SUBJECT OUTLINE BY Atty.

Judy Anne Yuki Yulo

A. Legal medicine - branch of medicine that deals with the application of medical knowledge to the purposes of law and in the
administration of justice.
Forensic medicine - application of medical science to elucidate
legal problems.
Medical jurisprudence - deals with the aspect of law and legal concepts in relation with the practice of medicine

Why do we need to study Legal Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence?

B. RULES OF COURT: RULE 138 ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO BAR Section 5.
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for admission other than those referred to in
the two-preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied
law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and
recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school
of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school
or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private
international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

C. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 12 NATIONAL ECONOMY and PATRIMONY Section 14.

Section 14.The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,
professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the
State. The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit. The practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.

D. REPUBLIC ACT No. 2382 : THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959

ARTICLE II Section 6
Section 6.Minimum required courses.Students seeking admission to the medical course must have a bachelor of science or
bachelor of arts degree or their equivalent and must have taken in four years the following subjects with their corresponding
number of units:
Unit
English 12
Latin 3
Mathematics, including Accounting and Statistics 9
Philosophy, including Psychology and Logic 12
Zoology and Botany 15
Physics 8
Chemistry 21
Library Science 1
Humanities and Social Sciences 12
Twelve units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Seven hundred nine; but commencing with the
academic year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen hundred sixty-one, twenty-four units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to
Republic Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and eighty-one as cultural, social and nationalistic studies.
Provided, That the following students may be permitted to complete the aforesaid preparatory medical course in shorter periods
as follows:
(a) Students whose general average is below eighty-five per cent but without any grade of failure or condition may be
allowed to pursue and finish the course in three academic years and the intervening summer sessions; and
(b) Students whose general average is eighty-five per cent or over may be permitted to finish the course in three academic
years by allowing them to take each semester the overload permitted to bright students under existing regulations of the
Bureau of Private Schools.
Provided, That upon failure to maintain the general average of eighty-five per cent, students under (b) shall automatically revert
to the category of students under (a) and those under (a), upon having any grade of failure or condition, shall automatically revert
to the category of students required to pursue the preparatory course in four years mentioned above.
The medical course shall be at least five years, including not less than eleven rotating internship in an approved hospital, and shall
consist of the following subjects:
Anatomy Medicine and Therapeutics Surgery
Physiology Genycology Preventive Medicine and Public
Biochemistry and Nutrition Opthalmology, Otology, Health
Pharmacology Rhinology and Laryngology Legal Medicine, including
Microbiology Pediatrics Medical Jurisprudence and
Parasitology Obstetrics Ethics.
ARTICLE III Section8,9,10,11,12,22,23,24,25,26,27
ARTICLE IIITHE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; REGISTRATION OF PHYSICIANS
Section 8.Prerequisite to the practice of medicine.No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he
is at least twenty-one years of age, has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder of a valid
Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical Examiners.
Section 9.Candidates for board examination.Candidates for Board examinations shall have the following qualifications:
(1) He shall be a citizen of the Philippines or a citizen of any foreign country who has submitted competent and conclusive
documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, showing that his country's existing laws permit
citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof;
(2) He shall be of good moral character, showing for this purpose certificate of civil status;
(3) He shall be of sound mind;
(4) He shall not have been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude; and
(5) He shall be a holder of the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its equivalent, conferred by a college of medicine duly
recognized by the Department of Education.
Section 10.Acts constituting practice of medicine.A person shall be considered as engaged in the practice of medicine (a) who
shall, for compensation, fee, salary or reward in any form, paid to him directly or through another, or even without the same,
physical examine any person, and diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity,
physical, mental or physical condition or any ailment, real or imaginary, regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment
administered, prescribed or recommended; or (b) who shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed matter,
or through the radio, television or any other means of communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to
diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition;
or (c) who shall use the title M.D. after his name.
Section 11.Exemptions.The preceding section shall not be construed to affect (a) any medical student duly enrolled in an approved
medical college or school under training, serving without any professional fee in any government or private hospital, provided
that he renders such service under the direct supervision and control of a registered physician; (b) any legally registered dentist
engaged exclusively in the practice of dentistry; (c) any duly registered masseur or physiotherapist, provided that he applies
massage or other physical means upon written order or prescription of a duly registered physician, or provided that such
application of massage or physical means shall be limited to physical or muscular development; (d) any duly registered optometrist
who mechanically fits or sells lenses, artificial eyes, limbs or other similar appliances or who is engaged in the mechanical
examination of eyes for the purpose of constructing or adjusting eye glasses, spectacles and lenses; (e) any person who renders
any service gratuitously in cases of emergency, or in places where the services of a duly registered physician, nurse or midwife are
not available; (f) any person who administers or recommends any household remedy as per classification of existing Pharmacy
Laws; and (g) any psychologist or mental hygienist in the performance of his duties, provided such performance is done in
conjunction with a duly registered physician.
Section 12.Limited practice without any certificate of registration.Certificates of registration shall not be required of the following
persons:
(a) Physicians and surgeons from other countries called in consultation only and exclusively in specific and definite cases,
or those attached to international bodies or organization assigned to perform certain definite work in the Philippines

2
 provided they shall limit their practice to the specific work assigned to them and provided further they shall secure a
previous authorization from the Board of Medical Examiners.
(b) Commissioned medical officers of the United States armed forces stationed in the Philippines while rendering service
as such only for the members of the said armed forces and within the limit of their own respective territorial jurisdiction.
(c) Foreign physicians employed as exchange professors in special branches of medicine or surgery whose service may in
the discretion of the Board of Medical Education, be necessary.
(d) Medical students who have completed the first four years of medical course, graduates of medicine and registered
nurses who may be given limited and special authorization by the Secretary of Health to render medical services during
epidemics or national emergencies whenever the services of duly registered physicians are not available. Such
authorization shall automatically cease when the epidemic or national emergency is declared terminated by the Secretary
of Health.
Section 13.The Board of Medical Examiners, its composition and duties.The Board of Medical Examiners shall be composed of six
members to be appointed by the President of the Philippines from a confidential list of not more than twelve names approved
and submitted by the executive council of the Philippine Medical Association, after due consultation with other medical
associations, during the months of April and October of each year. The chairman of the Board shall be elected from among
themselves by the member at a meeting called for the purpose. The President of the Philippines shall fill any vacancy that may
occur during any examination from the list of names submitted by the Philippine Medical Association in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
No examiner shall handle the examinations in more than four subjects or groups of subjects as hereinafter provided. The
distribution of subject to each member shall be agreed upon at a meeting called by the chairman for the purpose. The examination
papers shall be under the custody of the Commissioner of Civil Service or his duly authorized representative, and shall be
distributed to each member of the Board who shall correct, grade, and sign, and submit them to the said Commissioner within
one hundred twenty days from the date of the termination of the examinations.
A final meeting of the Board for the deliberation and approval of the grades shall be called by the Commissioner of Civil Service
immediately after receipt of the records from the members of the Board of Medical Examiners. The secretary of the Board shall
submit to the President of the Philippines for approval the names of the successful candidates as having been duly qualified for
licensure in alphabetical order, without stating the ratings obtained by each.
Section 14.Qualifications of examiners.No person shall be appointed a member of the Board of Medical Examiners unless he or
she (1) is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, (2) is a duly registered physician in the Philippines, (3) has been in the practice
of medicine for at least ten years, (4) is of good moral character and of recognized standing in the medical profession, (5) is not a
member of the faculty of any medical school and has no pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in any college of medicine or in
any institution where any branch of medicine is taught, at the time of his appointment:Provided, That of the six members to be
appointed, not more than two shall be graduates of the same institution and not more than three shall be government physicians.
Section 15.Tenure of office and compensation of members.The members of the Board of Medical Examiners shall hold office for
one year:Provided, That any member may be reappointed for not more than one year. Each member shall receive as compensation
ten pesos for each candidate examined for registration as physician, and five pesos for each candidate examined in the preliminary
or final physician examination.
The President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service , after due investigation, may
remove any member of the Board of Medical Examiners for neglect of duty, incompetency, or unprofessional or dishonorable
conduct.
Section 16.Executive Officer and Secretary of the Board.The Secretary of the Boards of Examiners appointed in accordance with
section ten of Act Numbered Four thousand seven, as amended, shall also be the secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners,
who shall keep all the records, including examination papers, and the minutes of the deliberations of the Board. He shall also keep
a register of all persons to whom certificates of registration has been granted; set forth the name, sec, age, and place of birth of
each, place of business, post office address, the name of the medical college or university from which he graduated or in which
he had studied, together with time spent in the study of the profession elsewhere, the name of the country where the institution
is located which had granted to him the degree or certificate of attendance upon clinic and all lectures in medicine and surgery,
and all other degrees granted to him from institutions of learning. He shall keep an up-to-date registration book of all duly
registered physicians in the Philippines. He shall furnish copies of all examination questions and ratings in each subject of the
respective candidates in the physicians examination, one month after the release of the list of successful examinees, to the deans
of the different colleges of medicine exclusively for the information and guidance of the faculties thereof. This report shall be
considered as restricted information. Any school which violates this rule shall be deprived of such privilege. The secretary of the
Board shall likewise keep a record of all registered medical students. He shall keep all the records and proceedings, and issue and
receive all papers in connection with any and all complaints presented to the Board.
Section 17.Rules and regulations.The Board of Medical Examiners, with the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the examinations, correction of examination
papers, and registration of physicians. The Commissioner shall supervise each Board examination and enforce the said rules and
regulations. These rules and regulations shall take effect fifteen days after the date of their publication in the Official Gazette and
shall not be changed within sixty days immediately before any examination. Such rules and regulations shall be printed and
distributed for the information and guidance of all concerned.

3
Section 18.Dates of examinations.The Board of Medical Examiners shall give examinations for the registration of physicians, one
in May and one in November every year, in the City of Manila or any of its suburbs after giving not less than ten days' notice to
each candidate who had filed his name and address with the secretary of the Board.
Section 19.Fees.The secretary of the Board, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall collect from each
candidate the following fees:
For registration as medical student P 5.00
For complete physician examination 75.00
For preliminary or final examination 40.00
For registration as physician 20.00
All fees paid as provided herein shall accrue to the funds of the Board of Medical Examiners and be expended for the payment of
the compensation of the members thereof. No fees other than those provided herein shall be paid to the Board.
Section 20.Issuance of Certificate of Registration, grounds for refusal of same.The Commissioner of Civil Service and the secretary
of the Board of Medical Examiners shall sign jointly and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied
with the requirements of the Board. They shall not issue a certificate of registration to any candidate who has been convicted by
a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude, or has been found guilty of immoral or
dishonorable conduct after he due investigation by the Board of Medical Examiners, or has been declared to be of unsound mind.
Section 21.Scope of examination.The examination for the registration of physicians shall consist of the following subjects: (1)
Anatomy and Histology, (2) Physiology, (3) Biochemistry, (4) Microbiology and Parasitology, (5) Pharcology and Therapeutics, (6)
Pathology, (7) Medicine, (8) Obstetrics and Gynecology, (9) Pediatrics and Nutrition, (10) Surgery and Opthalmology,
Otolaryngology and Rhinology, (11) Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and (12) Legal Medicine, Ethics and Medical
Jurisprudence:Provided,however, That the examination questions in each subject or group of subject shall at least be ten in
number:Provided, further, That the examination questions in Medicine shall include at least three from the following branches:
Infectious diseases, Neurology, Dermatology, Allergy, Endocrinology and Cardio-Vascular diseases:Provided,finally, That the
examination questions in Surgery shall include at least four questions from the following: Opthalmology, Otology, Rhinology,
Laryngology, Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology.
The questions shall be the same for all applicants. All answers must be written either in English or Spanish. No name of the
examinee shall appear in the examination paper but the examiners shall devise a system whereby each applicant can be identified
by number only.
In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examination successfully he must have obtained a general average
of seventy-five per cent without a grade lower than sixty-five per cent in Medicine, Pediatrics and Nutrition, Obstetrics and
Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and no grade lower than fifty per cent in the rest of the subjects.
The preliminary examinations shall comprise of the following subjects:
(1) Gross Anatomy and Histology (3) Biochemistry
(2) Physiology (4) Microbiology and Parasitology
Section 22.Administrative investigations. In addition to the functions provided for in the preceding sections, the Board of Medical
Examiners shall perform the following duties: (1) to administer oath to physicians who qualified in the examination; (2) to study
the conditions affecting the practice of medicine in all parts of the Philippines; (3) to exercise the powers conferred upon it by this
article with the view of maintaining the ethical and professional standards of the medical profession; (4) to subpoena or subpoena
duces tecum witnesses for all purposes required in the discharge of its duties; and (5) to promulgate, with the approval of the
Commissioner of Civil Service, such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the performance of its duties in harmony
with the provisions of this Act and necessary for the proper practice of medicine in the Philippines.
Administrative investigations may be conducted by not less than four members of the Board of Medical Examiners; otherwise the
proceedings shall be considered void. The existing rules of evidence shall be observed during all administrative investigations. The
Board may disapprove applications for examination or registration, reprimand erring physicians, or suspend or revoke registration
certificates, if the respondents are found guilty after due investigations.
Section 23.Procedure and rules.Within five days after the filling of written charges under oath, the respondent physician shall be
furnished a copy thereof, without requiring him or her to answer the same, and the Board shall conduct the investigation within
five days after the receipt of such copy by the respondent. The investigation shall be completed as soon as practicable.
Section 24.Grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of registration certificate.Any of the following shall be sufficient
ground for reprimanding a physician, or for suspending or revoking a certificate of registration as physician:
(1) Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude;
(2) Immoral or dishonorable conduct;
(3) Insanity;
(4) Fraud in the acquisition of the certificate of registration;
(5) Gross negligence, ignorance or incompetence in the practice of his or her profession resulting in an injury to or death
of the patient;
(6) Addiction to alcoholic beverages or to any habit forming drug rendering him or her incompetent to practice his or her
profession, or to any form of gambling;
4
 (7) False or extravagant or unethical advertisements wherein other things than his name, profession, limitation of
practice, clinic hours, office and home address, are mentioned.
(8) Performance of or aiding in any criminal abortion;
(9) Knowingly issuing any false medical certificate;
(10) Issuing any statement or spreading any news or rumor which is derogatory to the character and reputation of
another physician without justifiable motive;
(11) Aiding or acting as a dummy of an unqualified or unregistered person to practice medicine;
(12) Violation of any provision of the Code of Ethics as approved by the Philippine Medical Association.
Refusal of a physician to attend a patient in danger of death is not a sufficient ground for revocation or suspension of his
registration certificate if there is a risk to the physician's life.
Section 25.Rights of respondents.The respondent physician shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or be heard by himself
or herself, to have a speedy and public hearing, to confront and to cross-examine witnesses against him or her, and to all other
rights guaranteed by the Constitution and provided for in the Rules of Court.
Section 26.Appeal from judgment.The decision of the Board of Medical Examiners shall automatically become final thirty days
after the date of its promulgation unless the respondent, during the same period, has appealed to the Commissioner of Civil
Service and later to the Office of the President of the Philippines. If the final decision is not satisfactory, the respondent may ask
for a review of the case, or may file in court a petition forcertiorari.
Section 27.Reinstatement.After two years, the Board may order the reinstatement of any physicians whose certificate of
registration has been revoked, if the respondent has acted in an exemplary manner in the community wherein he resides and has
not committed any illegal, immoral or dishonorable act.
ARTICLE IV Section 28,29.
ARTICLE IVPENAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 28.Penalties.Any person found guilty of "illegal practice of medicine" shall be punished by a fine of not less than one
thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by imprisonment of not
less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Section 29.Injunctions.The Board of Medical Examiners may file an action to enjoin any person illegally practicing medicine from
the performance of any act constituting practice of medicine if the case so warrants until the necessary certificate therefore is
secured. Any such person who, after having been so enjoined, continues in the illegal practice of medicine shall be punished for
contempt of court. The said injunction shall not relieve the person practicing medicine without certificate of registration from
criminal prosecution and punishment as provided in the preceding section.
Section 30.Appropriation.To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty thousand pesos.
Section 31.Repealing clause.All Acts, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 32.Effectivity.This Act shall take effect upon its approval:Provided, That if it is approved during the time when examinations
for physicians are held, it shall take effect immediately after the said examinations:Provided, further, That section six of this Act
shall take effect at the beginning of the academic year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen hundred sixty-one, and the first
paragraph of section seven shall take effect four years thereafter.

E. ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF MEDICINE VS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF MEDICINE - Every act having as its object to diagnose or treat any deficiency in the
health of a human being constitutes the practice of medicine.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE -is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided
falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases
involving medical error.

