree of purity does not affect the gravity of the offense.

Therefore, any acts appertain to DDs and CPECs is governed by this Act and the
authorization to perform the act in accordance to the law is governed under DDB
regulations and issuances.
Name: REY T. LABITA
Course: Bachelor of Law
Year/Semester: 1st Year, 1st Sem

SUMMARY ON PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 9165

for PNP and PDEA Personnel

The Republic Act 9165 otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) was approved on June 7, 2002 which eventually
abolished the PNP Narcotics Group, NBI Narcotics Division, and Customs Narcotics
Interdiction Unit. Same Act modified the Secretariat of the National Drug Enforcement
and Prevention Coordinating Center (NDEPCC) and created the Philippine
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as the lead agency in the enforcement of anti-drug law
and the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) as the policy making body. However, the Act
does not prohibit the PNP to continue its anti-drug efforts but rather they are support
units to the PDEA in accomplishing its mandate.

In the enforcement effort, the consummation of the prohibited acts is laid under
Article II of this Act (RA 9165) with its corresponding penalties coupled with aggravating
circumstances. Buy-bust, entrapment, interdiction, and controlled-delivery anti-drug
operations are governed under Section 5 of this Act with a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment (since the death penalty is suspended) and Php10,000,000.00 especially
when minors or mentally incapacitated persons are employed in the act and the same
becomes the victim and dies.

The chain of custody of seized drugs and non-drugs evidences from the area of
operation to the presentation of such in court is governed under Section 26 of this Act.
Most dismissed cases are due to the doubt in the chain of custody. Requirements are
listed thereby like photographs, and witnesses.

Persons caught in the act/ in flagrante delicto during an anti-drug operation can
be punished under Section 7 (Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort),
Section 11 & 13 (Possession of DDs), Section 12 & 14 (Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia), and Section 15 (Use of DDs). Further any persons, who attempts or
conspires the unlawful acts under Section 4 (importation of DDs & CPECs), Section 5,
Section 6 (maintenance of a Den, Dive, or Resort), Section 8 (manufacture of DDs &
CPECs), and Section 16 (cultivation of Plant classified as DDs).

However, with the police power vested upon the PNP and the PDEA and other
law enforcement units, their action is governed by Section 27 (Criminal Liability of a
Public Officer or Employee for Misappropriation, Misapplication or Failure to Account for
the Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered DDs, Plant Sources of DDs, CPECs,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment including the Proceeds or
Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Acts Committed), Section 28 (Criminal Liability of
Government Officials and Employees), and Section 29 (Criminal Liability of Planting of
Evidence).

Thus, an arrested suspect shall be considered innocent unless a competent court

declares the contrary. It is the paramount consideration of every law enforcer not to the
statutory and constitutional rights of the accused.
Name: REY T. LABITA
Course: Bachelor of Law
Year/Semester: 1st Year, 1st Sem

SUMMARY ON PROHIBITED ACTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 9165

for Members of the Homeowners Association

The Republic Act 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise known as The Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002 was approved on June 7, 2002 which created the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as the lead agency in the enforcement of anti-drug law
and the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) as the policy making body.

Under Section 30, Article II of this Act (RA 9165), it provides the criminal liability
of officers of partnerships, corporations, associations or other juridical entities for
consenting to or knowingly tolerating such violation of any prohibited acts under this Act
shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal for the use of vehicle, vessel, aircraft,
equipment or other facility, as an instrument under the control and supervision of
aforementioned entities for the commission of Section 4 (importation of Dangerous
Drugs (DDs) and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals (CPECs)), Section
5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution, Transportation or
Manufacture of DDs and/or CPECs), Section 32 (Liability to a Person Violating Any
Regulation Issued by the DDB). Violations under Section 4 and 5 have a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment (since death penalty is suspended) and Php10,000,000.00.

Tolerating prohibited acts under Article II of this Act may constitute a punishment
under Section 26 (Attempt or Conspiracy) with an imposable penalty the same as the
offense committed being alleged.

