COMPREHENSIVE

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

R.A. No. 9165 and
RA 10586 (ANTI-DRUNK
AND DRUGGED DRIVING
ACT)
 Republic Act No. 9165
“Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.”
Signed into law by Pres. GMA
on 7 June 2002
Published on 19 June 2002
Took effect on 4 July 2002
The State recognizes that
trafficking and use of
dangerous drugs is one
of today’s more serious
social ills.
PDEA 2013 REPORT

Illegal drug trafficking is still the

most pervasive drug activity in
the Philippines. Drug traffickers
never stop discovering new and
various ways to hide their illegal
transactions and activities.
 Philippine Star
19 February 2015.

PDEA: 92% of Metro

Manila barangays drug-
affected
 Declaration of Policy
to safeguard the well-being of
its citizenry, particularly the
youth, from the harmful
effects of dangerous drugs.
topursue an intensive and
unrelenting campaign against
the trafficking and use of
dangerous drugs.
to pursue an integrated
system of planning,
implementation, and
enforcement of anti-drug
abuse policies, programs, and
projects.
to provide effective
mechanisms or measures to
re-integrate into society
individuals who have fallen
victims to drug abuse or
dependence.
Definition of
Certain Terms
 DANGEROUS DRUGS
Include those 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 as
enumerated in the ANNEX
Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals
Those listed in Tables I and II of the
1988 UN Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances as
enumerated in the ANNEX.
CLANDESTINE LABORATORY
Any facility used for the
illegal manufacture of any
dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
Den, Dive, or Resort
A place where any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical is
administered, delivered, stored for
illegal purposes, distributed, sold
or used in any form.
 Employee of Den, Dive or Resort
The caretaker, helper, watchman,
lookout, and other persons working in
the den, dive or resort, employed by
the maintainer, owner and/or operator,
with or without compensation, in
connection with the operation thereof.
FINANCIER
Any person who pays for,
raises or supplies money for,
or underwrites any of the
illegal activities prescribed
under this Act.
PROTECTOR / CODDLER
Any person who knowingly and willfully consents
to the unlawful acts provided for in this Act and
uses his/her influence, power or position in
shielding, harboring, 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 this Act in order to
prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of
the violator.
ADMINISTER
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.
Any act of indispensable
assistance to a person in
administering any dangerous
drug to himself/herself unless
administered by a duly licensed
practitioner for purposes of
medication.
DELIVER
Any act of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by
any means, with or without
consideration.
Dispense
Any act of giving away, selling
or distributing medicine or any
dangerous drug with or without
the use of prescription.
MANUFACTURE
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
includes any packaging or
repackaging of such substances,
design or configuration of its
form, or labeling or relabeling of
its container
 SELL
Any act of giving away any
dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical
whether for money or any other
consideration.
 TRADING
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 messengers and chat rooms or acting as
a broker in any of such transactions whether for
money or any other consideration
 Chemical Diversion
The sale, distribution, supply or transport
of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, in
diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form,
to any person or entity engaged in the
manufacture of any dangerous drug
includes packaging, repackaging,
labeling, relabeling or concealment of
such transaction through fraud,
destruction of documents, fraudulent
use of permits, misdeclaration, use of
front companies or mail fraud.
Cultivate or Culture
Any act of knowingly planting,
growing, raising, or permitting
the planting, growing or raising
of any plant which is the source
of a dangerous drug.
Planting of Evidence
The willful act by any person of maliciously and
surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
attaching directly or indirectly, through any overt
or covert act, whatever quantity of 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 this Act.
Importation of Dangerous Drugs and
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals (Sec. 4)
importation

Dangerous drugs, regardless of

quantity and purity, including opium
poppy or any part thereof or
substances derived therefrom even
for floral, decorative and culinary
purposes

life imprisonment to death and

P500K-P10M fine
importation

Controlled precursor and

essential chemical
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100,000.00 to
P500,000.00 fine
importation

Protector / Coddler
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100,000.00 to
P500,000.00 fine
importation

MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE
IMPOSED
Importation through use of diplomatic
passport, diplomatic facilities or other
means involving his official status to
facilitate unlawful entry

Organizer, manager, financier

 Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution
and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and Controlled Precursor and
Essential Chemicals (Sec. 5)
sale

Dangerous drug, regardless of

quantity and purity
Broker of any such transaction

 life imprisonment to death

and P5ooK to P10M fine
sale

Controlled precursor and

essential chemical
Broker in such transaction

12 years and 1 day to 20 years

and P100K to P500K fine
sale

MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE
IMPOSED
Transaction within 100 meters
from school
Use of minors or mentally
incapacitated individuals as
runners, couriers and
messengers
sale

MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE
IMPOSED
Victim is a minor or mentally
incapacitated individual
Drug is proximate cause of
death of victim
Organizers, managers,
financiers
sale

 Protector / Coddler
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100K to P500K fine
People vs. Fundales, 5 September 2012

Elements of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs: (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
thereto.
Maintenance of a Den,
Dive or Resort (Sec,. 6)
den

Where any dangerous drug is

used or sold in any form

life imprisonment to death

and P500K to P10M fine
den

 Where any controlled precursor

and essential chemical is used
or sold in any form

12 years and 1 day to 20 years

and P100K to P500K fine
den

Dangerous drug in proximate

cause of death of user

death and P1M to P15M fine

den

Protector / Coddler

12 years and 1 day to 20 years

and P100K to P500K fine
den

MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE
IMPOSED

victim is a minor who uses the

same is such place

 Organizer, manager, or
financier
 Employees and Visitors of a
Den, Dive or Resort (Sec. 7)
aware of the nature of the place

12 years and 1 day to 20 years

and P100K to P500K fine
Manufacture of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential
Chemicals (Sec. 8)
manufacture

Manufacture of dangerous drug

life imprisonment to death

and P500K to P10M fine
manufacture

Manufacture of any controlled

precursor and essential
chemical
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100K to P500K fine
manufacture

Prima facie proof of

manufacture of dangerous drug
presence of controlled precursor
and essential chemical or
laboratory equipment in
clandestine laboratory
manufacture

Aggravating circumstances:
1. Conducted in the presence or
with the help of minors
2. Established or undertaken
within 100 meters of
residential, business, church
or school premises
manufacture

3. Secured or protected with

booby traps
4. Concealed with legitimate
business operations
manufacture

5. Employment of practitioner,
chemical engineer, public
official or foreigner
manufacture

Organizer, manager or financier

maximum penalty
manufacture

Protector / Coddler
 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100K to P500K fine
 Illegal Chemical Diversion of
Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals (Sec. 9)
 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and
P100K to P500K fine
 Manufacture or Delivery of
Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus
and other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemical (Sec. 10)
manufacture of paraphernalia

offender knows, or should reasonably

know, that it will be used to plant,
propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest,
manufacture, compound, convert,
produce, process, prepare, test,
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain
or conceal
 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and
P100K to P500K fine
manufacture of paraphernalia

If to be used to inject, ingest,

inhale or otherwise introduce
into the human body a
dangerous drug
6 months and 1 day to 4 years
and P10K to P50K fine
manufacture of paraphernalia

Use of minor or mentally

incapacitated individual
maximum penalty
Possession of Dangerous
Drugs (Sec. 11)
possession

10 grams or more of

 opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine,
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin,
marijuana resin oil, methylenedioxy
methamphetamine (MDMA or ecstacy),
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic
acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma
hydroxybutyrate (GHB)
possession

50 grams or more methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu
 500 grams or more marijuana

 lifeimprisonment to death and

P500K to P10M fine
possession

10 grams or more but less than 50 grams

methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu
 lifeimprisonment and P400K to
P500K fine
possession

5 grams or more but less than 10 grams

opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin, marijuana
resin oil, metamphetamine hydrochloride,
MDMA, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB
300 grams or more but less than 500 grams
marijuana

 20 years and 1 day to life

imprisonment and P400K to P500K
fine
possession

Less than 5 grams opium, morphine,

heroin, cocaine, cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin, marijuana resin oil,
metamphetamine hydrochloride,
MDMA, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB
Less than 300 grams marijuana

 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and

P300K to P400K fine
People vs. Posada, 12 March 2012
Elements of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possess the said drug.
People vs. Posada, 12 March 2012
The Supreme Court clarified that the
words “having possession of” include
constructive possession, that is, the
relation between the owner of the drug
and the drug itself when the owner is
not in actual physical possession, but
when it is still under his control and
management and subject to his
disposition.
 Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous drugs (Sec. 12)
Fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing dangerous
drug into the body

6 months and 1 day to 4 years and

P10K to P50K fine
Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings
(Sec. 13)
Parties, social gatherings, meetings, or
the proximate company of at least two
persons
Regardless of quantity and purity
maximum of life imprisonment to
death and P500K to P10M fine
 Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 14)

 maximum of 6 months and 1 day

to 4 years and P10K to P50K fine
 Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 15)
First offense – 6 months
rehabilitation
Second offense – 6 years and 1 day to
12 years and P50K to P200K fine
 IF ALSO FOUND TO HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION
QUANTITY PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 11, SUCH
PROVISION WILL APPLY
Cultivation or Culture of Marijuana, Opium
Poppy or any other Plant Classified as
Dangerous Drug or Source Thereof (Sec. 16)
 lifeimprisonment to death and
P500K to P10M fine
if private land, to be confiscated
and escheated in favor of the State
if public land, maximum penalty
cultivation