F. DOCTRINES
1. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability / Imputed Negligence / Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
Doctrine of vicarious liability.A legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury
but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Also referred to as Imputednegligence.
5
 Imputed negligenceresults invicarious liability, where the principal is responsible for the acts of his agents. For example
o Employers have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees. If an employee injures someone in the
course of employment, then it doesn't matter whether the employer could have done anything to prevent it
the employer will be held liable regardless.
o Other instances of imputed negligence are through the effect of thefamily purpose doctrinethat holds parents
responsible for the negligent acts of their children, or thedram shop law, which holds the seller of alcoholic
beverages liable for drunken patrons. If a patron drives after drinking at a tavern, and subsequently kills or
injures someone with his vehicle, then the tavern owner can be held liable.
Doctrine of respondeat superior Lat.Let the master answer. Alegal doctrinewhich states that, in many circumstances,
anemployeris responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.2. Doctrine of
Contributory Negligence or Doctrine of Common Fault
Doctrine of Common Fault
- It has been defined as conduct on the part of the plaintiff or injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform to his own protection.
- It is the act or omission amounting to want of care on the part of the complaining party which, concurring with the
defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.
Art. 2179, Civil Code
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of injury being the defendants lack of
due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court may mitigate the damages to be awarded.
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

Some Instances where there is contributory negligence:

1. Failure to give the physician an accurate history;
2. Failure to follow the treatment recommended by the physician;
3. Leaving the hospital against the advice of the physician;
4. Failure to seek further medical assistance if symptoms persist.
3. Doctrine of Ostensible Agent or Doctrine of Apparent Authority
(Ostensible- stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so.)
Apparent authority refers to "the power to affect the legal relations of another person by transactions with third persons,
professedly as agent for the other, arising from and in accordance with the others manifestations to such third persons -
Professional Services, Inc. vs. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, 31 January 2007
4. Borrowed Servant Doctrine
Ordinarily, resident physicians, nurses and other personnel of the hospital are employees or servants of the hospital;
In some instances, they are under the temporary supervision and control of another other than their employer while
performing their duties;
By fiction of law, they are deemed borrowed from the hospital by someone and for any wrongful act committed by them
during the period, their temporary employer must be held liable for the discharge of their acts and duties;
In the determination whether one is a borrowed servant, it is necessary that he is not only subjected to the control of
another with regard to the work done and the manner of performing it but also that the work to be done is for the benefit
of the temporary employer.
5. Captain of the Ship Doctrine is the legal doctrine which holds that, during an operation in an operating room, a surgeon of
record is liable for all actions conducted in the course of the operation.
6. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur or Doctrine of Common Knowledge
- The thing speaks for itself; nature of the wrongful act or injury is suggestive of negligence.
- General rule: expert testimony is necessary to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that has deviated
from the standard of medical practice.
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine:
1. The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence;
2. It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant;
3. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
Some cases wherein the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor has been applied:
1. Objects left in the patients body at the time of caesarian section;
2. Injury to a healthy part of the body;
3. Removal of a wrong part of the body when another part was intended;
4. Infection resulting from unsterilized instruments;
5. Failure to take radiographs to diagnose a possible fracture;
Instances where the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor does not apply:
1. Where the Doctrine of Calculated Risk is applicable;

6
 When an accepted method of medical treatment involves hazards, which may produce injurious results regardless of the care
exercised by the physician.
2. Bad Result Rule;
3. Honest Errors of judgment as to Appropriate Procedure;
4. Mistake in the Diagnosis.

- In most medical malpractice suits, there is a necessity for a physician to give his expert medical opinion to prove whether
acts or omissions constitute medical negligence. This doctrine has been regarded as rule of sympathy to counteract the
conspiracy of silence
According to one of the most distinguished jurist(Canada), Justice Mignault:
the practice of medicine and surgery is indispensable to humanity and should not be fettered by rules and
responsibility so strict as to exact an infallibility on the part of the physician which he does not possess.
we would be doing a disservice to the community at large if we were to impose liabilities on hospitals and doctors for
everything that goes wrong. Doctors would be led to think more of their own safety than the good of the patients. Initiative
would be stiffed and confidence shaken.
7. Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
Predicated upon knowledge and informed consent, anyone who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury from a known
danger, if injured, is barred from recovery.
violenti non fit injuria, which means that a person who assents and was injured is not regarded in law to be injured
8. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance / Doctrine of Discovered Peril / Doctrine of Supervening
Negligence / Humanitarian Doctrine /
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance A physician who has the last clear chance of avoiding damage or injury but negligently fails
to do is liable.
- It implies thought, appreciation, mental direction and lapse of sufficient time to effectually act upon impulse to save
the life or prevent injury to another.
Example
it was he who had the sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident after noticing the danger.
It applied to auto accidents, a typical case of last clear chance would be when one driver drifts over the center
line, and this action was noted by an on-coming driver who proceeds without taking simple evasive action,
crashes into the first driver, and is thus liable for the injuries to the first driver who was over the line
Doctrine of Discovered Peril The doctrine [holding] that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should
be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do
so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. [See Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809].
Doctrine of Supervening Negligence Doctrine of supervening negligence.Also Doctrine of discovered peril. The doctrine
x x x to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that
of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the
one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof. [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. [A]n antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the
recovery of damages for supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought by, another if the latter,
who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Pantranco North
Express, Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384].
Humanitarian Doctrine- Doctrine of last clear chance. Also, known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the Humanitarian
doctrine. A doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat
the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have
avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the last clear chance
to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof. [Ong v. Metropolitan Water
District, 104 Phil. 405 (1958)].See Last clear chance doctrine.
9. Doctrine of Foreseeability
A physician cannot be held accountable for negligence if the injury sustained by the patient is on account of unforeseen
conditions but if a physician fails to ascertain the condition of the patient for want of the requisite skill and training is
answerable for the injury sustained by the patient if injury resulted thereto.
- A physician owes duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to the risk
which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous.

7
G. CASES
Name: 1.Carillo vs. People of the PhilippinesG.R. No. 86890, January 21, 1994
Facts Catherine had suffered from an overdose of, or an adverse reaction to, anesthesia, particularly the arbitrary
administration of Nubain, a pain killer, without benefit of prior weighing of the patient's body mass, which
weight determines the dosage of Nubain which can safely be given to a patient.
This condition triggered off a heart attack as a post-operative complication, depriving Catherine's brain of
oxygen, leading to the brain's haemorrhage. The Court of Appeals identified such cardiac arrest as the immediate
cause of Catherine's death.
Issue WON Dr. Carillo is guilty of the crime of simple negligence resulting in homicide.
Held/Ratio: What is of critical importance for present purposes is not so much the identification of the "true cause" or "real
cause" of Catherine's death but rather the set of circumstances which both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals found constituted simple (as distinguished from reckless) negligence on the part of the two accused
Dr. Madrid and Dr. Carillo leading to the death of Catherine.
Simple negligence, penalized under what is now Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, is defined as "a
mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the threatened harm is not immediate or the danger
not openly visible." Put in a slightly different way, the gravamen of the offense of simple negligence is
the failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for the situation which was not immediately
life-destructive but which culminated, in the present case, in the death of a human being three (3) days
later.

Name: 2.Batiquin v. CA G.R. No. 118231, July 5, 1996

NATURE Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
Facts Caesarian section on Mrs. Villegas was done under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin.
Mrs. Villegas did not undergo any operation which could not have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus.
Dr. Batiquin is therefore liable for negligently leaving behind a piece of rubber in Mrs. Villegas
abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.
Issue WON Dr. Batiquin is liable
Held/Ratio: YES, UNDER THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DR.BATIQUINIS LIABLE.
Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption or inference that
defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that the instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's
exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinary does not happen in absence of negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from the
mere fact that the accident happened provided the character of the accident and circumstances attending it
lead reasonably to belief that in the absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which
caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrongdoer.
doctrine Res ipsa loquitur

Name: 3.Garcia-Rueda v. Office of the City Prosecutor

NATURE May this Court review the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman?
Facts Florencio V. Rueda, husband of petitioner Leonila Garcia-Rueda, underwent surgical operation at the UST
hospital for the removal of a stone blocking his ureter. He was attended by Dr. Domingo Antonio, Jr. who was
the surgeon, while Dr. Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes was the anaesthesiologist. Six hours after the surgery, however,
Florencio died of complications of unknown cause," according to officials of the UST Hospital.
Issue Whether or not expert testimony is necessary to prove the negligent act of the respondent
Held/Ratio: Yes, in accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by
physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment
of his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent
doctor would use to treat condition under the same circumstances.
It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of
care of the profession but also that the physicians conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard.
Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the light
8
 of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to support the
conclusion as to causation
doctrine
A word on medical malpractice or negligence cases.In its simplest terms, the type of lawsuit which has been
called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has
available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm.In
order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a
physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or
that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or
action caused injury to the patient12]

Name: 4.Garcia-Rueda v. Office of the City Prosecutor

Facts Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a Myoma in her uterus, and scheduled her for a hysterectomy
operation on March 23, 1991. Rowena and her mother slept in the clinic on the evening of March 22, 1991 as
the latter was to be operated on the next day at 1pm. Later, without the knowledge of Lydias relatives, she was
decided by the doctors to be transferred to San Pablo District Hospital where she was supposed to be re-
operated. After Lydia experienced shocks, she died.
Issue Whether or not petitioner has been negligent which caused the death of Lydia Umali.
Held/Ratio: Yes. Whether or not a physician has committed an inexcusable lack of precaution in the treatment of his
patient to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in
good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of
treatment or the present state of medical science.
doctrine It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of
care of the profession but also that the physicians conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard.

Name: 5.Ramos v. CA, DSMC G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
Facts Erlinda Ramos: 47-year old robust woman who underwent an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall
bladder. She had passed a series of examinations, which indicated she was fit for surgery
Issue W/N the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the instant case.
Held/Ratio: Yes. Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred to the
patient if due care had been exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of
the doctrine res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarily required to show not only what
occurred but how and why it occurred. The real question is whether or not in the process of the operation any
extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine performance occurred which is beyond the regular
scope of professional activity in such operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to
the average man ad the negligent cause or causes of the untoward consequence. In this case, the damage
sustained by Erlinda in her brain prior to a scheduled gall bladder operation presents a case for the application
of the doctrine. Obviously, brain damage, which Erlinda sustained, is an injury, which does not normally occur in
the process of a gall bladder operation.

Name: 6.Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000
Facts Five days before his death on January 8, 1987, Jorge had been suffering from a recurring fever with chills. After
he failed to get relief from some home medication he was taking, which consisted of analgesic, antipyretic, and
antibiotics, he decided to see the doctor.
Issue Whether the court erred that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable
Held/Ratio: NO, in this case, while it is true that the patient died just a few hours after professional medical assistance was
rendered, there is really nothing unusual or extraordinary about his death. Prior to his admission, the patient
already had recurring fevers and chills for five days unrelieved by the analgesic, antipyretic, and antibiotics given
him by his wife. This shows that he had been suffering from a serious illness and professional medical help came
too late for him.
doctrine doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable

Name: 7.Ruez Jr. v. Dr. Jurado, A.M. No. 2005-08-SC, December 9, 2005
Facts Ruez, Jr. filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Chief Justice regarding the alleged lack of attention given
to his father by Dr. Jurado. Specifically, he claims that Dr. Jurado merely advised his father to go to the hospital
and then allowed him to travel to Manila Doctors Hospital despite the availability of an ambulance at the disposal
of the clinic. Ruez, Jr. submits that his father would not have suffered a stroke if not for the neglect of Dr. Jurado.

9
Issue whether, given the accepted facts, there is cause to hold Dr. Jurado administratively liable. Atty. Candelaria is
satisfied that Dr. Jurado provided Ruez, Sr. proper treatment inside the clinic?
Held/Ratio: the Court finds no reason to hold Dr. Jurado liable for simple neglect of duty, and, therefore, DISMISSESthe
complaint for lack of merit. As recommended by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of
Administrative Services, Dr. Prudencio Banzon, Senior Staff Officer, Medical and Dental Services, isDIRECTEDto
prepare a flexi-time schedule for all doctors and nurses in the clinic to further develop its capability to provide
immediate and proper attention in emergency medical situations, and to submit the same to Atty. Candelaria in
30 days from receipt of a copy of this decision which should be served upon him forthwith.
doctrine neglect of duty, misconduct or negligence.

Name: 8.Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center G.R. No. 142625, December 19, 2006
Facts Upon Corazons admission at the CMC, Rogelio Nogales (Rogelio) executed and signed the Consent on
Admission and Agreement and Admission Agreement. Corazon was then brought to the labor room of the
CMC. Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was hemorrhage, post partum.
Issue Whether CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Estrada as its attending independent-contractor
physician considering that facts of the instant case.
Held/Ratio: HELD: YES.In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. There is,
however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the ostensible agent of
the hospital. This exception is also known as the doctrine of apparent authority. The doctrine of apparent
authority essentially involves two factors to determine the liability of an independent-contractor physician. The
first factor focuses on the hospitals manifestations and is sometimes described as an inquiry whether the
hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged
to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital. In this regard, the hospital need not make express
representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a representation
may be general and implied. xxx The second factor focuses on the patients reliance. It is sometimes
characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its
agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
doctrine doctrine of apparent authority

Name: 9.PSI v Agana G.R. No. 126297 January 31, 2007

NATURE three consolidated petitions for review on certiorar
Facts Dr. Fuentes had completed the hysterectomy, Dr. Ampil took over, completed the operation and closed the
incision. Natividad flew back to the Philippines, still suffering from pains. Two weeks thereafter, her daughter
found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina. Upon being informed about it, Dr. Ampil proceeded to her
house where he managed to extract by hand a piece of gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width. He then assured
her that the pains would soon vanish. Dr. Ramon Gutierrez detected the presence of another foreign object in
her vagina -- a foul-smelling gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width which badly infected her vaginal vault. A recto-
vaginal fistula had formed in her reproductive organs which forced stool to excrete through the vagina. Another
surgical operation was needed to remedy the damage. Thus, in October 1984, Natividad underwent another
surgery.
Issue whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Dr. Ampil liable for negligence and malpractice
Held/Ratio: YES. Dr. Ampil, as the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividads
body before closure of the incision. When he failed to do so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about it. Dr.
Ampil breached both duties. Such breach caused injury to Natividad, necessitating her further examination by
American doctors and another surgery. That Dr. Ampils negligence is the proximate cause of Natividads injury
could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that
two pieces of gauze were still missing. That they were later on extracted from Natividads vagina established the
causal link between Dr. Ampils negligence and the injury. And what further aggravated such injury was his
deliberate concealment of the missing gauzes from the knowledge of Natividad and her family.

Name: 10Cantre vs Sps Go G.R. No. 160889 April 27, 2007

NATURE review on certiorari
Facts Nora Go gave birth to her 4th child. Two hours later, she suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some
placenta parts which were not completely expelled after delivery. She then suffered hypovolemic shock, so her
BP dropped to 40/0. Dr. Milagros Cantre, an Ob-Gyne specialist and Nora's attending physician, together with an
assisting resident physician, performed various medical procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore Nora's

10
 BP. While Dr. Cantre was massaging Nora's uterus for it to contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight
to warm Nora and her baby. At that time, she was unconscious.
Issue WoN Dr. Cantre is liable for the injury suffered by Nora Go.
Held/Ratio: YES Dr. Cantre's negligence may be made based on theres ipsa loquiturdoctrine even in the absence of the
additional exhibits.
doctrine res ipsa loquitu

Name: 11.Ilao-Oreta vs. Sps. Ronquillo G.R. No. 160889 April 27, 2007
NATURE petition for Review
Facts Respondent spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo and Noel Benedicto Ronquillo had not been blessed with a child
despite several years of marriage. They thus consulted petitioner Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an obstetrician-
gynecologist-consultant and chief of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section at the St. Lukes
Medical Center. Dr. Ilao-Oreta advised Eva Marie to undergo a laparoscopic procedure whereby a laparascope
would be inserted through the patientsabdominalwall to get adirect viewof her internal reproductive organ in
order to determine the real cause of her infertility.
The procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to be performed by Dr. Ilao-Oreta. Eva Marie,
accompanied by Noel, checked in at the St. Lukes Medical Center and underwent pre-operative procedures
including the administration of intravenous fluid and enema. However, Dr. Ilao-Oreta did not arrive at the
scheduled time for the procedure and no prior notice of itscancellationwasreceived. It turned out that the doctor
was on a return flight from Hawaii to, and arrived at 10:00 p.m. of April 5, 1999 in, Manila.
Issue Whether or not Dr. Ilao-Oreta is guilty of gross negligence for her failure to arrive at the scheduled time for the
procedure?
Held/Ratio: It bears noting that when she was scheduling the date of her performance of the procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta had
just gotten married and was preparing for her honeymoon, and it is ofcommonhuman knowledge that
excitement attends its preparations. Her negligence could then be partlyattributedto human frailty which rules
out mischaracterizations gross.