It is therefore emphasized that every citizens has the social responsibility and is
duty bound to protect our society as embodied in our Constitution.
Name: REY T. LABITA
Course: Bachelor of Law
Year/Semester: 1st Year, 1st Sem

ARGUMENTS RELIED BY THE SUPREME COURT

1. Lacanilao vs. Deleon, 147 SCRA 286

a. The SEAFDEC exhibits some of the features of an intergovernmental

organization, albeit of a fairly rudimentary type.
b. Petition relates to a controversy between two claimants to the same position; this
is not a controversy between the SEAFDEC on the one hand, and an officer or
employee, or a person claiming to be an officer or employee, of the SEAFDEC,
on the other hand.

2. DECS vs. San Diego, 146 SCRA 446

a. There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to
repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the
interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary
to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.

b. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the

purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is
intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession
from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.

c. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients.

If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber, he should be so
advised and adviced. Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but on
the other hand he may not force his entry into the bar. By the same token, a
student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to
take a course in nursing, however appropriate this career may be for others.

d. There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists between medical

students and other students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the three-
flunk rule. The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people,
unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant
regulation. The accountant, for example, while belonging to an equally
respectable profession, does not hold the same delicate responsibility as that of
the physician and so need not be similarly treated.

3. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

a. In the 1987 Constitution, however, as already pointed out, the clear and
expressed intent of its framers was to exclude presidential appointments from
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, except appointments to
offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII.
Consequently, there was no reason to use in the third sentence of Sec. 16,
Article VII the word alone after the word President in providing that Congress
 may by law vest the appointment of lower-ranked officers in the President alone,
or in the courts, or in the heads of departments, because the power to appoint
officers whom he (the President) may be authorized by law to appoint is already
vested in the President, without need of confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments, in the second sentence of the same Sec. 16, Article VII.
b. The President is expressly authorized by law to appoint the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs. The original text of Sec. 601 of Republic Act No. 1937,
otherwise known as the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, which was
enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on 22 June 1957.
c. After the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, however, Rep. Act No. 1937 and PD
No. 34 have to be read in harmony with Sec. 16, Art. VII, with the result that,
while the appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is one that
devolves on the President, as an appointment he is authorized by law to make,
such appointment, however, no longer needs the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments.
Name: REY T. LABITA
Course: Bachelor of Law
Year/Semester: 1st Year, 1st Sem

Sentences that below contain errors in subject and verb agreement are emphasized in
bold letters.

1. The two opposing sides have presented their arguments. Is either argument
tenable?
2. If I was the judge, I would rule in the negative.
3. There are currently one eyewitness and some documentary evidence to support
their argument.
4. Each of the three credible witnesses have signed the instrument
Corrected: Each of the three credible witnesses has signed the instrument.
5. Dr. Francisco, along with Atty. Lacuata and Mrs. Francisco, are on our
deposition list.
Corrected: Dr. Francisco, along with Atty. Lacuata and Mrs. Francisco, is on our
deposition list.
6. The totality of injury that my client has suffered-the sleepless nights, the mental
anxiety, the pain, and the anguish-is not soon forgotten.
7. The father-in-laws deny the allegations in the complaint.
8. Lockhard and Gradner are a fictional law firm in a drama series.
Corrected: Lockhard and Gradner is a fictional law firm in a drama series.
9. Our bread and butter is the law.
10. Give and take is essential to a successful compromise, he said.
11. One of the defendants maintain that his signature was forged.
Corrected: One of the defendants maintains that his signature was forged.
12. His stuttering as well as his inconsistencies are hurting the weight of his
testimony.
Corrected: His stuttering as well as his inconsistencies is hurting the weight of
his testimony.
13. What is needed is a few more corroborating witnesses.
14. The problem with his theory is its many loopholes.
15. The only sign of truth is the facts that can be shown in court.