Organizer, manager, financier

maximum penalty

Protector / Coddler
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100K to P500K fine
 Violation or Failure to Comply with the
Maintenance and Keeping of Original
Records of Transaction (Sec. 17)
Practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler,
importer, distributor, dealer, retailer
 1 year and 1 day to 6 years and P10K to P50K
fine
 revocation of license
 Unnecessary Prescription of
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 18)
 12years and 1 day to 20 years
and P100K to P500K fine

revocation of license of
practitioner
 Unlawful Prescription of
Dangerous Drugs (Sec. 19)
Any person, without authority of
law, who makes or issues a
prescription for any dangerous drug

life imprisonment to death

and P500K to P10M fine
 Misappropriation, Misapplication or
Failure to Account Confiscated, Seized
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
etc (Sec. 27)
By public officer of employee
life imprisonment to death
and P500K to P10M fine
Elective local or national official who
benefits from the proceeds of drug
trafficking, or who receives financial or
material contributions or donations
from natural or juridical persons found
guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs
 removal from office and perpetual
disqualification from any elective or
appointive positions in government
 Planting of Evidence (Sec. 29)
By any person
Regardless of quantity and
purity
death penalty
Plea-bargaining not
allowed (Sec. 23)
Probation Law not
applicable (Sec. 24)
Issuance of false or fraudulent drug test
results by any person authorized, licensed
or accredited to conduct drug examination
or test (Sec. 37)
done knowingly, willfully or through gross
negligence
6 years and 1 day to 12 years
fine of P100,000.00 to P500,000.00
revocation of license and closure of drug
testing centre
A law enforcement officer or
government official or employee is
liable when he, despite due notice,
intentionally or negligently fails or
refuses to appear as a witness for
the prosecution without any valid
reason (Sec. 91).
12 years and 1 day to 20 years
fine of not less than P500,000.00
administrative liability
The immediate superior of the law
enforcement officer or government
employee shall also be penalized if,
despite due notice to them, he does
not exert reasonable effort to present
the witness to the court (Sec. 91).
2 years and 1 day to 6 years
fine of P10,000.00 to P50,000.00
perpetual absolute disqualification
from public office
 Delay and bungling in the
prosecution of drug cases (Sec. 92)
government officer or employee
deliberately or through patent laxity,
inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay
causes dismissal or unsuccessful
prosecution of drug case
> 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
 Custody and Disposition of
confiscated, Seized, and/or
surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
etc. (Sec. 21), as amended by RA
No. 10640, 15 July 2014
The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items 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, with an
elected public official and a
representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof
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, finally, That noncompliance
of 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
and custody over said items.
 Congress saw fit to fashion
a detailed procedure in order
to ensure that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the
confiscated items would not
be compromised. (People vs.
Ancheta, 13 June 2012)
People vs. Ancheta, 13 June 2012
Under PDEA records, the dismissals
and acquittals accounted for 56%
because of failure of police
authorities to observe proper
procedure under the law.
People vs. Ancheta, 13 June 2012
An international study conducted in
2008 showed that out of 13,667 drug
cases filed from 2003 to 2007, only
4,790 led to convictions (most of which
were cases of simple possession); the
charges against the rest were
dismissed or the accused were
acquitted.
People vs. Ancheta, 13 June 2012
The cases filed with the SC from 2006 to
2011 show that, out of those in which the
Court made acquittals and reversals,
85% involved failure of the prosecution
to establish compliance by the arresting
officers with the procedural
requirements outlined in Section 21 of
R.A. 9165.
People vs. Ancheta, 13 June 2012
Specific procedures relating to the
seizure and custody of drugs have
been laid down in the law for the
police to strictly follow. The
prosecution must adduce evidence
that these procedures have been
followed in proving the elements of
the defined offense.
Requirements of Sec. 21 (1)

1.marking
2.photographing
3.inventory
4.chain of custody
Marking and photographing
• immediately
• preferably at the crime scene
• maybe done at the nearest police
station or office of apprehending
officers
• in the presence of the arrested
person
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012
In a prosecution of the sale and
possession of (dangerous drugs), the
State not only carries the heavy burden
of proving the elements of the offense,
but also bears the obligation to prove
the corpus delicti, failing in which the
State will not discharge its basic duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012

The marking of the evidence serves to

separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed
of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence.
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012