Name: 12.Sps. Flores vs. Sps. Pineda G.R. No. 158996 November 2008
NATURE petition involves a medical negligence case that was elevated to this Court through an appeal bycertiorariunder
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Facts Teresita Pineda, 51, consulted Dr. Flores about her medical condition saying she was experiencing general body
weakness, loss of appetite, frequent urination and thirst, and on-and-off vaginal bleeding. Samples were taken
for lab test. April 29, 1987, results of blood tests showed that the sugar in her urine was very high and further
results showed she was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type II. Insulin was given but it might have been too
late because she died on May 6, 1987 due to complications induced by diabetes
Issue W/N the negligence of the doctors caused her death thus rendering them liable to pay damages?
Held/Ratio: YES, their decision to proceed with the operation, notwithstanding her hypoglycemia and without preparing
her for the procedure, was contrary to the standards observed by the medical profession. Deviation from this
standard led to a breach of duty resulting to death, thus, the spouses are liable.
: The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal connection between the
negligence which the evidence established and the plaintiff's injuries; the plaintiff must plead and prove not only
that he had been injured and defendant has been at fault, but also that the defendant's fault caused the injury
doctrine Medical Negligence is a wrong committed by a medical professional causing harm or death to a patient.
The elements of which are: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.
Duty: Standard behavior which imposes restrictions on ones conduct (the amount of competence associated
with the proper discharge of a profession)
Breach: When physician fails to comply with these professional standards. If injury results from this, he is liable
for negligence.
It must be proven that:
1) Physician either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or
did something a reasonably prudent provider would not have done.
2) This failure or action caused injury to the patient. (best shown through expert testimony) In this case:
1) Felicisima did not even check on her patient or talk to her before the operation (I think the SC is wrong here,
because the case was an emergency and usually someone else does it for them but then again, thats just me
2) The spouses were not able to prove that the bleeding was life-threatening. Dr. Flores should not have made
the decision to operate on her because he was not an expert in the field of gynecology.

Name: 13.Lasam vs. Sps. Ramolete G.R. No. 159132 December 8, 2008
NATURE Petition for Review onCertiorariunder Rule 45

11
Facts Ramolete underwent raspa (D&C procedure ) under Caya0Lasam and was discharged the following day. She was
brought to the hospital again for severe abdominal pains and vomiting. She was informed that there is a dead
fetus in her womb. She underwent laparotomy and she was found to have massive intraabdominal hemorrhage
and a ruptured uterus. She had to undergo hysterectomy and as a result she cant bear a child anymore.
Ramolete says that the hysterectomy is due to the negligence of Cayao-Lasam in performing raspa (not knowing
that what she had was an ectopic pregnancy). Cayao-Lasam says that it was because of Ramoletes insistence to
be discharged immediately and failing to go to her check up.
Issue Whether the Cayao-Lasam is liable?
Held/Ratio: No,Ramolete did not present any expert testimony to support their claim. Cayao-Lasam presented an expert on
the subject who stated D&C was not the proximate cause of the rupture of Edithas uterus resulting in her
hysterectomy. The D&C was conducted in accordance with the standard practice, with the same level of care
that any reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. Assuming
that there was in fact a misdiagnosis, the same would have been rectified if Ramolete followed the order to
return for a check-up. She omitted the diligence required by the circumstances which could have avoided the
injury. The omission in not returning for a follow-up evaluation played a substantial part in bringing about her
injury. Had she returned, Cayao-Lasam could have conducted the proper medical tests and procedure necessary
to determine her health condition and applied the corresponding treatment which could have prevented the
rupture of her uterus.
doctrine Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to
apply use at least the same level of care that any reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition
under the same circumstances. As to this aspect of medical malpractice, the determination of the reasonable
level of care and the breach thereof, expert testimony is essential. Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries
involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized
that expert testimony is usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation. All told, doctors are
protected by a special rule of law. They are not guarantors of care. They are not insurers against mishaps or
unusual consequences specially so if the patient herself did not exercise the proper diligence required to avoid
the injury.

NAME 14.Lucas vs Tuao G.R. No. 178763 April 21, 2009

NATURE petition for review oncertiorari[1]under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
FACTS Lucas had a sore eye and used maxitrol (steroid based) for it. He then consulted Dr. Tuano (opthal) on October
1988. He was prescribed a different medicine. The sore eyes was cured but the eye developed EKC (a viral
infection) and he was told to use maxitrol. EKC tapered down and Lucas was told gradually reduce the dosage of
maxitrol otherwise EKC might recur. His EKC recurred and he was told to resume the orig dosage of maxitrol.
Blephamide (also steroid based) was used when maxitrol is unavailable. Lucas discovered that prolonged used of
maxitrol is dangerous to the eyes (may develop glaucoma). He told Tuano about it but the doctor just brushed it
aside. By December his right eye was blind and he was told to stop the use of maxitrol and was prescribed different
medicines. Tuano referred Lucas to another Doctor for the treatment of glaucoma and Tuano treated him
according to the advice of that doctor. Lucas consulted Dr. Aquino on his own initiative and was told that his
condition needs lifetime med and follow ups. Lucas underwent two operations (1990 and 1991) of laser
trabeculoplasty. He said that what he had is steroid-induced glaucoma and sued Tuano. Tuano says that Lucas
glaucoma is not steroid induced for if it were, it would disappear with the discontinue of the use of maxitrol.
ISSUE Whether or not the petitioners amply proved that Dr. Tuao failed to exercise diligence in the performance of
his duty as petitioner Peter Lucas physician.
HELD: No. Absent a definitive standard of care or diligence required of Dr. Tuao under the circumstances, the Court has
no yardstick upon which to evaluate the attendant facts of the case at hand to be able to state with confidence
that the acts complained of, indeed, constituted negligence and, thus, should be the subject of pecuniary
reparation.
DOCTRINE In a medical negligence suit, the patient or his heirs, in order to prevail, is required to prove bypreponderance of
evidence that the physician failed to exercise that degree of skill, care, andlearning possessed by other persons in
the same profession; and that as a proximate result ofsuch failure, the patient or his heirs suered damages.There
is breach of duty of care, skill and diligence, or the improper performance of such duty, bythe attending physician
when the patient is injured in body or in health constitutes the actionablemalpractice.

Name: 15. Dr. Li vs. Sps. Soliman G.R. No. 165279 June 7, 2011
NATURE

12
Facts Spouses Solimans daughter underwent knee amputation, which necessitated adjuvant chemotherapy to
minimize the chances of recurrence and prevent the disease from spreading to other parts of the body. 11 days
after the administration of the first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen, spouses Solimans daughter died.
Issue WoN Dr. Li can be liable for failure to fully disclose serious side effects of chemotherapy, despite the absence of
finding that Dr. Li was negligent in administering said treatment.
Held/Ratio: No. 1) There was adequate disclosure of material risks and
2) the spouses failed to present expert testimony.

doctrine The doctrine of informed consent within the context of physician patient relationships goes far back into English
common law

Name: 16.Atienza vs. Board of Medicine G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011
NATURE petition for review oncertiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Co
Facts ue to her Lumbar parts, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for check-up on
February 4, 1995. Sometime in 1999, due to the same problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of RMC
who, accordingly, ordered several diagnostic laboratory tests. The tests revealed that her right kidney is normal.
It was ascertained, however, that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. This, she underwent
kidney operation in 1999, September. On February 18, 2000, private respondents husband Romeo Sioson, filed
a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence before the board of medicine against the doctors who
allegedly participated in the fateful kidney operation. It was alleged in the complaint that the gross negligence
and/or incompetence committed by the said doctors, including petitioner, consists of the removal of private
respondents fully functional right kidney, instead of the left non-functioning and non-visualizing kidney. Among
the evidence presented are certified photocopy of the results of the ultrasound and X-ray conducted to Editha
with the interpretation that both of her kidneys are in their proper anatomical location.
Issue Whether or not the doctors who conducted the kidney operation are liable for gross negligence despite the
evidence presented were mere photocopies.
Held/Ratio: Yes. To begin with, it is a well settled rule that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before
administrative bodies such as the Board of Medicine. It is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on
doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the
reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found
relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent,
can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.

Name: 17.Dr. Jarcia and Bastan vs. People G.R. No. 187926 February 15, 2012
NATURE petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts Belinda Santiago lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against the petitioners, Dr.
Emanuel Jarcia and Dr. Marilou Bastan, for their alleged neglect of professional duty which caused her son, Roy
Alfonso Santiago, to suffer physical injuries. Upon investigation, the NBI found that Roy Jr. was hit by a taxicab;
that he was rushed to the Manila Doctors Hospital for an emergency medical treatment; that an X-ray of the
victims ankle was ordered; that the X-ray result showed no fracture as read by Dr. Jarcia; that Dr. Bastan entered
the emergency room and, after conducting her own examination of the victim, informed Mrs. Santiago that since
it was only the ankle that was hit there was no need to examine the upper leg; that 11 days later, Roy developed
fever, swelling of the right leg and misalignment of the right foot; that Mrs. Santiago brought him back to the
hospital; and that the x-ray revealed a right mid-tibial fracture and a linear hairline fracture in the shaft of the
bone. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting physical injuries was filed against the petitioners for the
alleged misconduct in the handling of the illness of Roy.
Issue Whether or not the petitioners failed to exercise the degree of care expected of them as doctors and are liable
for negligence to the private respondent.
Held/Ratio: Yes. The doctrine ofres ipsa liquitoras a rule of evidence is unusual to the law of negligence which recognizes
thatprima facienegligencce may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof
of negligence. The doctrine however, is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere
procedural convenience the rule when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a given case, is not meant to
and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall beprima facieevidence thereof and helps the plaintiff in proving a breach
of duty. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is
absolute and not readily available.
doctrine he requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor are:
1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
13
 2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in
charge; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree
of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand whereby such other person suffers
injury.
Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material
damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to
perform such act.
In failing to perform an extensive medical examination to determine the extent of Roys injuries, Dr. Jarcia and
Dr. Bastan were remiss of their duties as members of the medical profession. Assuming for the sake of argument
that they did not have the capacity to make such thorough evaluation at that stage they should have referred
the patient to another doctor with sufficient training and experience instead of assuring him and his mother that
everything was all right.

Name: 18.DR. CERENO, and ZAFE vs. CA G.R. No. 167366, September 26, 2012
NATURE petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts (Raymond), a victim of a stabbing incident, was rushed to the Bicol Regional Medical Center (BRMC). Drs. Zafe
and Cereno, were busy operating on gunshot victim Charles Maluluy-on. Assisting them in the said operation
was Dr. Rosalina Tatad (Dr. Tatad), who was the only senior anesthesiologist on duty at BRMC that night. Just
before the operation on Maluluy-on was finished, another emergency case involving Lilia Aguila, a woman who
was giving birth to triplets, was brought to the operating room.
Raymond died due to massive loss of blood.
Issue Whether or not Drs. Zafe and Cereno are guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties?
Held/Ratio: YES The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence,
is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical
professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove
that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent
health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would
not have done; and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.

Name: 19.DR. LUMANTAS vs. CALAPIZ G.R. No. 163753, January 15, 2014
Facts Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis
Occidental Provincial Hospital, Oroquieta City, for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by the
petitioner, who suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo circumcision at no added cost to spare him the
pain. With the parents consent, the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his
appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis, which exhibited blisters
Issue Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioners civil liability despite his acquittal of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
Held/Ratio: NO.It is automatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Name: 20.DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 163879 July 30, 2014
NATURE Court are appeals via Rule 45
Facts DR. ANTONIO P.CABUGAO and DR. CLENIO YNZON, being then the attending physicians of one RODOLFO PALMA,
JR., a minor 10 years old, confederating and acting jointly with one another, did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously fail through negligence, carelessness and imprudence to perform immediate
operation upon their patient, RODOLFO PALMA, JR. of acute appendicitis, when they, the said physicians, should
have been done so considering that examinations conducted upon their patient Rodolfo Palma, Jr. seriously
manifest todo so, causing by such negligence, carelessness, and imprudence the victim, RODOLFO PALMA JR., to
die due to:
"CARDIORESPIRATORY ARREST, METABOLIC ENCEPHALOPATHY, SEPTICEMIA (ACUTE APPENDICITIS), CEREBRAL
ANEURYSM RUPTURED
Issue whether or not petitioners' conviction of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, arising from an
alleged medical malpractice, is supported by the evidence on record.
Held/Ratio: Yes Worth noting is that the assigned errors are actually factual in nature, which as a general rule, findings of
fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court, and we will not
normally disturb such factual findings unless the findings of the court are palpably unsupported by the evidence

14
 on record or unless the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts. In the instant case, we find the
need to make certain exception.

Name: 21.DR. NOEL CASUMPANG vs. CORTEJO G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015
Facts Mrs. Jesusa Cortejo brought her 11-year old son, Edmer Cortejo (Edmer), to the Emergency Room of the San Juan
de Dios Hospital (SJDH) because of difficulty in breathing, chest pain, stomach pain, and fever
Issue 1Whether or not the petitioning doctors had committed inexcusable lack of precaution in diagnosing and in
treating the patient
2.Whether or not the petitioner hospital is solidarity liable with the petitioning doctors;
3.Whether or not there is a causal connection between the petitioners' negligent act/omission and the patient's
resulting death;
Held/Ratio: 1. The doctor committed inexcusable lack of precaution in diagnosing and treating the patient.
2. The respondent submits that SJDH should not only be held vicariously liable for the petitioning doctors'
negligence but also for its own negligence. He claims that SJDH fell short of its duty of providing its patients
with the necessary facilities and equipment as shown by the following circumstances:
(a) SJDH was not equipped with proper paging system;
(b) The number of its doctors is not proportionate to the number of patients;
(c) SJDH was not equipped with a bronchoscope;
(d) When Edmer's oxygen was removed, the medical staff did not immediately provide him with portable
oxygen;
(e) When Edmer was about to be transferred to another hospital, SJDH's was not ready and had no driver; and
(f) Despite Edmer's critical condition, there was no doctor attending to him from 5:30 p.m. of April 22, to 9:00
a.m. of April 23, 1988.
SJDH on the other hand disclaims liability by claiming that the petitioning doctors are not its employees but are
mere consultants and independent contractors. We affirm the hospital's liability not on the basis of Article
2180 of the Civil Code, but on the basis of the doctrine of apparent authority or agency by estoppel.
3.The Causation Between Dr.Casumpang's Negligent Act/Omission, and the Patient's Resulting Death was
Adequately Proven

Name: 22.DR. JAIME T. CRUZ v. DR. AGAS, JR., G.R. No. 171217 G.R. No. 204095, June 15, 2015
Facts in his Complaint-Affidavit5for Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence and Medical Malpractice
against Dr. Agas, Dr. Cruz alleged, among others, that sometime in May 2003, he engaged the services of St.
Lukes Medical Center (SLMC)for a medical check-up; that after being admitted in SLMC on May 28, 2003,he
underwent stool, urine, blood, and other body fluid tests conducted by the employees and doctors of the said
hospital; that on May 29, 2003, he was sent to the Gastro-Enterology Department for a scheduled gastroscopy
and colonoscopy; that because the specialist assigned to perform the procedure was nowhere to be found, he
gave the colonoscopy results to the attending female anesthesiologist for the information and consideration of
the assigned specialist; that, thereafter, he was sedated and the endoscopic examination was carried out; that
when he regained consciousness, he felt that something went wrong during the procedure because he felt dizzy,
had cold clammy perspiration and experienced breathing difficulty; that he could not stand or sit upright because
he felt so exhausted and so much pain in his abdomen; that when he was about to urinate in the comfort room,
he collapsed; that he tried to consult the specialist who performed the colonoscopy but he was nowhere to be
found; and that his cardiologist, Dra. Agnes Del Rosario, was able to observe his critical condition and
immediately referred him to the surgical department which suspected that he had hemorrhage in his abdomen
and advised him to undergo an emergency surgical operation.
Issue Whether or not probable cause exists to charge Dr. Agas with Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless
Imprudence and Medical Malpractice.
Held/Ratio: Non-interference with Executive Determination of Probable Cause in Preliminary Investigations
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts have no right to directly decide on matters over which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government, or to substitute their
own judgment for that of the Executive Branch, represented in this case by the Department of Justice. The settled
policy is that the courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of
filing an Information, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. That abuse of discretion must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to
act at all in contemplation of law, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility.

Name: 23.PEDRITO DELA TORRE vs. DR. ARTURO IMBUIDO G.R. No. 192973 September 29, 2014
15
Facts At around 3:00pm of February 3, 1992, Carmen was brought to Divine Spirit General Hospitals operating room
for her caesarian section operation, which was to be performed by Dr. Nestor. By 5:30pm, of the same day,
Pedrito was informed by his wifes delivery of a baby boy. In the early morning of February 4, 1992, Carmen
experienced abdominal pains and difficulty in urinating. She was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary tract
infection (UTI), and was prescribed medication by Dr. Norma. On February 10, 1992, Pedrito noticed that
Carmens stomach was getting bigger, but Dr. Norma dismissed the patients condition as mere fratulence. When
Carmens stomach still grow bigger despite medications, Dr. Norma advised Pedrito of the possibility of a second
operation on Carmen. Dr. Norma, however, provided no details on its purpose and the doctor who would
perform it. At around 3:00pm on February 12, 1992 Carmen had her second operation. Later in the evening, Dr.
Norma informed Pedrito that everything was going on fine with his wife. The condition of Carmen, however,
did not improve. It instead worsened that on February 13, 1992, she vomited dark red blood. At 9:30pm of the
same day, Carmen died. Per her death certificate upon information provided by the hospital, the immediate
cause of Carmens death was cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebro vascular accident, hypertension and
chronic nephritis induced by pregnancy. An autopsy report prepared by Dr. Partilano, medico-legal officer
designate of Olongapo City, however, provided that the cause of Carmens death was shock due to peritonitis
severe with multiple intestinal adhesions; status post caesarian section and exploratory laparotomy. Pedrito
claimed in his complaint that the respondents failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of them as
members of the medical profession, and were negligent for practicing surgery on Carmen in the most unskilled,
ignorant, and cruel manner.
Issue Whether or not respondents were liable for medical malpractice that resulted to Carmens death.
Held/Ratio: No. Medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has
available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm.
In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient, or his or her family as in this case, must prove that
healthcare provider, in most cases, a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health
care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not
have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient.
Four essential elements must be established namely: 1.) duty; 2.) breach; 3.) injury and 4.) proximate causation.
All four elements must be present in order to find the physician negligent and thus, liable for damages.
For the trial court to give weight to Dr. Partilanos report, it was necessary to show first Dr. Partilanos
specialization and competence to testify on the degree of care, skill and diligence needed for the treatment of
Carmens case. Considering that it was not duly established that Dr. Partilano practiced and was an expert on the
fields that involved Carmens condition, he could not have accurately identified the said degree of care, skill and
diligence and the medical procedure, that should have been applied.