The marking upon immediate

confiscation of the prohibited items
contemplates even that which was
done at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team.
Inventory and photographing
• immediately
• nearest police station or office of
apprehending officers
• presence of arrested person, or
his representative, or his counsel
• public official and media, or
public official and public
prosecutor
People vs Octavio, 3 April 2013
There is nothing in the law or its
implementing rules which require the
presence of the elected public official
during the buy-bust operation. It is
enough that he is present during the
physical inventory immediately conducted
after the seizure and confiscation of the
drugs and he signs the copies of the
inventory and is given a copy thereof.
Chain of custody
The prosecution must show by records
or testimony, the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into possession
of the police officers and until it was
tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition up to the time it was
offered in evidence. (People vs. Manlangit, 12
January 2010)
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012
It is settled that the State does not
establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the
prosecution is missing or when substantial
gaps in the chain of custody of the
prohibited substance raise grave doubts
about the authenticity of the prohibited
substance presented as evidence in court.
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012

Crucial in proving chain of custody is the

marking of the seized drugs immediately after
they are seized from the accused. Marking
after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband[s] are immediately marked
because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference.
arresting
officer
court

investigator
evidence
custodian

forensic
chemist
People vs. Umipang, 25 April 2012

Non-compliance with the required

procedure will not necessarily result
in the acquittal of the accused if: (1)
the noncompliance is on justifiable
grounds; and (2) the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the
apprehending team.
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
No. 1, Series of 2002

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 used in court as
evidence, and the final disposition .
“Transport” means the movement of the
dangerous drug “to carry or convey from
one place to another.” Here, the accused
were arrested inside a car which was not
in transit. The car was parked and
stationary. The prosecution failed to show
that any distance was travelled. The
conclusion that the accused transported
the drugs merely because they were in a
motor vehicle has no basis and is mere
speculation. (San juan v. People, GR No.
177191, May 30, 2011)
“Transportation of drugs” is committed when
the accused was apprehended while boarding
his flight with drugs in his possession. While it
may be argued that appellant was yet to board
the aircraft or travel some distance with illegal
drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that
his presence at the airport at that particular
instance was for the purpose of transporting or
moving the dangerous drugs from one place to
another. (People v. Laba, G.R. No. 199938,
January 28, 2013)
“Drug selling” is consummated upon
the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-
buyer and, in turn, the seller’s receipt of
the marked money. (People v. Hong Yen
and Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9,
2013).
It is vital that the seized contraband is
immediately marked because succeeding handlers
of the specimen will use the marking as reference.
The marking of the evidence serves to separate
the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed at
the end of criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, “planting” or contamination of
evisdence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653,
January 29, 2014). When there is a search
warrant, marking and inventory shall be at the
place where the search was conducted. In a buy-
bust operation, the marking and inventory may
be done immediately or at the nearest police
station.
Non-compliance with the express
requirements under par. 1, Section 21, Art. II
of RA 9165 (immediate physical inventory &
photograph of seized drugs) is justified where
the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapse, and, thereafter, explained and cited
justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. (Id.)
Note: Non-compliance with the chain of
custody rule affects the credibility of the
evidence and will not invalidate arrest
or render inadmissible the items seized.
Zalameda v. People, 09-04-09; People
v. Cardenas, 03-21-12
Failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as these would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
• Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of
Court, evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by
the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such
law or rule, the evidence must be admitted
subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will be accorded it by the courts. (ibid)
We do not find any provision or statement
in said law or in any rule that will bring
about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to
non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore,
if there is non-compliance with said
section, is not of admissibility, but of
weight – evidentiary merit or probative
value – to be given the evidence. (ibid)
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640(Approved:07-14-15)
AMENDING SECTION 21 OF RA NO. 9165
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002”, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. – 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 in the following
manner:
“x x x
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items 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, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof:
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, finally, That non-compliance
of 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 and custody over said
items.
“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
immediately upon the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification
shall be issued immediately upon completion of the
said examination and certification;
“x x x.”
It is settled that Section 86 of RA 9165
(Transfer, Absorption & Integration of
all operating units on illegal drugs into
the PDEA) does not invalidate
operations on account of the law
enforcer’s failure to maintain close
coordination with the PDEA. (People v.
Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
2012.)
 Consolidated petitions:

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS),

ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA, JR.,
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. Vs.
Dangerous Drugs Board, PDEA and
COMELEC= Promulgated: November 3,
2008
Issue: constitutionality of Section 36 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, insofar as it
requires mandatory drug testing of
(c)students of secondary and tertiary
schools , (d)officers and employees of
public and private offices, (f) persons
charged before the prosecutors office with
certain offenses, (g) candidates for public
office.
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary
schools. Students of secondary and
tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the
related rules and regulations as contained
in the schools student handbook and with
notice to the parents, undergo a random
drug testing x x x;
d) Officers and employees of public and
private offices.Officers and employees
of public and private offices, whether
domestic or overseas, shall be subjected
to undergo a random drug test as
contained in the companys work rules
and regulations, x x x for purposes of
reducing the risk in the workplace
(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 shall undergo a
mandatory drug test;

(g) All candidates for public office
whether appointed or elected both in
the national or local government shall
undergo a mandatory drug test.
Pimentel: Constitution simply
provides for 5 qualifications for a
senator: (1) citizenship, (2) voter
registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and
(5) residency
Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should
be, as it is hereby declared as,
unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or
an administrative rule violates any norm of
the Constitution, that issuance is null and
void and has no effect. xxx Whatever limits
it imposes must be observed.
The drug test prescribed under Sec.
36(c)and (d) of RA 9165 for secondary
and tertiary level students and public
and private employees, while
mandatory, is a random and
suspicionless arrangement. The
objective is to stamp out illegal drug and
safeguard in the process the well being
of [the] citizenry, particularly the youth,
from the harmful effects of dangerous
drugs
Needless to stress, the random testing
scheme provided under the law argues
against the idea that the testing aims to
incriminate unsuspecting individual
students.
Just as in the case of secondary and
tertiary level students, the mandatory
but random drug test prescribed by
Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and
employees of public and private offices
is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the
same reason
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
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
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.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves
to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 161658
and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA
9165 and COMELEC Resolution No.
6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and
to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition in G.R.
Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec.
36(c) and (d) of RA
9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring
its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All
concerned agencies are enjoined from
implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165
 JAIME D. DELA CRUZ vs.PEOPLE, G.R. No.
200748, July23,2014
• Can drug test be conducted on ALL arrested persons?
• The RTC convicted petitioner, ruling that the following
elements of Section 15 were established: (1) the accused was
arrested; (2) the accused was subjected to drug test; and (3)
the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drug.
• Disregarding petitioner’s objection regarding the admissibility
of the evidence, the lower court also reasoned that "a suspect
cannot invoke his right to counsel when he is required to
extract urine because, while he is already in custody, he is
not compelled to make a statement or testimony against
himself. Extracting urine from one’s body is merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a
custodial investigation."
• SC Ruling:
• We find the ruling and reasoning of the trial
court, as well as the subsequent affirmation by
the CA, erroneous.
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover
persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful act, but ONLY for unlawful acts
listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.
 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/orcontrolled
precursors and essential chemicals.”
 To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or
apprehended for 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
 The essence of the provision is more clearly illustrated in
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010,
637 SCRA 791, as follows:
• “On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be
instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and
Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with
regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This
Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges
under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous
drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form
of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec.
11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping
with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15
instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug
use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test
result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty
• under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the
possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years
and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first
time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six
months rehabilitation in a government center. To file
charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone
would frustrate the objective of the law to
rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an
opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
• “In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to
rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law
enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases
to exercise proper discretion in filing
• charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is
only and solely in the form of residue and the
confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive
for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford
the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing
of charges for or involving possession of dangerous
drugs should only be done when another separate
quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere
residue, is found in the possession of the accused as
provided for in Sec. 15.
Furthermore, making the phrase "a person
apprehended or arrested" in Section 15 applicable
to all persons arrested or apprehended for
unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all
other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug
testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for
any crime. To overextend the application of this
provision would run counter to our
pronouncement in Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency,591 Phil. 393 (2008), to wit:
• “x x x [M]andatory drug testing can never be random and
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 prosecutor’s office and peaceably submitting
themselves to drug testing, 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 6195. Drug testing in this case would
violate a person’s right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2,
Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons
are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.”
The drug test is not covered by allowable non-
testimonial compulsion.
We find that petitioner never raised the
alleged irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment and raises the issue only now
before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to
have waived his right to question the validity
of his arrest curing whatever defect may have
attended his arrest. However, "a waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest.”
We are aware of the prohibition against
testimonial compulsion and the allowable
exceptions to such proscription. Cases where non-
testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal,
however, that the pieces of evidence obtained
were all material to the principal cause of the
arrest.
The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination
proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his
body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical
acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not
thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand
of counsel is not required. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513
[1987]) The essence of the right against self incrimination is
testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against
himself through a testimonial act. (People vs. Casinillo, 213
SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994];
People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 [1999]) Hence, it has been
held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to
submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy;
(Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920])
and an accused may be compelled to submit to physical
examination and to have a substance taken from his body for
medical determination as to whether he was suffering from
gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan
Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) to expel morphine from his mouth;
(U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the
outline of his foot traced todetermine its identity with bloody
footprints; (U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42
Phil. 308 [1921]) and 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.(People vs.
Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 [1950])
In the instant case, we fail to see how a
urine sample could be material to the
charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA,
therefore, both erred when they held that
the extraction of petitioner’s urine for
purposes of drug testing was "merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the
concept of a custodial investigation."
The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right
to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to
have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He
also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He
was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his
efforts proved futile, because he was still
compelled to submit his urine for drug testing
under those circumstances.
The pertinent provisions in Article III of the
Constitution are clear:
Section 2. The right of the people to be securein their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we
cannot condone drug testing of all arrested
persons regardless of the crime or offense for
which the arrest is being made.
 REPUBLIC ACT 10586