Name: 24.Rosit vs. DDH G.R. No. 210445 December 7, 2015

fact - The ultimate issue for our resolution is whether the appellate court correctly absolved Dr. Gestuvo from
liability.

Issue Whether or not an expert witness is necessary as theres ipsa loquiturdoctrine is applicable.
Held/Ratio: A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional, that has
caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient.There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case,
namely: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.
A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional, that has
caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient.There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case,
namely: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.

Name: 25.Solidum et al vs. People G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014
Facts Gerald Albert Gercayo was born on June 2, 1992 with an imperforate anus. Two days after his birth, Gerald under
went colostomy, a surgical procedure to bring one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal walls,
enabling him to excrete through a colostomy bag attached to the side of his body. On May 17, 1995, Gerald was
admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. Dr. Leandro Resurreccionheaded the surgical
team, and was assisted by Dr. Joselito Lucerio, Dr.Donatella Valeria and Dr. Joseph Tibio. The anesthesiologist
included Drs. Abella, Razon and Solidum. During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia and went into a
coma. His coma lasted for two weeks , but he regained consciousness only after a month. He could no longer
see, hear, or move. A complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries were filed by

16
 Geralds parents against the team of doctors alleging that there was failure in monitoring the anesthesia
administered to Gerald.
Issue Whether or not petitioner is liable for medical negligence.
Held/Ratio: No. Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury. Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without
malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person to perform or failing to perform such act.
doctrine In order to allow resort to the doctrine, therefore, the following essential requisites must first be satisfied, to
wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the
instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3)
the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.

H. REASONABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE

Justifiable reliance represents the core to any charge of misrepresentation and nondisclosure, as it represents the specific standard
to which a representative relationship can be ascertained to the point of legal responsibility. Justifiable reliance, simply put,
indicates the extent to which one can be held to have relied on the representations of another.
justifiable reliance, and its basis on materiality, forms a key part when determining whether misrepresentation or nondisclosure
has occurred. If the product guarantees a material promise, then an individual is entitled to expect that the product will fulfill that
promise, in the form of justifiable reliance.
If the product does not fulfill that obligation, either because the seller or creator misrepresented its ability, or failed to disclose
an element that would prevent it from fulfilling that promise then they have not adhered to the promise of justifiable reliance.
Under tort law, if that failure of justifiable reliance on the part of the seller has led to a loss on the part of the buyer, then they
are able to hold the seller responsible for that loss (even if that loss represents something as small as a refund on the purchase).

I.GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Providingfirst aidin an emergency is very crucial. Certain injuries or illness may be life threatening if not provided with care in just
a few minutes. However, there are certain restrictions that may cause thefirst aiderto think twice in providing care in an
emergency. Aside from the lack of knowledge... there is also the fear of getting sued.
Lets face it, nobody is obligated to provide care in an emergency when no legal duty exists... However, we do need to consider
that providing care to someone most especially if there is a threat to life is very much satisfying and fulfilling.
Once youprovide care, there is already the risk of getting sued. However there is a law that provides protection to that person.
The Good Samaritan Law - this law generally provides protection to off duty personnel providing first aid. But remember that there
is no such thing as complete protection. So it is important that a person should know what they are.
The Good Samaritan Law applies when the rescuer is:
acting in good faith
acting in anemergency
acting with no guilt or misconduct
acting without compensation
So there you are. Remember this the moment you provide care. Also remember that there is no substitute to proper first aid
training.
As you provide care, it is also important to obtain consent. Consent is necessary prior to providing care. Consent can be:
Expressed- this is usually when a person is conscious and is in the right age to decide. It can be given verbally or by gesture.
Implied Consent- this applies to any person that is unconscious, as well as to children and those who are mentally incompetent.
Lastly, do not forget that once you have provided care, do not leave the victim until help arrives or until another person capable
of providing care has taken over. That person could be another first aider, a medical doctor, health care provider or the emergency
medical services.
Laws vary from country to country and state to state
Please be advised that Law vary from country to country and state to state. In some cases, only the emergency care services
personnel are allowed to provide care. It is very important to know and be aware of specific laws governing emergency care in
your area.
17
It is also important to know the right firstsince doing the wrong thing may add more injury to the victim of accident. Find out more
about first aid and learn how to provide. Who knows the life you save may be your own.

J. PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION

RULE 130 Section 24. (c), Section 27
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned
in confidence in the following cases:

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and
which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
Section 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and
is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
of compromised by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (24a)

K. DEFENSES:
1) Standard Negligence Defenses - Medical malpractice is a form of negligence, therefore many of the defenses allowed against
general negligence claims are also viable against malpractice claims.
a) For example, a doctor may argue that his care was in line with the standards upheld in the medical profession, or that
the patients injuries werent the result of a medical error. While disproving an element of negligence is one of the most
common defenses to medical malpractice, there are a number of other defenses that may apply as well.
2) Contributory Negligence - Oftentimes, medical professionals arent the only ones to blame for an injury. If a medical
professional can show that the injury would not have occurred had it not been for a negligent act by the patient, he or she
may have a valid defense against a malpractice claim.
a) For example, if a patient mixed prescriptions against the doctors orders or failed to disclose key elements of his or her
medical history, the doctor may be off the hook for any injuries that result..
3) Respectable Minority Principle Within the medical field there are a number of ways to treat diseases and aliments. Some
ways happen to be more controversial than others, and in the past, have opened up doctors to malpractice medical lawsuits.
However, more recent legislature has sought to protect treatments that doctors can use within their scope of employment,
allowing them not to be subjected to frivolous malpractice medical lawsuits.
a) For example a neurosurgeon who treated a patient for cerebral vascular disease with PREMARIN (Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA). The plaintiff sued doctor due to the side effects of breast enlargement and loss of
libido and stated that doctor was the only neurosurgeon out of nine in Nashville that used PREMARIN for cerebral vascular
disease.
4) Good Samaritan Laws - Many states have Good Samaritan laws, shielding individuals who come to the aid of those in
medical distress. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals are often specifically included in such laws. That means if
a doctor aids someone in an emergency situation, he or she will be protected from civil liability should anything go wrong
during the rescue. Generally, however, a medical professional who voluntarily aids someone owes that person the same duty
of care and treatment as that of a reasonably competent physician under the same or similar circumstances.
a) For example, physician pulls over at the scene of an accident and, through a sense of civic responsibility, delivers
health care.
5) Statute of Limitations State laws place time limits on when an action can be brought for medical malpractice. Some states
have adopted the discovery rule, which holds that the statute of limitations period doesnt begin until an injury is actually
discovered. If the medical professional can show that the patient discovered the injury at a certain point and that the statute
of limitations has since run, the case may be dismissed.
18
 Common Defenses in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Cases
a. The doctors deviation from standard of care did not lead to, worsen or contribute to the patients injuries or
damages.
b. The patient was negligent. If the patients negligence is proven to have caused the injuries and resultant damages,
the patient will be unable to recover damages in the claim.
c. The patient gave informed consent, assuming the risk of the complications or side effects he or she experienced.
d. The patient failed to treat the condition or made the condition worse.
e. The patient failed to provide pertinent information to the doctor.
f. Another medical provider or doctor caused the injuries.
Rejection of Expert Testimony
An Experts Qualifications. (SEE TABLE below)
Reliability of an Experts Opinion.
Reduction or Elimination of Damages
Absence of Causation.
DEMANDED FROM EVERY
TYPES DUTIES Qualifications DISQUALIFICATION
MEDICAL WITNESS.
It is the duty of every
MEDICAL
physician when called upon
WITNESS
by the judicial authorities, to .
AND THE
assist in the administration of
COURT
justice on matters which are
medico-legal in character
1. The person must have
the organ and the power of
perception.
As an 2. The perceptions
he should only be allowed to
ORDINARY gathered by his organs of 1. That he must be
state the facts which come to
WITNESS sense can be imparted to absolutely honest and
his own perception
others. unbiased in his testimony.
3. He does not fall in any of 1. Those with
the exceptions in the Rules unsound mind. 2. That he has the real
of Court. expert knowledge of
1. That the fact to be 2. Children of the subject on which
proven is one requiring tender age and he is testifying.
expert knowledge inferior capacity 3. That he studied
2. That the witness is incapable of thoroughly the case in
really an expert. receiving correct which he expects to testify
(a) the experts scientific, impressions of the and prepared himself to
technical, or other facts when they are look up the opinion and
specialized knowledge will examined statement held by
help the trier of fact to authorities and others
As an He is allowed to give understand the evidence or who have written on the
EXPERT inference, deduction, to determine a fact in issue; subject.
WITNESS conclusion or opinion from (b) the testimony is based
the facts presented to him on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the
product of reliable
principles and methods;
and
(d) the expert has reliably
applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the
case.

Privileged communication: Requisites of the privileged information between the

Physician and his Patient
1. That the privilege is claimed in a civil case.
(a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; 2. That the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
19
 (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
(c) such person acquired the information while he was
attending to the patient in his professional capacity;
3. That the physician acquired information while was
attending the patient in his professional capacity.
4. That the information is confidential, if disclose will blacken
the character of the
patient

(d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that

capacity; and,

(e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would

blacken the reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE is an evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness but from mere
repetition of what he had heard others say.

As a rule, it is not admissible: Grounds for Requisites for its admissibility

1.It is hard to determine whether the
original declarant is irresponsible.
2.Depreciation of the truth of the
statement on the process of
repetition.
3.Opportunity for the commission of
fraud.
admissibility
1. Necessity The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
2. Trustworthiness circumstances of the declarants death.
2. That at the time the declarant was made, the declarant
was under the consciousness of impending death.
3. That the declarant is a competent witness.
4. That the declarant is offered in a criminal case for
homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant is the
victim.

Factors to be considered in determining the weight of a dying Duties of a physician with regards to Dying declaration
declaration:

1. The trustworthiness of the physician who reported the 1. Physician must observe patient of feeling of impending
declaration. death and advise the importance in making of such
2. The capacity of the declarant at the time of making the declaration
declaration to 2. Observe carefully the mental condition of the patient.
accurately remember the past. 3. Physician immediately write down what patients
3. The capacity of the declarant to tell what he remembered. statements.
4. Factors which may influence the declarant in making a 4. He must avoid leading questions.
declaration. 5. If the case is long standing, he may inform any officer of the
law to take down the dying declaration.
6. The Physician must produce the statement taken and not to
judge by himself the relevant points of admissibility.
.
Prescription of crimes art 71 RPC penalties ARTICLE 71. Fine. The fine shall be considered as the last of all the principal penalties
listed in the preceding article.
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
BORROWED SERVANT DOCTRINE- A principle under which the party usually liable for a persons actionse.g., a hospital which
has employed a particular nurseis absolved of responsibility when that 'borrowed servant' is asked to do somethinge.g., by a
surgeonwhich is outside of the bounds of hospital policy.

L. RA 8504 ARTICLE VI Sec. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

ARTICLE VI CONFIDENTIALITY

20
Sec. 30.Medical confidentiality. All health professionals, medical instructors, workers, employers, recruitment agencies,
insurance companies, data encoders, and other custodians of any medical record, file, data, or test results are directed to strictly
observe confidentiality in the handling of all medical information, particularly the identity and status of persons with HIV.
Section 31.Exceptions to the mandate of confidentiality. Medical confidentiality shall not be considered breached in the
following cases:
(a) when complying with reportorial requirements in conjunction with the AIDSWATCH programs provided in Sec. 27 of
this Act;
(b) when informing other health workers directly involved or about to be involved in the treatment or care of a person
with HIV/AIDS: Provided, That such treatment or care carry the risk of HIV transmission: Provided, further, That such
workers shall be obliged to maintain the shared medical confidentiality;
(c) when responding to a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum issued by a Court with jurisdiction over
a legal proceeding where the main issue is the HIV status of an individual:Provided,That the confidential medical record
shall be properly sealed by its lawful custodian after being double-checked for accuracy by the head of the office or
department, hand delivered, and personally opened by the judge:Provided, further,That the judicial proceedings be held
in executive session.
Section 32.Release of HIV/AIDS test results. All results of HIV/AIDS testing shall be confidential and shall be released only to the
following persons:
(a) the person who submitted himself/herself to such test;
(b) either parent of a minor child who has been tested;
(c) a legal guardian in the case of insane persons or orphans;
(d) a person authorized to receive such results in conjunction with the AIDSWATCH program as provided in Sec. 27 of this
Act;
(e) a justice of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided under subSec. (c) of this Act and in accordance
with the provision of Sec. 16 hereof.
Section 33.Penalties for violations of confidentiality. Any violation of medical confidentiality as provided in Sec.s 30 and 32 of
this Act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) months to four (4) years, without prejudice to administrative sanctions
such as fines and suspension or revocation of the violator's license to practice his/her profession, as well as the cancellation or
withdrawal of the license to operate any business entity and the accreditation of hospitals, laboratories or clinics.
Section 34.Disclosure to sexual partners. Any person with HIV is obliged to disclose his/her HIV status and health condition to
his/her spouse or sexual partner at the earliest opportune time.

M. STANDARD OF CARE
How is the Standard of Care Determined?
thestandard of careis the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under aduty of care.
Astandard of careis a medical or psychological treatment guideline, and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate
treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the
treatment of a given condition.

1. Degree of ability by other physicians in the same locality.

2. Degree of care, attention, diligence or vigilance exercised by those physicians in the application of their skills.
3. Special or extraordinary for specialist.
National Standard of Care the diligence is determined on what is applicable on a national standard basis Locality Rule
the standard of care is measured by the degree of care in the locality
Respectable Minority Rule

Modified locality rule

similar locality rule diligence is determined when the other physicians in the locality or similar locality could
have acted the same way
socio economic similarities or geographical proximity

Customary Versus Accepted Medical Standards of Care

Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test:
Proximate Cause

21
the DOCTRINE of Proximate Cause -continuous and natural sequence, unbroken by an efficient cause producing the injury and
without which the result would not have occurred.

Conditions that must be complied with in the determination of the proximate cause:
1. Direct physical connection between the wrongful act and the injury. -unsterile
2. Wrongful act must not be too remote from the development of the injury.
3. The result must be the natural and probable consequences of the cause.
DOCTRINE of Efficient Independent Intervening Cause:= may mitigate the damage to be rewarded.

CAUSATION-DIFFERENCE BET BUT FOR TEST AND SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST

The but-for test and the substantial factor test are alternative tests that courts often use to determine whether the defendant
was the cause in fact of the plaintiffs injury.
CAUSATION-DIFFERENCE BET BUT FOR TES SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST
Would the plaintiff have suffered the injury if defendant hadnt acted if a defendant works in a factory and develops
carelessly? cancer, he might allege that the cancer
resulted from asbestos poisoning
1. Concurrent causes. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to 1.Under that standard, a cause in fact is
cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable. something that is a substantial factor in
1.1. For example, a construction worker negligently leaves the cover off bringing about the injury. The substantial
a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, factor standard generally produces the same
forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the results as does the but for rule of causation
construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the which states that a defendants conduct is a
injury to the pedestrian. cause of the injury if the injury would not
1.1.1. This example obeys the but for test. The injury could have been have occurred but for that conduct. The
avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each substantial factor standard, however, has
is a but for cause of the injury. been embraced as a clearer rule of
2. Sufficient combined causes. Where an injury results from two separate causationone which subsumes the but for
acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the test while reaching beyond it to satisfactorily
injury, both actors are liable. address other situations, such as those
2.1. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently involving independent or concurrent causes
leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, but the same in fact.
amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. 2.it is a relatively broad one, requiring only
Both campers are equally liable for all damage. that the contribution of the individual cause
2.2. Two parties have acted negligently, but only one causes an injury to be more than negligible or theoretical. Thus,
a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that a force which plays only an infinitesimal or
they were not the cause of the injury. theoretical part in bringing about injury,
2.3. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their shotguns in the damage, or loss is not a substantial factor,
direction of their guide, and a pellet lodged in his eye. Because it was but a very minor force that does because
impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, harm is a substantial factor. This rule honors
the court held both hunters liable. the principle of comparative fault
3. Market share evidence. Injury or illness is occasioned by
a fungible product made by all the manufacturers joined together in a
lawsuit. The injury or illness is due to a design hazard, with each having
been found to have sold the same type of product in a manner that made
it unreasonably dangerous, there is inability to identify the specific
manufacturer of the product or products that brought about the Plaintiffs
injury or illness and there are enough manufacturers of the fungible
product joined in the lawsuit, to represent a substantial share of the
market. Any damages would then be divided according to the market
share ratio.
4. Since but-for causation is very easy to show and does not
assign culpability (but for the rain, you would not have crashed your car
the rain is not morally or legally culpable but still constitutes a cause),
there is a second test used to determine if an action is close enough to a
harm in a "chain of events" to be a legally culpable cause of the harm. This
test is called proximate cause.