ANTI-DRUNK AND DRUGGED

DRIVING ACT OF 2013
 State Policy (Sec. 2)
It is the declared policy of the state to ensure road
safety through the observance of the citizenry of
responsible and ethical driving standards.
This is in harmony with the Constitutional principle
that recognizes the protection of life and property and
the promotion of the general welfare.
Pursuant to the said declared policy,
the law was passed to penalize the acts
of driving under the influence of
alcohol, dangerous drugs and other
intoxicating substances.
Definition of Terms (Sec. 3):
 (a) Alcohol-refers to alcoholic beverages classified into beer,
wine and distilled spirits, the consumption of which produces
intoxication.
 (b) Breath Analyzer also known as Alcohol Breath Analyzer
(ABA) - the equipment which can determine the blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) level of a person through testing
of his breath.
 (c) Chemical tests-refers to breath, saliva, urine or blood
tests to determine the blood alcohol concentration level
and/or positive indication of dangerous drugs and similar
substances in a person's body.
 (d) Dangerous drugs and other similar substances-refer to
drugs listed or defined in RA 9165, the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and those that the Dangerous
Drugs Board may reclassify, add or remove from the list of
dangerous drugs.
 (e) Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol- refers to
the act of operating a motor vehicle while the driver's blood
alcohol concentration level has, after being subjected to a
breath analyzer test, reached the level of intoxication, as
extablished jointly by the DOH, NAPOLCOM and DOTC.
 (f) Driving under the influence (DUI) of dangerous drugs
and other similar substances-refers to the act of operating a
motor vehicle while the driver, after being subjected to a
confirmatory test as mandated under RA 9165, is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug.
 (g) Field sobriety tests-refer to standardized tests to initially
assess and determine intoxication, such as the 1) horizontal
gaze nystagmus, 2) the walk-and-turn, 3) the one-leg stand,
and 4) other similar tests as determined jointly by the DOH,
NAPOLCOM nad DOTC.
 (h) Motor vehicle-refers to any land transportation vehicle
propelled by any power other than muscular power.
 i. Trucks and buses are motor vehicles with gross vehicle
weight from 4501 kg and above (Sec. 3, Rule 1,IRR).
 ii. Motorcycles are two (2) or three (3) wheeled motor
vehicles and which may include a side-car attached thereto
(Sec. 3, Rule 1,IRR).
 (i) Motor vehicles designed to carry hazardous materials-
refer to those designed to carry or transport materials which
may endanger health and lives of the public.
 (j) Public utility vehicles-refer to motor vehicles for hire
and used to carry or transport passengers or goods. (Sec. 3)
 (k) Drug Screening Test-refers to a rapid test performed to
establish potential/presumptive positive result on the presence
of dangerous drugs in a person's body (Sec. 3,Rule 1,IRR).
(l) Drug Confirmatory Test refers to an analytical test using a
Gas- Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GCMS) to validate
and confirm the result of a Drug Screening Test (Sec. 3,Rule
1,IRR)
(m) Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) refers to a Law
Enforcement Officer (LEO) trained and deputized by the LTO to
conduct the Drug Recognition Protocol (Sec. 3,Rule 1,IRR).
 (n)Drug Recognition Protocol (DRP) refers to a
standardized and systematic method of determining
whether a person is driving under the influence of
dangerous drugs and other similar substances (Sec. 3, Rule
1,IRR).

 (o) LEO refers to law enforcement officers of the LTO or

authorized officer trained and deputized by the Land
Transportation Office to enforce the provisions of this Act
(Sec3 ,Rule 1, IRR).

What are the punishable acts under RA 10586?
1) Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol;
 2) Driving under the influence(DUI) of dandagerous
drugs and other similar substances; (Sec. 5)
 3) Refusal to subject oneself to mandatory tests
committed by a driver of a motor vehicle who refuses
to undergo mandatory field sobriety tests. (Sec. 8)
 Sobriety tests (Sec. 3, Rule 1,IRR):
1) the Eye Test (or 'horizontal gaze nystagmus')-
requires the driver to follow with his gaze an
object that the law enforcer moves horizontally,
around one foot away from the driver’s face;
2) the Walk-and-Turn Test- requires the driver to
walk nine steps forward in a straight line, turn,
then walk back the same distance without
difficulty; and
3) the One-Leg Stand- requires the driver to stand
on one leg and raise the other around six inches
from the ground for about 60 seconds.
If the driver passes the tests, can he be charged?

In case the driver passes the test, he shall only be

charged with his/her traffic violation and not a
violation of RA 10586 (IRR).
On the other hand, if the driver fails any of the three
tests, an Alcohol Breath Analyzer (ABA or
'breathalyzer') Test shall be done to determine the
blood alcohol level of the driver (IRR).
 Allowed blood alcohol level of drivers:

1) Drivers of private motor vehicles below

4,500 kg are allowed a limit below 0.05%.

2) Public Utility Vehicle (PUV), truck, bus and

motorcycle drivers will be given a strict 0.00%
limit. (IRR)
What is the consequence of exceeding the limit?

If a driver is found to have exceeded the

allowed limits, he/she shall be arrested
and the vehicle will be impounded.
Otherwise, if found to be within allowed
limits, driver shall be apprehended for the
traffic violation only.
Who conducts & when should a Field sobriety,
chemical and confirmatory tests be conducted?

A law enforcement officer (LEO) and/or

deputized local traffic enforcement officers
who has probable cause to believe that a person
is driving under the influence of alcohol,
dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances
by apparent indications and manifestations. (Sec.
6)

 What constitutes probable cause?

Probable Cause:
 Probable cause shall mean that the LEO has reasonable ground
to believe that the person driving the motor vehicle is under the
influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar
substances upon personally witnessing a traffic offense
committed by means of lane straddling, making sudden stops,
overspeeding, swerving or weaving in such an apparent way as to
indicate that the driver is under the influence of alcohol,
dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances.
 In the course of apprehension for another traffic offense,
the evident smell of alcohol in a driver's breath, generally
slurred speech in response to questioning, bloodshot or
reddish eyes, flushed face, poor coordination, difficulty in
understanding and responding intelligently to questions
shall also constitute probable cause.(Sec. 1, Rule 3, IRR; Sec.
6, RA 10586)
Who has the burden to prove existence of probable
cause?

In any case, the burden of proof to

establish the existence of probable
cause is on the LEO (Sec. 1, Rule 3,
IRR).
Duty of law enforce if driver fails field sobriety
test:
 If the driver fails in the sobriety tests, it SHALL be
the duty of the law enforce to implement the
mandatory determination of the driver's blood
alcohol concentration level through the use of a
breath analyzer or similar measuring
instrument.(Sec. 6, par. 2)
What is the duty of the law enforcer who has probable cause
to believe that the driver is DUI of dangerous drugs or similar
substances?
 It SHALL be his duty to bring the driver to the nearest
police station to be subjected to a drug screening test
and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory test as
mandated under RA 9165. (Sec. 6, par. 3)
What is the rule if the violation/vehicular accident
resulted to homicide or physical injuries?
 The rule is, the driver SHALL be subjected to
MANDATORY chemical tests, including a drug
screening test and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory
test as mandated under RA 9165, to determine the
presence and/or concentration of alcohol, dangerous
drugs and/or similar substances in the bloodstream or
body. (Sec. 7)
This is reinforced by Sec. 1, RULE IV, IRR on
MANDATORY ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING as
follows:

Sec. 1, Rule 4, IRR
 Mandatory Alcohol and Chemical Testing of Drivers
Involved in Motor Vehicular Accidents:

 A driver of a motor vehicle involved in a vehicular

accident resulting in the loss of human life or physical
injuries shall be subjected to on site field sobriety test
and ABA testing, whenever practicable, and, thereafter
chemical tests, including a drug screening test and, if
necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated under
Republic Act No. 9165,
to determine the presence and/or concentration of
alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or similar
substances in the bloodstream or body. A LEO
may use other alcohol testing equipment, such as
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GCMS),
whenever the use of an ABA is not practicable
under prevailing circumstances.
 Procedure in screening for driving under the influence
of alcohol (Sec.1,Rule3,IRR):