22
N. CASES:

Name: CHAN vs. CHAN N. G.R. No. 179786 July 24, 2013
Facts Josielene osielene Lara Chan (Josielene) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
City, Branch 144 a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan
(Johnny), the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and the award of custody of their
children to her. Josielene claimed that Johnny failed to care for and support his family and that a
psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of
prohibited drugs. Indeed, she had convinced him to undergo hospital confinement for detoxification
and rehabilitation. ohnny resisted the action, claiming that it was Josielene who failed in her wifely
duties. To save their marriage, he agreed to marriage counseling but when he and Josielene got
to the hospital, two men forcibly held him by both arms while another gave him an injection. The
marriage relations got worse when the police temporarily detained Josielene for an unrelated crime
and released her only after the case against her ended. By then, their marriage relationship could
no longer be repaired.
Issue Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the trial court correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum covering Johnnys hospital records on the ground that these are covered by the
privileged character of the physician-patient communication?
Held/Ratio: Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records of
Johnnys confinement, which records she wanted to present in court as evidence in support of
her action to have their marriage declared a nullity. Respondent Johnny resisted her request for
subpoena, however, invoking the privileged character of those records. He cites Section 24(c),
Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence which reads:SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following casesc) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a
civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient.The physician-patient privileged communication rule
essentially means that a physician who gets information while professionally attending a patient
cannot in a civil case be examined without the patients consent as to any facts which would
blacken the latters reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the
physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling the
physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear
that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that had
transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus putting his own
health at great risk.

Name: KROHN vs.COURT OF APPEALS and KROHN, JR., G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994
Facts Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn, invoking the rule on privileged communication between physician and
patient, seeks to enjoin her husband from disclosing the contents of the report.
Issue Whether or not the evidence offered by Edgar may be admitted?
Held/Ratio: Petitioner's discourse while exhaustive is however misplaced.
Lim v Court of Appeals
clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked: (a) the
privilege is claimed in civil case; (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (c) such person acquired the information
while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (d) the information was necessary
to enable him to act in that capacity; and, (e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed,
would blacken the reputation(formerly character) of the patient

Name: NELLY LIM v. THE COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 91114. September 25, 1992

23
 Facts November 25, 1987 Juan Sim filed with Pangasinan RTC a petition for annulment based on Art 36,
alleging that Nelly Lim (petitioner) is suffering from schizophrenia before, during and after marriage and until
the present
January 11, 989 Sim announced he will present Dr Lydia Acampado (psychiatrist) as a witness on
January 25, 1989
Petitioner opposed on the grounds that the testimony sought to be elicited from the witness is
privileged since Dr Acampado had examined Lim in a professional capacity and had diagnosed her with
schizophrenia. Subpoena was issued on January 12, 1989
January 24, 1989 petitioner filed urgent motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings.
Overruled
Respondent claimed that Dr Acampado will be presented as expert witness and would not testify on
any information acquired while attending to the petitioner as doctor.
March 3, 1989 petitioner filed with CA petition for certiorari and prohibition but was denied on
September 18, 1989 on the ground that petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony
obtained from Dr Acampado
Issue Whether Dr Acampado can be presented as expert witness in testifying schizophrenia in case
where petitioner is her client?
Held/Ratio: In order for patient-doctor privilege can be claimed, the following requisites must concur:
1. Privilege claimed is in a civil case
2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine
3. Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity
4. The information was necessary for him to enable him to act in that capacity
These requisites must concur with the 4 fundamental conditions necessary for invoking doctor-patient
confidentiality:
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed
2. Element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation
between the parties
3. The relation must be one which the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must greater than
the benefit thereby gain for correct disposal of litigation

O. RPC
Art. 174, 175, 259, 347, 365

Section Five.-Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like.
Article 174.False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or service, etc.- The penalties ofarresto mayorin its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceedP1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any physician or surgeon who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false certificate; and
2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances.
The penalty ofarresto mayorshall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes
mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
Article 175.Using false certificates.- The penalty ofarresto menorshall be imposed upon any one who shall knowingly use any of
the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article.
Article 259.Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives.- The penalties provided in Article 256 shall
be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific
knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall sufferarresto mayorand
a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
Article 347.Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child.- The
simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another shall be punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate child with intent to cause such
child to lose its civil status.

24
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office, shall cooperate in the execution
of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the
penalty of temporary special disqualification.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Article 365.Imprudence and negligence.- Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty ofarresto mayorin its maximum period to prision correccional
in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty ofarresto mayorin its minimum and medium
periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty ofarresto menorin its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall
suffer the penalty ofarresto mayorin its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the
penalty ofarresto mayorin its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender
shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall
in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article
sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused,
in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the
spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).

P. RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known and cited as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-being of its
citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to
defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to their development and preservation. In view of the foregoing, the
State needs to enhance further the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of today's more serious social ills.
Toward this end, the government shall pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of
dangerous drugs and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of
anti-drug abuse policies, programs, and projects. The government shall however aim to achieve a balance in the national drug
control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not prevented from being treated with adequate amounts
of appropriate medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs.
It is further declared the policy of the State to provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into society individuals
who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable programs of treatment and
rehabilitation.
ARTICLE I
Definition of terms
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(a) 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, or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in

25
administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of
medication.
(b) Board. - Refers to the Dangerous Drugs Board under Section 77, Article IX of this Act.
(c) Centers. - Any of the treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents referred to in Section 34, Article VIII of this
Act.
(d) 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, and shall include 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.
(e) Clandestine Laboratory. Any facility used for the illegal manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical.
(f) Confirmatory Test. 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.
(g) Controlled Delivery. The investigative technique of allowing an unlawful or suspect consignment of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, equipment or paraphernalia, or property believed to be derived directly or
indirectly from any offense, to pass into, through or out of the country under the supervision of an authorized officer, with a
view to gathering evidence to identify any person involved in any dangerous drugs related offense, or to facilitate prosecution
of that offense.
(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. Include 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 attached annex, which is an integral part of
this Act.
(i) 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.
(j) 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 attached annex which is an integral part of this Act.
(k) Deliver. Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or
without consideration.
(l) 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.
(m) Dispense. Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or without the use of
prescription.
(n) Drug Dependence. As based on the World Health Organization definition, it is a cluster of physiological, behavioral and
cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of psychoactive drug takes on a high priority thereby involving,
among others, a strong desire or a sense of compulsion to take the substance and the difficulties in controlling substance-taking
behavior in terms of its onset, termination, or levels of use.
(o) Drug Syndicate. Any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of
committing any offense prescribed under this Act.
(p) 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 where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical is administered, delivered, distributed, sold or used, with or without compensation, in connection with the
operation thereof.
(q) Financier. Any person who pays for, raises or supplies money for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities prescribed
under this Act.
(r) Illegal Trafficking. 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.
(s) Instrument. Any thing that is used in or intended to be used in any manner in the commission of illegal drug trafficking or
related offenses.
(t) Laboratory Equipment. 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, fermentors, separatory funnel, flask, heating mantle, gas generator, or their substitute.
(u) 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, and shall include any
packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its container; except
that such terms do not include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly
authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her administration or dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of

26
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.
(v) Cannabis or commonly known as "Marijuana" or "Indian Hemp" or by its any other name. Embraces every kind, class,
genus, or specie of the plant Cannabis sativa L. including, but not limited to, Cannabis americana, hashish, bhang, guaza,
churrus and ganjab, and embraces every kind, class and character of marijuana, whether dried or fresh and flowering, flowering
or fruiting tops, or any part or portion of the plant and seeds thereof, and all its geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin,
extract, tincture or in any form whatsoever.
(w) Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or commonly known as "Ecstasy", or by its any other name. Refers to the
drug having such chemical composition, including any of its isomers or derivatives in any form.
(x) Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as "Shabu", "Ice", "Meth", or by its any other name. Refers to the
drug having such chemical composition, including any of its isomers or derivatives in any form.
(y) Opium. Refers to the coagulated juice of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) and embraces every kind, class and
character of opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or refuse of the same; narcotic preparations thereof or therefrom;
morphine or any alkaloid of opium; preparations in which opium, morphine or any alkaloid of opium enters as an ingredient;
opium poppy; opium poppy straw; and leaves or wrappings of opium leaves, whether prepared for use or not.
(z) Opium Poppy. Refers to any part of the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L., Papaver setigerum DC, Papaver
orientale, Papaver bracteatum and Papaver rhoeas, which includes the seeds, straws, branches, leaves or any part thereof, or
substances derived therefrom, even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes.
(aa) PDEA. Refers to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency under Section 82, Article IX of this Act.
(bb) Person. Any entity, natural or juridical, including among others, a corporation, partnership, trust or estate, joint stock
company, association, syndicate, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group capable of acquiring rights or
entering into obligations.
(cc) 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.
(dd) Practitioner. Any person who is a licensed physician, dentist, chemist, medical technologist, nurse, midwife, veterinarian
or pharmacist in the Philippines.
(ee) 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.
(ff) Pusher. 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 of such transactions, in violation
of this Act.
(gg) School. Any educational institution, private or public, undertaking educational operation for pupils/students pursuing
certain studies at defined levels, receiving instructions from teachers, usually located in a building or a group of buildings in a
particular physical or cyber site.
(hh) Screening Test. A rapid test performed to establish potential/presumptive positive result.
(ii) Sell. Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or
any other consideration.
(jj) 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 in violation of this Act.
(kk) Use. 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, and of the dangerous drugs.
ARTICLE II
Unlawful Acts and Penalties
Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- .The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous
drug, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, including any and all species of opium poppy or any part thereof or
substances derived therefrom even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall import any controlled precursor and essential chemical.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized under this
Act, shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical through

27
the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate
the unlawful entry of the same. In addition, the diplomatic passport shall be confiscated and canceled.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as
a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, 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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall 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.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use 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 chemical trade, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled
precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof,
the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as
a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Section 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of
persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or
group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or
sold in any form.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any dangerous drug is
administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the
penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed
on the maintainer, owner and/or operator.
If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the
government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically allege that such place is intentionally used in the
furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution shall prove such intent on the part of the owner to use the
property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall be included as an accused in the criminal complaint.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as
a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware of the nature of
the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same

28
Section 8. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any dangerous drug.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall manufacture any controlled precursor and essential chemical.
The presence of any controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the clandestine laboratory is
a prima facie proof of manufacture of any dangerous drug. It shall be considered an aggravating circumstance 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; or
(e) Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as
a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Section 9. Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging
from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall illegally
divert any controlled precursor and essential chemical.
Section 10. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with
intent to deliver equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, knowing, or under
circumstances where one reasonably should 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 any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in violation of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed if it will be used to inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise
introduce into the human body a dangerous drug in violation of this Act.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who uses a minor or a mentally
incapacitated individual to deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA)
or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD),
gamma hydroxyamphetamine (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 requirements, as
determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less
than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are
five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such

29
 as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, 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
requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs
are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited
to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, 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 requirements;
or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the
case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
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.
Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. Any person found possessing any
dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons,
shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous
drugs.
Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties,
Social Gatherings or Meetings. - The maximum penalty provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall be imposed upon any person,
who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended
for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, during parties,
social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center
for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second
time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section
shall not be applicable 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 Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy or any other
plant regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be classified as a dangerous drug or as a source from which any
dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived: Provided, That in the case of medical laboratories and medical research
centers which cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy and other plants, or materials of such dangerous drugs for medical
experiments and research purposes, or for the creation of new types of medicine, the Board shall prescribe the necessary
implementing guidelines for the proper cultivation, culture, handling, experimentation and disposal of such plants and
materials.
The land or portions thereof and/or greenhouses on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor 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. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the maximum penalty provided for
under this Section shall be imposed upon the offender.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a
"financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as
a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Section 17. Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of Transactions on Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and one (1) day to six (6) years and a fine
ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any practitioner,
manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor, dealer or retailer who violates or fails to comply with the maintenance and
keeping of the original records of transactions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in
accordance with Section 40 of this Act.

30
An additional penalty shall be imposed through the revocation of the license to practice his/her profession, in case of a
practitioner, or of the business, in case of a manufacturer, seller, importer, distributor, dealer or retailer.
Section 18. Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) and the additional penalty of the revocation of his/her license to practice shall be imposed upon the
practitioner, who shall prescribe any dangerous drug to any person whose physical or physiological condition does not require
the use or in the dosage prescribed therein, as determined by the Board in consultation with recognized competent experts
who are authorized representatives of professional organizations of practitioners, particularly those who are involved in the
care of persons with severe pain.
Section 19. Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall make or issue a prescription or any other writing purporting to be a prescription for any dangerous
drug.
Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or Proceeds
Derived from the Illegal Trafficking 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 drugs
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
pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of this Act.
After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall immediately schedule a hearing
for the confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either
owned or held by him or in the name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion to
his/her lawful income: Provided, however, That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be auctioned off not later
than five (5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture.
During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property, or income derived therefrom, which may be
confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall
be admitted for the release of the same.
The proceeds of any sale or disposition of any property confiscated or forfeited under this Section shall be used to pay all proper
expenses incurred in the proceedings for the confiscation, forfeiture, custody and maintenance of the property pending
disposition, as well as expenses for publication and court costs. The proceeds in excess of the above expenses shall accrue to
the Board to be used in its campaign against illegal drugs.
Section 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:
(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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided,
That when the volume of the 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 on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of
the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and
through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same,
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her

31
 representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public
official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s
which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board,
shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly
weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which,
together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having
jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above
proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused
refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-
two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall
appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as
evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall
request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and
destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined
herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or
destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused/and or
his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of
seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the DOH.
Section 22. Grant of Compensation, Reward and Award. The Board shall recommend to the concerned government agency
the grant of compensation, reward and award to any person providing information and to law enforcers participating in the
operation, which results in the successful confiscation, seizure or surrender of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty
shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person convicted for drug trafficking
or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation
Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of
Dangerous Drugs. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs
shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty
provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the
same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
Section 27. 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 of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public
office, shall be imposed upon 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
as provided for in this Act.
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs as
prescribed in this Act, or have received any financial or material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons
found guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, 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.

32
Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees. The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts provided
for in this Act shall be imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, if those found guilty of
such unlawful acts are government officials and employees.
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.
Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities. In case any
violation of this Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any juridical entity, the partner, president,
director, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held
criminally liable as a co-principal.
The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed upon the partner, president, director, manager, trustee,
estate administrator, or officer who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft,
equipment or other facility, as an instrument in the importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft,
equipment or other instrument is owned by or under the control or supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or
juridical entity to which they are affiliated.
Section 31. Additional Penalty if Offender is an Alien. In addition to the penalties prescribed in the unlawful act committed,
any alien who violates such provisions of this Act shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further
proceedings, unless the penalty is death.
Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued by the Board. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act, in
addition to the administrative sanctions imposed by the Board.
Section 33. Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of
1991, any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives information
about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well as any violation of the offenses mentioned
if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the
members thereof; and who willingly testifies against such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution or
punishment for the offense with reference to which his/her information of testimony were given, and may plead or prove the
giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That the following conditions concur:
(1) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
(3) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(4) the informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except when
there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than the information and testimony of said informant
or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any condition or undertaking, reduced
into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further consideration for the grant of immunity from prosecution and
punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not appear to be most guilty for
the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct
evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said informant or witness.
Section 34. Termination of the Grant of Immunity. The immunity granted to the informant or witness, as prescribed in Section
33 of this Act, shall not attach should it turn out subsequently that the information and/or testimony is false, malicious or made
only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the persons described in the preceding Section against
whom such information or testimony is directed against. In such case, the informant or witness shall be subject to prosecution
and the enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously accorded him under this Act or any other law, decree or order shall be
deemed terminated.
In case an informant or witness under this Act fails or refuses to testify without just cause, and when lawfully obliged to do so,
or should he/she violate any condition accompanying such immunity as provided above, his/her immunity shall be removed
and he/she shall likewise be subject to contempt and/or criminal prosecution, as the case may be, and the enjoyment of all
rights and benefits previously accorded him under this Act or in any other law, decree or order shall be deemed terminated.
In case the informant or witness referred to under this Act falls under the applicability of this Section hereof, such individual
cannot avail of the provisions under Article VIII of this Act.
Section 35. Accessory Penalties. A person convicted under this Act shall be disqualified to exercise his/her civil rights such as
but not limited to, the rights of parental authority or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, the rights
to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos, and political rights such as but not limited to, the right to
vote and be voted for. Such rights shall also be suspended during the pendency of an appeal from such conviction.
ARTICLE III
Dangerous Drugs Test and Record Requirements