 i. Upon personal determination of probable cause, a

deputized LEO shall flag down the motor vehicle, direct
the driver to step out of the vehicle and determine whether
or not the driver is drunk or drugged. If the LEO has
reasonable grounds to believe that the driver is drunk, the
LEO shall expressly inform the driver of his assessment and
the driver shall be directed to perform all of the three (3)
enumerated field sobriety test on site.
 ii. The LEO shall record the driver's responses to the field
sobriety tests, which record shall form part of the records
of the case.
 iii. If the driver passes all of the three (3) field sobriety
tests, the driver shall be apprehended for the other traffic
offense only and not for violation of this Act.
 iv. If the driver fails any of the field sobriety tests, the LEO
shall proceed to determine the driver's BAC level, through
the use of the ABA, on site.
 v. A driver of a motor vehicle who refuses to undergo the
mandatory testing as required shall be penalized by the
confiscation and automatic revocation of his/her driver's
license, in addition to other penalties provided herein
and/or other pertinent law, after compliance with the
requirement of due process.
 vi. A driver who, after ABA testing, registers a BAC higher
than the prescribed limit shall be put under arrest and the
motor vehicle impounded. The LEO shall observe the
proper procedure in effecting the arrest and bringing the
driver to the nearest police station for detention. The
motor vehicle shall also be brought to the nearest LTO
impounding area until the same is claimed by an
authorized representative of its registered owner.
 vii. In case of a BAC within the allowed limit, the driver
shall be apprehended for the other traffic offense only and
not for violation of this Act.
 viii. Under no circumstance shall a driver, who has
undergone and passed the field sobriety test and/or
ABA test, be subjected to drug screening test
afterwards.
 ix. The LEO shall accomplish the following preparatory to
the turnover of the case to the police officer-on-duty of the
nearest police station:
 1. A complaint/charge sheet;
 2. Results of the field sobriety tests/ABA test in the
prescribed format;
 3. Inventory of items under temporary custody (to
include motor vehicle when necessary); and
 4. Other pertinent documents.

Procedure in screening for driving under the influence
of dangerous drugs and other similar substances:
i. Upon personal determination of probable cause, a
deputized LEO shall flag down the motor vehicle,
direct the driver to step out of the vehicle and
determine whether or not the driver is drunk or
drugged. If the LEO has reasonable grounds to believe
that the driver is drugged, the LEO shall expressly
inform the driver of his assessment and shall bring the
driver to the nearest police station.
ii. At the police station, the driver shall be subjected to
a drug screening test, in accordance with existing
operational rules and procedures, and if positive, a
drug confirmatory test under Republic Act No. 9165.
 iii. Under no circumstance shall a driver, who has
undergone and passed the drug, be subjected to field
sobriety test and/or ABA test afterwards.
 iv. After a positive confirmation, the LEO shall accomplish
the following preparatory to the turnover of the case to the
police officer-on-duty of the nearest police station:
 1. Results of the conduct of the DRP in the prescribed
format;
 2. Inventory of items under temporary custody (to
include motor vehicle when necessary); and
 3. Other pertinent documents.
 v. Without positive confirmation, the driver shall be
apprehended for the other traffic offense only and not for
violation of this Act.
 Custody and disposition of confiscated license:

All driver's licenses confiscated shall be turned

over to LTO for safekeeping and shall be released
by LTO only after final disposition or lawful
order of the courts (Sec. 2, Rule 3, IRR).
Penalties (Sec. 12):
a) DUI alcohol or dangerous drugs w/o injuries
nor homicide:
=3 months+fine of P20,000-P80,000.
b) DUI alcohol and dangerous drugs w/ injuries:
=the penalties under Art. 263 of RPC OR the
penalty above, whichever is higher+ fine of
P100,000-P200,000.
c) DUI alcohol and dangerous drugs w/ homicide:
=penalty under Art. 249 of RPC + fine of
P300,000- P500,000.
 d) Additional penalty for DUI alcohol and
dangerous drugs:
(1)As to nonprofessional driver's license:
a) confiscation and suspension for 12
months for 1st conviction; and
b) perpetual revocation for 2nd
conviction;
(2) As to professional driver's license:
a) confiscation and revocation for1st
conviction
What is the liability of operators/owners of PUVs and
commercial vehicles(delivery trucks,school and
company buses,hotel transports, car or vans for
rent,taxi cabs, and the like)?
They shall be DIRECTLY AND PRINCIPALLY
held liable together with the offender for the
FINE and the AWARD against the offender for
civil damages (Sec. 13).

Do they have any possible defense to excuse

themselves from such liability?
 Answer:
YES, by convincingly proving that they have exercised
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the selection and supervision of
their drivers in general and the offending driver in particular.
NOTE: In the law on transportation whether under the
Civil Code or Mercantile Law, it is required for employers to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the supervision and
control of their employees to avoid civil liability for death or
injury caused by negligence or imprudence of the driver. This
is because of the ever-present danger to passengers and
pedestrians in view of the nature of the vehilce, condition of
streets, weather, human error and other factors.
Is random drug test of public utility drivers
allowed?

 YES, Section 15 expressly allows the conduct not

only of random terminal inspection, but also quick
random drug tests of public utility drivers.
Does the law cover violation of
passengers?
Unfortunately, NO.
RA 10586 simply deals with violations by
drivers of motor vehicles and has no provision
for prohibition for drivers to allow passengers who
are under the influence of intoxicating substances.