33
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any
of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall
take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug
test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive
result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test
certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be
used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:
(a) Applicants for driver's license. No driver's license shall be issued or renewed to any person unless he/she presents
a certification that he/she has undergone a mandatory drug test and indicating thereon that he/she is free from the
use of dangerous drugs;
(b) Applicants for firearm's license and for permit to carry firearms outside of residence. All applicants for firearm's
license and permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall undergo a mandatory drug test to ensure that they are
free from the use of dangerous drugs: Provided, That all persons who by the nature of their profession carry firearms
shall undergo drug testing;
(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 school's student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo
a random drug testing: Provided, That all drug testing expenses whether in public or private schools under this Section
will be borne by the government;
(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 company's work
rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any
officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a
ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent
provisions of the Civil Service Law;
(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies. Officers and members of the
military, police and other law enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory drug test;
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test; and
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government shall undergo
a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall be
subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.
Section 37. Issuance of False or Fraudulent Drug Test Results. Any person authorized, licensed or accredited under this Act
and its implementing rules to conduct drug examination or test, who issues false or fraudulent drug test results knowingly,
willfully or through gross negligence, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to
twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).
An additional penalty shall be imposed through the revocation of the license to practice his/her profession in case of a
practitioner, and the closure of the drug testing center.
Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person
apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test
within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person
apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the
influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be
challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical
laboratory equipment with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method,
if confirmed the same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for
the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test must be
confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.
Section 39. Accreditation of Drug Testing Centers and Physicians. The DOH shall be tasked to license and accredit drug testing
centers in each province and city in order to assure their capacity, competence, integrity and stability to conduct the laboratory
examinations and tests provided in this Article, and appoint such technical and other personnel as may be necessary for the
effective implementation of this provision. The DOH shall also accredit physicians who shall conduct the drug dependency
examination of a drug dependent as well as the after-care and follow-up program for the said drug dependent. There shall be
a control regulations, licensing and accreditation division under the supervision of the DOH for this purpose.
For this purpose, the DOH shall establish, operate and maintain drug testing centers in government hospitals, which must be
provided at least with basic technologically advanced equipment and materials, in order to conduct the laboratory examination
and tests herein provided, and appoint such qualified and duly trained technical and other personnel as may be necessary for
the effective implementation of this provision.
Section 40. Records Required for Transactions on Dangerous Drug and Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

34
 a) Every pharmacist dealing in dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall maintain
and keep an original record of sales, purchases, acquisitions and deliveries of dangerous drugs, indicating therein the
following information:
(1) License number and address of the pharmacist;
(2) Name, address and license of the manufacturer, importer or wholesaler from whom the dangerous drugs
have been purchased;
(3) Quantity and name of the dangerous drugs purchased or acquired;
(4) Date of acquisition or purchase;
(5) Name, address and community tax certificate number of the buyer;
(6) Serial number of the prescription and the name of the physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner
issuing the same;
(7) Quantity and name of the dangerous drugs sold or delivered; and
(8) Date of sale or delivery.
A certified true copy of such record covering a period of six (6) months, duly signed by the pharmacist or the owner of
the drugstore, pharmacy or chemical establishment, shall be forwarded to the Board within fifteen (15) days following
the last day of June and December of each year, with a copy thereof furnished the city or municipal health officer
concerned.
(b) A physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner authorized to prescribe any dangerous drug shall issue the
prescription therefor in one (1) original and two (2) duplicate copies. The original, after the prescription has been filled,
shall be retained by the pharmacist for a period of one (1) year from the date of sale or delivery of such drug. One (1)
copy shall be retained by the buyer or by the person to whom the drug is delivered until such drug is consumed, while
the second copy shall be retained by the person issuing the prescription.
For purposes of this Act, all prescriptions issued by physicians, dentists, veterinarians or practitioners shall be written
on forms exclusively issued by and obtainable from the DOH. Such forms shall be made of a special kind of paper and
shall be distributed in such quantities and contain such information and other data as the DOH may, by rules and
regulations, require. Such forms shall only be issued by the DOH through its authorized employees to licensed
physicians, dentists, veterinarians and practitioners in such quantities as the Board may authorize. In emergency cases,
however, as the Board may specify in the public interest, a prescription need not be accomplished on such forms. The
prescribing physician, dentist, veterinarian or practitioner shall, within three (3) days after issuing such prescription,
inform the DOH of the same in writing. No prescription once served by the drugstore or pharmacy be reused nor any
prescription once issued be refilled.
(c) All manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, dealers and retailers of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals shall keep a record of all inventories, sales, purchases, acquisitions and deliveries
of the same as well as the names, addresses and licenses of the persons from whom such items were purchased or
acquired or to whom such items were sold or delivered, the name and quantity of the same and the date of the
transactions. Such records may be subjected anytime for review by the Board.
ARTICLE IV
Participation of the Family, Students, Teachers and School Authorities in the Enforcement of this Act
Section 41. Involvement of the Family. The family being the basic unit of the Filipino society shall be primarily responsible for
the education and awareness of the members of the family on the ill effects of dangerous drugs and close monitoring of family
members who may be susceptible to drug abuse.
Section 42. Student Councils and Campus Organizations. All elementary, secondary and tertiary schools' student councils and
campus organizations shall include in their activities a program for the prevention of and deterrence in the use of dangerous
drugs, and referral for treatment and rehabilitation of students for drug dependence.
Section 43. School Curricula. Instruction on drug abuse prevention and control shall be integrated in the elementary,
secondary and tertiary curricula of all public and private schools, whether general, technical, vocational or agro-industrial as
well as in non-formal, informal and indigenous learning systems. Such instructions shall include:
(1) Adverse effects of the abuse and misuse of dangerous drugs on the person, the family, the school and the
community;
(2) Preventive measures against drug abuse;
(3) Health, socio-cultural, psychological, legal and economic dimensions and implications of the drug problem;
(4) Steps to take when intervention on behalf of a drug dependent is needed, as well as the services available for the
treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependents; and
(5) Misconceptions about the use of dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, the importance and safety of
dangerous drugs for medical and therapeutic use as well as the differentiation between medical patients and drug
dependents in order to avoid confusion and accidental stigmatization in the consciousness of the students.
Section 44. Heads, Supervisors, and Teachers of Schools. For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Article II of this Act,
all school heads, supervisors and teachers shall be deemed persons in authority and, as such, are hereby empowered to
apprehend, arrest or cause the apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provisions, pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. They shall be deemed persons in authority if they are in the school or within its

35
immediate vicinity, or even beyond such immediate vicinity if they are in attendance at any school or class function in their
official capacity as school heads, supervisors, and teachers.
Any teacher or school employee, who discovers or finds that any person in the school or within its immediate vicinity is liable
for violating any of said provisions, shall have the duty to report the same to the school head or immediate superior who shall,
in turn, report the matter to the proper authorities.
Failure to do so in either case, within a reasonable period from the time of discovery of the violation shall, after due hearing,
constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary action by the school authorities.
Section 45. Publication and Distribution of Materials on Dangerous Drugs. With the assistance of the Board, the Secretary of
the Department of Education (DepEd), the Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Director-General
of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) shall cause the development, publication and distribution
of information and support educational materials on dangerous drugs to the students, the faculty, the parents, and the
community.
Section 46. Special Drug Education Center. With the assistance of the Board, the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG), the National Youth Commission (NYC), and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
shall establish in each of its provincial office a special education drug center for out-of-school youth and street children. Such
Center which shall be headed by the Provincial Social. Welfare Development Officer shall sponsor drug prevention programs
and activities and information campaigns with the end in view of educating the out-of-school youth and street children
regarding the pernicious effects of drug abuse. The programs initiated by the Center shall likewise be adopted in all public and
private orphanage and existing special centers for street children.
ARTICLE V
Promotion of a National Drug-Free Workplace Program With the Participation of Private and Labor Sectors and the
Department of Labor and Employment
Section 47. Drug-Free Workplace. It is deemed a policy of the State to promote drug-free workplaces using a tripartite
approach. With the assistance of the Board, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall develop, promote and
implement a national drug abuse prevention program in the workplace to be adopted by private companies with ten (10) or
more employees. Such program shall include the mandatory drafting and adoption of company policies against drug use in the
workplace in close consultation and coordination with the DOLE, labor and employer organizations, human resource
development managers and other such private sector organizations.
Section 48. Guidelines for the National Drug-Free Workplace Program. The Board and the DOLE shall formulate the necessary
guidelines for the implementation of the national drug-free workplace program. The amount necessary for the implementation
of which shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
ARTICLE VI
Participation of the Private and Labor Sectors in the Enforcement of this Act
Section 49. Labor Organizations and the Private Sector. All labor unions, federations, associations, or organizations in
cooperation with the respective private sector partners shall include in their collective bargaining or any similar agreements,
joint continuing programs and information campaigns for the laborers similar to the programs provided under Section 47 of
this Act with the end in view of achieving a drug free workplace.
Section 50. Government Assistance. The labor sector and the respective partners may, in pursuit of the programs mentioned
in the preceding Section, secure the technical assistance, such as but not limited to, seminars and information dissemination
campaigns of the appropriate government and law enforcement agencies.
ARTICLE VII
Participation of Local Government Units
Section 51. Local Government Units' Assistance. Local government units shall appropriate a substantial portion of their
respective annual budgets to assist in or enhance the enforcement of this Act giving priority to preventive or educational
programs and the rehabilitation or treatment of drug dependents.
Section 52. Abatement of Drug Related Public Nuisances. Any place or premises which have been used on two or more
occasions as the site of the unlawful sale or delivery of dangerous drugs may be declared to be a public nuisance, and such
nuisance may be abated, pursuant to the following procedures:
(1) Any city or municipality may, by ordinance, create an administrative board to hear complaints regarding the
nuisances;
(2) any employee, officer, or resident of the city or municipality may bring a complaint before the Board after giving
not less than three (3) days written notice of such complaint to the owner of the place or premises at his/her last
known address; and
(3) After hearing in which the Board may consider any evidence, including evidence of the general reputation of the
place or premises, and at which the owner of the premises shall have an opportunity to present evidence in his/her
defense, the Board may declare the place or premises to be a public nuisance.
Section 53. Effect of Board Declaration. If the Board declares a place or premises to be a public nuisance, it may declare an
order immediately prohibiting the conduct, operation, or maintenance of any business or activity on the premises which is
conducive to such nuisance.

36
An order entered under this Section shall expire after one (1) year or at such earlier time as stated in the order. The Board may
bring a complaint seeking a permanent injunction against any nuisance described under this Section.
This Article does not restrict the right of any person to proceed under the Civil Code against any public nuisance.
ARTICLE VIII
Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents
Section 54. Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation. A drug dependent or
any person who violates Section 15 of this Act may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly recognized representative, for treatment
and rehabilitation of the drug dependency. Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth the matter to the Court which
shall order that the applicant be examined for drug dependency. If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in
the issuance of a certification that the applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo treatment
and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board for a period of not less than six (6) months: Provided, That a drug
dependent may be placed under the care of a DOH-accredited physician where there is no Center near or accessible to the
residence of the drug dependent or where said drug dependent is below eighteen (18) years of age and is a first-time offender
and non-confinement in a Center will not pose a serious danger to his/her family or the community.
Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after which time the Court, as well as
the Board, shall be apprised by the head of the treatment and rehabilitation center of the status of said drug dependent and
determine whether further confinement will be for the welfare of the drug dependent and his/her family or the community.
Section 55. Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A drug dependent under the
voluntary submission program, who is finally discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under
Section 15 of this act subject to the following conditions:
(1) He/she has complied with the rules and regulations of the center, the applicable rules and regulations of the Board,
including the after-care and follow-up program for at least eighteen (18) months following temporary discharge from
confinement in the Center or, in the case of a dependent placed under the care of the DOH-accredited physician, the
after-care program and follow-up schedule formulated by the DSWD and approved by the Board: Provided, That
capability-building of local government social workers shall be undertaken by the DSWD;
(2) He/she has never been charged or convicted of any offense punishable under this Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 or Republic Act No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any special penal laws;
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a Center: Provided, That had he/she escaped, he/she surrendered by
himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, within one (1) week from the date of the said escape; and
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to himself/herself, his/her family or the community by his/her exemption from
criminal liability.
Section 56. Temporary Release From the Center; After-Care and Follow-Up Treatment Under the Voluntary Submission
Program. Upon certification of the Center that the drug dependent within the voluntary submission program may be
temporarily released, the Court shall order his/her release on condition that said drug dependent shall report to the DOH for
after-care and follow-up treatment, including urine testing, for a period not exceeding eighteen (18) months under such terms
and conditions that the Court may impose.
If during the period of after-care and follow-up, the drug dependent is certified to be rehabilitated, he/she may be discharged
by the Court, subject to the provisions of Section 55 of this Act, without prejudice to the outcome of any pending case filed in
court.
However, should the DOH find that during the initial after-care and follow-up program of eighteen (18) months, the drug
dependent requires further treatment and rehabilitation in the Center, he/she shall be recommitted to the Center for
confinement. Thereafter, he/she may again be certified for temporary release and ordered released for another after-care and
follow-up program pursuant to this Section.
Section 57. Probation and Community Service Under the Voluntary Submission Program. A drug dependent who is discharged
as rehabilitated by the DOH-accredited Center through the voluntary submission program, but does not qualify for exemption
from criminal liability under Section 55 of this Act, may be charged under the provisions of this Act, but shall be placed on
probation and undergo a community service in lieu of imprisonment and/or fine in the discretion of the court, without prejudice
to the outcome of any pending case filed in court.
Such drug dependent shall undergo community service as part of his/her after-care and follow-up program, which may be done
in coordination with nongovernmental civil organizations accredited by the DSWD, with the recommendation of the Board.
Section 58. Filing of Charges Against a Drug Dependent Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the Voluntary Submission Program.
A drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the second commitment to the Center under the voluntary submission
program, shall, upon recommendation of the Board, be charged for violation of Section 15 of this Act and prosecuted like any
other offender. If convicted, he/she shall be credited for the period of confinement and rehabilitation in the Center in the
service of his/her sentence.
Section 59. Escape and Recommitment for Confinement and Rehabilitation Under the Voluntary Submission Program. Should
a drug dependent under the voluntary submission program escape from the Center, he/she may submit himself/herself for
recommitment within one (1) week therefrom, or his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of

37
consanguinity or affinity may, within said period, surrender him for recommitment, in which case the corresponding order shall
be issued by the Board.
Should the escapee fail to submit himself/herself or be surrendered after one (1) week, the Board shall apply to the court for a
recommitment order upon proof of previous commitment or his/her voluntary submission by the Board, the court may issue
an order for recommitment within one (1) week.
If, subsequent to a recommitment, the dependent once again escapes from confinement, he/she shall be charged for violation
of Section 15 of this Act and he subjected under section 61 of this Act, either upon order of the Board or upon order of the
court, as the case may be.
Section 60. Confidentiality of Records Under the Voluntary Submission Program. Judicial and medical records of drug
dependents under the voluntary submission program shall be confidential and shall not be used against him for any purpose,
except to determine how many times, by himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, he/she voluntarily submitted himself/herself for confinement, treatment and
rehabilitation or has been committed to a Center under this program.
Section 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program.
Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the contrary, any person determined and found to be dependent on dangerous
drugs shall, upon petition by the Board or any of its authorized representative, be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in
any Center duly designated or accredited for the purpose.
A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may be filed by any person
authorized by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where such person is found.
After the petition is filed, the court, by an order, shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and a copy of such order shall be
served on the person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs, and to the one having charge of him.
If after such hearing and the facts so warrant, the court shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two (2) physicians
accredited by the Board. If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her
discharge. If either physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing and consider all relevant evidence
which may be offered. If the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for his/her commitment to a treatment
and rehabilitation center under the supervision of the DOH. In any event, the order of discharge or order of confinement or
commitment shall be issued not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the appropriate petition.
Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation. If a person
charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is found
by the prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor or the court as the
case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board.
In the event he Board determines, after medical examination, that public interest requires that such drug dependent be
committed to a center for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his/her commitment with the regional trial
court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated or tried: Provided, That where a criminal case is pending in
court, such petition shall be filed in the said court. The court shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and
shall proceed to hear the petition. If the court finds him to be a drug dependent, it shall order his/her commitment to a Center
for treatment and rehabilitation. The head of said Center shall submit to the court every four (4) months, or as often as the
court may require, a written report on the progress of the treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated, as certified by the center
and the Board, he/she shall be returned to the court, which committed him, for his/her discharge therefrom.
Thereafter, his/her prosecution for any offense punishable by law shall be instituted or shall continue, as the case may be. In
case of conviction, the judgment shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained
good behavior, indicate that he/she shall be given full credit for the period he/she was confined in the Center: Provided,
however, That when the offense is for violation of Section 15 of this Act and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty thereof
shall be deemed to have been served in the Center upon his/her release therefrom after certification by the Center and the
Board that he/she is rehabilitated.
Section 63. Prescription of the Offense Charged Against a Drug Dependent Under the Compulsory Submission Program. The
period of prescription of the offense charged against a drug dependent under the compulsory submission program shall not
run during the time that the drug dependent is under confinement in a Center or otherwise under the treatment and
rehabilitation program approved by the Board.
Upon certification of the Center that he/she may temporarily be discharged from the said Center, the court shall order his/her
release on condition that he/she shall report to the Board through the DOH for after-care and follow-up treatment for a period
not exceeding eighteen (18) months under such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Board.
If at anytime during the after-care and follow-up period, the Board certifies to his/her complete rehabilitation, the court shall
order his/her final discharge from confinement and order for the immediate resumption of the trial of the case for which he/she
is originally charged. Should the Board through the DOH find at anytime during the after-care and follow-up period that he/she
requires further treatment and rehabilitation, it shall report to the court, which shall order his/her recommitment to the Center.
Should the drug dependent, having been committed to a Center upon petition by the Board escape therefrom, he/she may
resubmit himself/herself for confinement within one (1) week from the date of his/her escape; or his/her parent, spouse,
guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity may, within the same period, surrender him for
recommitment. If, however, the drug dependent does not resubmit himself/herself for confinement or he/she is not

38
surrendered for recommitment, the Board may apply with the court for the issuance of the recommitment order. Upon proof
of previous commitment, the court shall issue an order for recommitment. If, subsequent to such recommitment, he/she should
escape again, he/she shall no longer be exempt from criminal liability for use of any dangerous drug.
A drug dependent committed under this particular Section who is finally discharged from confinement shall be exempt from
criminal liability under Section 15 of this Act, without prejudice to the outcome of any pending case filed in court. On the other
hand, a drug dependent who is not rehabilitated after a second commitment to the Center shall, upon conviction by the
appropriate court, suffer the same penalties provided for under Section 15 of this Act again without prejudice to the outcome
of any pending case filed in court.
Section 64. Confidentiality of Records Under the Compulsory Submission Program. The records of a drug dependent who was
rehabilitated and discharged from the Center under the compulsory submission program, or who was charged for violation of
Section 15 of this Act, shall be covered by Section 60 of this Act. However, the records of a drug dependent who was not
rehabilitated, or who escaped but did not surrender himself/herself within the prescribed period, shall be forwarded to the
court and their use shall be determined by the court, taking into consideration public interest and the welfare of the drug
dependent.
Section 65. Duty of the Prosecutor in the Proceedings. It shall be the duty of the provincial or the city prosecutor or their
assistants or state prosecutors to prepare the appropriate petition in all proceedings arising from this Act.
Section 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the
time when judgment should have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits
of a suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions:
(a) He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws;
(b) He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; and
(c) The Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended.
While under suspended sentence, he/she shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the Board, under
such conditions that the court may impose for a period ranging from six (6) months to eighteen (18) months.
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court may commit the accused under suspended sentence to a Center, or to the care
of a DOH-accredited physician for at least six (6) months, with after-care and follow-up program for not more than eighteen
(18) months.
In the case of minors under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of any offense penalized under this Act,
Article 192 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1179 shall apply, without prejudice to the application of the provisions of this Section.
Section 67. Discharge After Compliance with Conditions of Suspended Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. If the accused
first time minor offender under suspended sentence complies with the applicable rules and regulations of the Board, including
confinement in a Center, the court, upon a favorable recommendation of the Board for the final discharge of the accused, shall
discharge the accused and dismiss all proceedings.
Upon the dismissal of the proceedings against the accused, the court shall enter an order to expunge all official records, other
than the confidential record to be retained by the DOJ relating to the case. Such an order, which shall be kept confidential, shall
restore the accused to his/her status prior to the case. He/she shall not be held thereafter to be guilty of perjury or of
concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his/her failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in
response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose.
Section 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence to be Availed of Only Once by a First-Time Minor Offender. The privilege of
suspended sentence shall be availed of only once by an accused drug dependent who is a first-time offender over fifteen (15)
years of age at the time of the commission of the violation of Section 15 of this Act but not more than eighteen (18) years of
age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated.
Section 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-Time Minor Offender. If the accused first-time minor offender violates any of
the conditions of his/her suspended sentence, the applicable rules and regulations of the Board exercising supervision and
rehabilitative surveillance over him, including the rules and regulations of the Center should confinement be required, the court
shall pronounce judgment of conviction and he/she shall serve sentence as any other convicted person.
Section 70. Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment. Upon promulgation of
the sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the accused under probation, even if the sentence provided under this Act
is higher than that provided under existing law on probation, or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment. In case of
probation, the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be undertaken by the Board through the DOH in coordination
with the Board of Pardons and Parole and the Probation Administration. Upon compliance with the conditions of the probation,
the Board shall submit a written report to the court recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the
probationer, whereupon the court shall issue such an order.
The community service shall be complied with under conditions, time and place as may be determined by the court in its
discretion and upon the recommendation of the Board and shall apply only to violators of Section 15 of this Act. The completion
of the community service shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the Board during the period required

39
by the court. Thereafter, the Board shall render a report on the manner of compliance of said community service. The court in
its discretion may require extension of the community service or order a final discharge.
In both cases, the judicial records shall be covered by the provisions of Sections 60 and 64 of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment, the period spent in the Center by the accused during the
suspended sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served.
Section 71. Records to be kept by the Department of Justice. The DOJ shall keep a confidential record of the proceedings on
suspension of sentence and shall not be used for any purpose other than to determine whether or not a person accused under
this Act is a first-time minor offender.
Section 72. Liability of a Person Who Violates the Confidentiality of Records. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years and a fine ranging from One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Six thousand pesos
(P6,000.00), shall be imposed upon any person who, having official custody of or access to the confidential records of any drug
dependent under voluntary submission programs, or anyone who, having gained possession of said records, whether lawfully
or not, reveals their content to any person other than those charged with the prosecution of the offenses under this Act and
its implementation. The maximum penalty shall be imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public
office, when the offender is a government official or employee. Should the records be used for unlawful purposes, such as
blackmail of the drug dependent or the members of his/her family, the penalty imposed for the crime of violation of
confidentiality shall be in addition to whatever crime he/she may be convicted of.
Section 73. Liability of a Parent, Spouse or Guardian Who Refuses to Cooperate with the Board or any Concerned Agency. Any
parent, spouse or guardian who, without valid reason, refuses to cooperate with the Board or any concerned agency in the
treatment and rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a minor, or in any manner, prevents or delays the after-care, follow-
up or other programs for the welfare of the accused drug dependent, whether under voluntary submission program or
compulsory submission program, may be cited for contempt by the court.
Section 74. Cost-Sharing in the Treatment and Rehabilitation of a Drug Dependent. The parent, spouse, guardian or any
relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity of any person who is confined under the voluntary submission program or
compulsory submission program shall be charged a certain percentage of the cost of his/her treatment and rehabilitation, the
guidelines of which shall be formulated by the DSWD taking into consideration the economic status of the family of the person
confined. The guidelines therein formulated shall be implemented by a social worker of the local government unit.
Section 75. Treatment and Rehabilitation Centers. The existing treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents
operated and maintained by the NBI and the PNP shall be operated, maintained and managed by the DOH in coordination with
other concerned agencies. For the purpose of enlarging the network of centers, the Board through the DOH shall encourage,
promote or whenever feasible, assist or support in the establishment, operations and maintenance of private centers which
shall be eligible to receive grants, donations or subsidy from either government or private sources. It shall also support the
establishment of government-operated regional treatment and rehabilitation centers depending upon the availability of funds.
The national government, through its appropriate agencies shall give priority funding for the increase of subsidy to existing
government drug rehabilitation centers, and shall establish at least one (1) drug rehabilitation center in each province,
depending on the availability of funds.
Section 76. The Duties and Responsibilities of the Department of health (DOH) Under this Act. The DOH shall:
(1) Oversee the monitor the integration, coordination and supervision of all drug rehabilitation, intervention, after-
care and follow-up programs, projects and activities as well as the establishment, operations, maintenance and
management of privately-owned drug treatment rehabilitation centers and drug testing networks and laboratories
throughout the country in coordination with the DSWD and other agencies;
(2) License, accredit, establish and maintain drug test network and laboratory, initiate, conduct and support scientific
research on drugs and drug control;
(3) Encourage, assist and accredit private centers, promulgate rules and regulations setting minimum standards for
their accreditation to assure their competence, integrity and stability;
(4) Prescribe and promulgate rules and regulations governing the establishment of such Centers as it may deem
necessary after conducting a feasibility study thereof;
(5) The DOH shall, without prejudice to the criminal prosecution of those found guilty of violating this Act, order the
closure of a Center for treatment and rehabilitation of drug dependency when, after investigation it is found guilty of
violating the provisions of this Act or regulations issued by the Board; and
(6) Charge reasonable fees for drug dependency examinations, other medical and legal services provided to the public,
which shall accrue to the Board. All income derived from these sources shall be part of the funds constituted as special
funds for the implementation of this Act under Section 87.

ARTICLE IX
Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Section 77. The Dangerous Drugs Board. The Board shall be the policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the planning
and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control. It shall develop and adopt a comprehensive,
integrated, unified and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control strategy. It shall be under the Office of the
President.

40
Section 78. Composition of the Board. The Board shall be composed of seventeen (17) members wherein three (3) of which
are permanent members, the other twelve (12) members shall be in an ex officio capacity and the two (2) shall be regular
members.
The three (3) permanent members, who shall possess at least seven-year training and experience in the field of dangerous
drugs and in any of the following fields: in law, medicine, criminology, psychology or social work, shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines. The President shall designate a Chairman, who shall have the rank of a secretary from among the
three (3) permanent members who shall serve for six (6) years. Of the two (2) other members, who shall both have the rank of
undersecretary, one (1) shall serve for four (4) years and the other for two (2) years. Thereafter, the persons appointed to
succeed such members shall hold office for a term of six (6) years and until their successors shall have been duly appointed and
qualified.
The other twelve (12) members who shall be ex officio members of the Board are the following:
(1) Secretary of the Department of Justice or his/her representative;
(2) Secretary of the Department of Health or his/her representative;
(3) Secretary of the Department of National Defense or his/her representative;
(4) Secretary of the Department of Finance or his/her representative;
(5) Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment or his/her representative;
(6) Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government or his/her representative;
(7) Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or his/her representative;
(8) Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs or his/her representative;
(9) Secretary of the Department of Education or his/her representative;
(10) Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education or his/her representative;
(11) Chairman of the National Youth Commission;
(12) Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Cabinet secretaries who are members of the Board may designate their duly authorized and permanent representatives whose
ranks shall in no case be lower than undersecretary.
The two (2) regular members shall be as follows:
(a) The president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(b) The chairman or president of a non-government organization involved in dangerous drug campaign to be appointed
by the President of the Philippines.
The Director of the NBI and the Chief of the PNP shall be the permanent consultants of the Board, and shall attend all the
meetings of the Board.
All members of the Board as well as its permanent consultants shall receive a per diem for every meeting actually attended
subject to the pertinent budgetary laws, rules and regulations on compensation, honoraria and allowances: Provided, That
where the representative of an ex officio member or of the permanent consultant of the Board attends a meeting in behalf of
the latter, such representative shall be entitled to receive the per diem.
Section 79. Meetings of the Board. The Board shall meet once a week or as often as necessary at the discretion of the
Chairman or at the call of any four (4) other members. The presence of nine (9) members shall constitute a quorum.
Section 80. Secretariat of the Board. The Board shall recommend to the President of the Philippines the appointment of an
Executive Director, with the rank of an undersecretary, who shall be the Secretary of the Board and administrative officer of its
secretariat, and shall perform such other duties that may be assigned to him/her. He/she must possess adequate knowledge,
training and experience in the field of dangerous drugs, and in any of the following fields: law enforcement, law, medicine,
criminology, psychology or social work.
Two deputies executive director, for administration and operations, with the ranks of assistant secretary, shall be appointed by
the President upon recommendation of the Board. They shall possess the same qualifications as those of the executive director.
They shall receive a salary corresponding to their position as prescribed by the Salary Standardization Law as a Career Service
Officer.
The existing secretariat of the Board shall be under the administrative control and supervision of the Executive Director. It shall
be composed of the following divisions, namely: Policy Studies, Research and Statistics; Preventive Education, Training and
Information; Legal Affairs; and the Administrative and Financial Management.
Section 81. Powers and Duties of the Board. The Board shall:
(a) Formulate, develop and establish a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national drug use prevention
and control strategy;
(b) Promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, including the
manner of safekeeping, disposition, burning or condemnation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical under its charge and custody, and prescribe administrative remedies or sanctions for the violations
of such rules and regulations;
(c) Conduct policy studies, program monitoring and evaluations and other researches on drug prevention, control and
enforcement;
(d) Initiate, conduct and support scientific, clinical, social, psychological, physical and biological researches on
dangerous drugs and dangerous drugs prevention and control measures;

41
(e) Develop an educational program and information drive on the hazards and prevention of illegal use of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical based on factual data, and disseminate the same
to the general public, for which purpose the Board shall endeavor to make the general public aware of the hazards of
any dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical by providing among others, literature, films,
displays or advertisements and by coordinating with all institutions of learning as well as with all national and local
enforcement agencies in planning and conducting its educational campaign programs to be implemented by the
appropriate government agencies;
(f) Conduct continuing seminars for, and consultations with, and provide information materials to judges and
prosecutors in coordination with the Office of the Court Administrator, in the case of judges, and the DOJ, in the case
of prosecutors, which aim to provide them with the current developments and programs of the Board pertinent to its
campaign against dangerous drugs and its scientific researches on dangerous drugs, its prevention and control
measures;
(g) Design special trainings in order to provide law enforcement officers, members of the judiciary, and prosecutors,
school authorities and personnel of centers with knowledge and know-how in dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals control in coordination with the Supreme Court to meet the objectives of the
national drug control programs;
(h) Design and develop, in consultation and coordination with the DOH, DSWD and other agencies involved in drugs
control, treatment and rehabilitation, both public and private, a national treatment and rehabilitation program for
drug dependents including a standard aftercare and community service program for recovering drug dependents;
(i) Design and develop, jointly with the DOLE and in consultation with labor and employer groups as well as
nongovernment organizations a drug abuse prevention program in the workplace that would include a provision for
employee assistance programs for emotionally-stressed employees;
(j) Initiate and authorize closure proceedings against non-accredited and/or substandard rehabilitation centers based
on verified reports of human rights violations, subhuman conditions, inadequate medical training and assistance and
excessive fees for implementation by the PDEA;
(k) Prescribe and promulgate rules and regulations governing the establishment of such centers, networks and
laboratories as deemed necessary after conducting a feasibility study in coordination with the DOH and other
government agencies;
(l) Receive, gather, collect and evaluate all information on the importation, exportation, production, manufacture,
sale, stocks, seizures of and the estimated need for any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical, for which purpose the Board may require from any official, instrumentality or agency of the government or
any private person or enterprise dealing in, or engaged in activities having to do with any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals such data or information as it may need to implement this Act;
(m) Gather and prepare detailed statistics on the importation, exportation, manufacture, stocks, seizures of and
estimates need for any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals and such other statistical
data on said drugs as may be periodically required by the United Nations Narcotics Drug Commission, the World Health
Organization and other international organizations in consonance with the country's international commitments;
(n) Develop and maintain international networking coordination with international drug control agencies and
organizations, and implement the provisions of international conventions and agreements thereon which have been
adopted and approved by the Congress of the Philippines;
(o) Require all government and private hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists and other practitioners to submit a report
to it, in coordination with the PDEA, about all dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals-
related cases to which they have attended for statistics and research purposes;
(p) Receive in trust legacies, gifts and donations of real and personal properties of all kinds, to administer and dispose
the same when necessary for the benefit of government and private rehabilitation centers subject to limitations,
directions and instructions from the donors, if any;
(q) Issue guidelines as to the approval or disapproval of applications for voluntary treatment, rehabilitation or
confinement, wherein it shall issue the necessary guidelines, rules and regulations pertaining to the application and
its enforcement;
(r) Formulate guidelines, in coordination with other government agencies, the importation, distribution, production,
manufacture, compounding, prescription, dispensing and sale of, and other lawful acts in connection with any
dangerous drug, controlled precursors and essential chemicals and other similar or analogous substances of such kind
and in such quantity as it may deem necessary according to the medical and research needs or requirements of the
country including diet pills containing ephedrine and other addictive chemicals and determine the quantity and/or
quality of dangerous drugs and controlled precursors and essential chemicals to be imported, manufactured and held
in stock at any given time by authorized importer, manufacturer or distributor of such drugs;
(s) Develop the utilization of a controlled delivery scheme in addressing the transshipment of dangerous drugs into
and out of the country to neutralize transnational crime syndicates involved in illegal trafficking of any dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;

42
 (t) Recommend the revocation of the professional license of any practitioner who is an owner, co-owner, lessee, or in
the employ of the drug establishment, or manager of a partnership, corporation, association, or any juridical entity
owning and/or controlling such drug establishment, and who knowingly participates in, or consents to, tolerates, or
abets the commission of the act of violations as indicated in the preceding paragraph, all without prejudice to the
criminal prosecution of the person responsible for the said violation;
(u) Appoint such technical, administrative and other personnel as may be necessary for the effective implementation
of this Act, subject to the Civil Service Law and its rules and regulations;
(v) Establish a regular and continuing consultation with concerned government agencies and medical professional
organizations to determine if balance exists in policies, procedures, rules and regulations on dangerous drugs and to
provide recommendations on how the lawful use of dangerous drugs can be improved and facilitated; and
(w) Submit an annual and periodic reports to the President, the Congress of the Philippines and the Senate and House
of Representatives committees concerned as may be required from time to time, and perform such other functions as
may be authorized or required under existing laws and as directed by the President himself/herself or as
recommended by the congressional committees concerned.
Section 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). To carry out the provisions of this Act, the PDEA,
which serves as the implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of
all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
The PDEA shall be headed by a Director General with the rank of Undersecretary, who shall be responsible for the general
administration and management of the Agency. The Director General of the PDEA shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines and shall perform such other duties that may be assigned to him/her. He/she must possess adequate knowledge,
training and experience in the field of dangerous drugs, and in any of the following fields: law enforcement, law, medicine,
criminology, psychology or social work.
The Director General of the PDEA shall be assisted in the performance of his/her duties and responsibilities by two (2) deputies
director general with the rank of Assistant Secretary; one for Operations and the other one for Administration. The two (2)
deputies director general shall likewise be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Board.
The two (2) deputies director general shall possess the same qualifications as those of the Director General of the PDEA. The
Director General and the two (2) deputies director general shall receive the compensation and salaries as prescribed by law.
Section 83. Organization of the PDEA. The present Secretariat of the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention
Coordinating Center as created by Executive Order No. 61 shall be accordingly modified and absorbed by the PDEA.
The Director General of the PDEA shall be responsible for the necessary changes in the organizational set-up which shall be
submitted to the Board for approval.
For purposes of carrying out its duties and powers as provided for in the succeeding Section of this Act, the PDEA shall have the
following Services, namely: Intelligence and Investigation; International Cooperation and Foreign Affairs; Preventive Education
and Community Involvement; Plans and Operations; Compliance; Legal and Prosecution; Administrative and Human Resource;
Financial Management; Logistics Management; and Internal Affairs.
The PDEA shall establish and maintain regional offices in the different regions of the country which shall be responsible for the
implementation of this Act and the policies, programs, and projects of said agency in their respective regions.
Section 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. The PDEA shall:
(a) Implement or cause the efficient and effective implementation of the national drug control strategy formulated by
the Board thereby carrying out a national drug campaign program which shall include drug law enforcement, control
and prevention campaign with the assistance of concerned government agencies;
(b) Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of this Act relative to the unlawful acts and penalties
involving any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical and investigate all violators and
other matters involved in the commission of any crime relative to the use, abuse or trafficking of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided for in this Act and the provisions of Presidential Decree
No. 1619;
(c) Administer oath, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum relative to the conduct of investigation involving the
violations of this Act;
(d) Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or confiscate, the effects or proceeds of the crimes
as provided by law and take custody thereof, for this purpose the prosecutors and enforcement agents are authorized
to possess firearms, in accordance with existing laws;
(e) Take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals seized,
confiscated or surrendered to any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency, if no longer needed for
purposes of evidence in court;
(f) Establish forensic laboratories in each PNP office in every province and city in order to facilitate action on seize or
confiscated drugs, thereby hastening its destruction without delay;
(g) Recommend to the DOJ the forfeiture of properties and other assets of persons and/or corporations found to be
violating the provisions of this Act and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Anti-Money-Laundering Act
of 2001;

43
 (h) Prepare for prosecution or cause the filing of appropriate criminal and civil cases for violation of all laws on
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, and other similar controlled substances, and assist,
support and coordinate with other government agencies for the proper and effective prosecution of the same;
(i) Monitor and if warranted by circumstances, in coordination with the Philippine Postal Office and the Bureau of
Customs, inspect all air cargo packages, parcels and mails in the central post office, which appear from the package
and address itself to be a possible importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, through on-line or cyber shops via the internet or cyberspace;
(j) Conduct eradication programs to destroy wild or illegal growth of plants from which dangerous drugs may be
extracted;
(k) Initiate and undertake the formation of a nationwide organization which shall coordinate and supervise all activities
against drug abuse in every province, city, municipality and barangay with the active and direct participation of all
such local government units and nongovernmental organizations, including the citizenry, subject to the provisions of
previously formulated programs of action against dangerous drugs;
(l) Establish and maintain a national drug intelligence system in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, other
government agencies/offices and local government units that will assist in its apprehension of big-time drug lords;
(m) Establish and maintain close coordination, cooperation and linkages with international drug control and
administration agencies and organizations, and implement the applicable provisions of international conventions and
agreements related to dangerous drugs to which the Philippines is a signatory;
(n) Create and maintain an efficient special enforcement unit to conduct an investigation, file charges and transmit
evidence to the proper court, wherein members of the said unit shall possess suitable and adequate firearms for their
protection in connection with the performance of their duties: Provided, That no previous special permit for such
possession shall be required;
(o) Require all government and private hospitals, clinics, doctors, dentists and other practitioners to submit a report
to it, in coordination with the Board, about all dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
which they have attended to for data and information purposes;
(p) Coordinate with the Board for the facilitation of the issuance of necessary guidelines, rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of this Act;
(q) Initiate and undertake a national campaign for drug prevention and drug control programs, where it may enlist the
assistance of any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-
owned and or controlled corporations, in the anti-illegal drugs drive, which may include the use of their respective
personnel, facilities, and resources for a more resolute detection and investigation of drug-related crimes and
prosecution of the drug traffickers; and
(r) Submit an annual and periodic reports to the Board as may be required from time to time, and perform such other
functions as may be authorized or required under existing laws and as directed by the President himself/herself or as
recommended by the congressional committees concerned.
Section 85. The PDEA Academy. Upon the approval of the Board, the PDEA Academy shall be established either in Baguio or
Tagaytay City, and in such other places as may be necessary. The PDEA Academy shall be responsible in the recruitment and
training of all PDEA agents and personnel. The Board shall provide for the qualifications and requirements of its recruits who
must be at least twenty-one (21) years old, of proven integrity and honesty and a Baccalaureate degree holder.
The graduates of the Academy shall later comprise the operating units of the PDEA after the termination of the transition period
of five (5) years during which all the intelligence network and standard operating procedures of the PDEA has been set up and
operationalized.
The Academy shall be headed by a Superintendent, with the rank of Director. He/she shall be appointed by the PDEA Director
General.
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions.
The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby
abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening,
until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA
Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either
being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned
to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA
shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their
respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within
eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given
until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided
for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad
hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The

44
NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the
Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
ARTICLE X
Appropriations, Management of Funds and Annual Report
Section 87. Appropriations. The amount necessary for the operation of the Board and the PDEA shall be charged against the
current year's appropriations of the Board, the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center, the
Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and other drug abuse units of the different law enforcement
agencies integrated into the PDEA in order to carry out the provisions of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary
for the continued implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
All receipts derived from fines, fees and other income authorized and imposed in this Act, including ten percent (10%) of all
unclaimed and forfeited sweepstakes and lotto prizes but not less than twelve million pesos (P12,000,000.00) per year from
the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), are hereby constituted as a special account in the general fund for the
implementation of this Act: Provided, That no amount shall be disbursed to cover the operating expenses of the Board and
other concerned agencies: Provided, further, That at least fifty percent (50%) of all the funds shall be reserved for assistance to
government-owned and/or operated rehabilitation centers.
The fines shall be remitted to the Board by the court imposing such fines within thirty (30) days from the finality of its decisions
or orders. The unclaimed and forfeited prizes shall be turned over to the Board by the PCSO within thirty (30) days after these
are collected and declared forfeited.
A portion of the funds generated by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) in the amount of Five million
pesos (P5,000,000.00) a month shall be set aside for the purpose of establishing adequate drug rehabilitation centers in the
country and also for the maintenance and operations of such centers: Provided, That the said amount shall be taken from the
fifty percent (50%) share of the National Government in the income of PAGCOR: Provided, further, That the said amount shall
automatically be remitted by PAGCOR to the Board. The amount shall, in turn, be disbursed by the Dangerous Drugs Board,
subject to the rules and regulations of the Commission on Audit (COA).
The fund may be augmented by grants, donations, and endowment from various sources, domestic or foreign, for purposes
related to their functions, subject to the existing guidelines set by the government.
Section 88. Management of Funds Under this Act; Annual Report by the Board and the PDEA. The Board shall manage the
funds as it may deem proper for the attainment of the objectives of this Act. In addition to the periodic reports as may be
required under this Act, the Chairman of the Board shall submit to the President of the Philippines and to the presiding officers
of both houses of Congress, within fifteen (15) days from the opening of the regular session, an annual report on the dangerous
drugs situation in the country which shall include detailed account of the programs and projects undertaken, statistics on crimes
related to dangerous drugs, expenses incurred pursuant to the provisions of this Act, recommended remedial legislation, if
needed, and such other relevant facts as it may deem proper to cite.
Section 89. Auditing the Accounts and Expenses of the Board and the PDEA. All accounts and expenses of the Board and the
PDEA shall be audited by the COA or its duly authorized representative.
ARTICLE XI
Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Cases
Section 90. Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in
each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated in each
judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their respective jurisdiction.
The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.
The preliminary investigation of cases filed under this Act shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date
of their filing.
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is established, the corresponding
information shall be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the investigation. If the preliminary
investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the
proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the records of the case.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the
information. Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the
case for resolution.
Section 91. Responsibility and Liability of Law Enforcement Agencies and other Government Officials and Employees in
Testifying as Prosecution Witnesses in Dangerous Drugs Cases. 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 Act, without any valid reason, shall be punished with
imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), in addition to the administrative liability he/she may be meted out by his/her immediate
superior and/or appropriate body.
The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the
preceding paragraph shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more than
six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)

45
and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness
concerned, the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
The member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee mentioned in the preceding paragraphs shall
not be transferred or re-assigned to any other government office located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency
of the case in court. However, the concerned member of the law enforcement agency or government employee may be
transferred or re-assigned for compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her immediate superior shall notify the court where the
case is pending of the order to transfer or re-assign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its approval; Provided, further, That
his/her immediate superior shall be penalized with imprisonment of not less than two (2) months and one (1) day but not more
than six (6) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) and in addition, perpetual absolute disqualification from public office, should he/she fail to notify the court of
such order to transfer or re-assign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any existing law.
Section 92. Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases. Any government officer or employee tasked with the
prosecution of drug-related cases under this act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or
deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years without prejudice to his/her prosecution
under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 93. Reclassification, Addition or Removal of Any Drug from the List of Dangerous Drugs. The Board shall have the
power to reclassify, add to or remove from the list of dangerous drugs. Proceedings to reclassify, add, or remove a drug or
other substance may be initiated by the PDEA, the DOH, or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer
of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a
national or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the Board, it shall immediately
begin its own investigation of the drug. The PDEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon the
information received from law enforcement laboratories, national and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other
sources of information.
The Board after notice and hearing shall consider the following factors with respect to each substance proposed to be
reclassified, added or removed from control:
(a) Its actual or relative potential for abuse;
(b) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect if known;
(c) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance;
(d) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(e) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(f) Risk to public health; and
(g) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this Act.
The Board shall also take into accord the obligations and commitments to international treaties, conventions and agreements
to which the Philippines is a signatory.
The Dangerous Drugs Board shall give notice to the general public of the public hearing of the reclassification, addition to or
removal from the list of any drug by publishing such notice in any newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2)
weeks.
The effect of such reclassification, addition or removal shall be as follows:
(a) In case a dangerous drug is reclassified as precursors and essential chemicals, the penalties for the violations of this
Act involving the two latter categories of drugs shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal
prosecutions;
(b) In case a precursors and essential chemicals is reclassified as dangerous drug, the penalties for violations of the Act
involving precursors and essential chemicals shall, in case of conviction, be imposed in all pending criminal
prosecutions;
(c) In case of the addition of a new drug to the list of dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals, no
criminal liability involving the same under this Act shall arise until after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the last
publication of such notice;
(d) In case of removal of a drug from the list of dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals, all persons
convicted and/or detained for the use and/or possession of such a drug shall be automatically released and all pending
criminal prosecution involving such a drug under this Act shall forthwith be dismissed; and
(e) The Board shall, within five (5) days from the date of its promulgation submit to Congress a detailed reclassification,
addition, or removal of any drug from the list of dangerous drugs.
ARTICLE XII
Implementing Rules and Regulations
Section 94. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The present Board in consultation with the DOH, DILG, DOJ, DepEd, DSWD,
DOLE, PNP, NBI, PAGCOR and the PCSO and all other concerned government agencies shall promulgate within sixty (60) days
the Implementing Rules and Regulations that shall be necessary to implement the provisions of this Act.
ARTICLE XIII

46
Final Provisions
Section 95. Congressional Oversight Committee. There is hereby created a Congressional Oversight Committee composed of
seven (7) Members from the Senate and seven (7) Members from the House of Representatives. The Members from the Senate
shall be appointed by the Senate President based on the proportional representation of the parties or coalitions therein with
at least two (2) Senators representing the Minority. The Members from the House of Representatives shall be appointed by the
Speaker, also based on proportional representation of the parties or coalitions therein with at least two (2) Members
representing the Minority.
The Committee shall be headed by the respective Chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs and
the House of Representatives Committee on Dangerous Drugs.
Section 96. Powers and Functions of the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall, in aid of
legislation, perform the following functions, among others:
(a) To set the guidelines and overall framework to monitor and ensure the proper implementation of this Act;
(b) To ensure transparency and require the submission of reports from government agencies concerned on the
conduct of programs, projects and policies relating to the implementation of this act;
(c) To approve the budget for the programs of the Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs and all disbursements
therefrom, including compensation of all personnel;
(d) To submit periodic reports to the President of the Philippines and Congress on the implementation of the provisions
of this Act;
(e) To determine inherent weaknesses in the law and recommend the necessary remedial legislation or executive
measures; and
(f) To perform such other duties, functions and responsibilities as may be necessary to effectively attain the objectives
of this Act.
Section 97. Adoption of Committee Rules and Regulations, and Funding. The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall
adopt its internal rules of procedure, conduct hearings and receive testimonies, reports, and technical advice, invite or summon
by subpoena ad testificandum any public official, private citizen, or any other person to testify before it, or require any person
by subpoena duces tecum documents or other materials as it may require consistent with the provisions of this Act.
The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall be assisted by a secretariat to be composed by personnel who may be
seconded from the Senate and the House of Representatives and may retain consultants.
To carry out the powers and functions of the Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs, the initial sum of Twenty-five million
pesos (P25,000,000.00) shall be charged against the current appropriations of the Senate. Thereafter, such amount necessary
for its continued operations shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
The Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs shall exist for a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act and may
be extended by a joint concurrent resolution.
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the
case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided
herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Section 99. Separability Clause. If for any reason any section or provision of this Act, or any portion thereof, or the application
of such section, provision or portion thereof to any person, group or circumstance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act shall not be affected by such declaration and shall remain in force and effect.
Section 100. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, is hereby repealed and all other laws, administrative
orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Section 101. Amending Clause. Republic Act No. 7659 is hereby amended accordingly.
Section 102. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers
of general circulation.

ANNEX
1988 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
LIST OF SUBSTANCES IN TABLE I
1. ACETIC ANHYDRIDE2. N-ACETYLANTHRANILIC ACID3. EPHEDRINE4. ERGOMETRINE5. ERGOTAMINE6. ISOSAFROLE7.
LYSERGIC ACID8. 3, 4-METHYLENEDIOXYPHENYL-2 PROPANONE9. NOREPHEDRINE10. 1-PHENYL-2-PROPANONE11.
PIPERONAL12. POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE13. PSEUDOEPHEDRINE14. SAFROLE
THE SALTS OF THE SUBSTANCES LISTED IN THIS TABLE WHENEVER THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SALTS IS POSSIBLE.
LIST OF SUBSTANCES IN TABLE II
1. ACETONE2. ANTHRANILIC ACID3. ETHYL ETHER4. HYDROCHLORIC ACID5. METHYL ETHYL KETONE6. PHENYLACETIC
ACID7. PIPERIDINE8. SULPHURIC ACID9. TOLUENE
THE SALTS OF THE SUBSTANCES LISTED IN THIS TABLE WHENEVER THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SALTS IS POSSIBLE (THE SALTS OF
HYDROCHLORIC ACID AND SULPHURIC ACID ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED)
1961 UNITED NATIONS SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AS AMENDED BY THE 1972 PROTOCOL

47
LIST OF DRUGS INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE I
1. Acetorphine2. Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl3. Acetylmethadol4. Alfentanil5. Allylprodine6. Alphacetylmethadol7.
Alphameprodine8. Alphamethadol9. Alpha-methylfentanyl10. Alpha-methylthiofentanyl11. Alphaprodine12.
Anileridine13. Benzethidine14. Benzylmorphine15. Betacetylmethadol16. Beta-hydroxyfentanyl17. Beta-hydroxy-3-
methylfentanyl18. Betameprodine19. Betamethadol20. Betaprodine21. Bezitramide22. Cannabis and Cannabis resin
and extracts and tinctures of cannabis23. Clonitazene24. Coca leaf25. Cocaine26. Codoxime27. Concentrate of poppy
straw28. Desomorphine29. Dextromoramide30. Diampromide31. Diethylthiambutene32. Difenoxin33.
Dihydroetorphine34. Dihydromorphine35. Dihydromorphine*36. Dimenoxadol37. Dimepheptanol38.
Dimethylthiambutene39. Dioxaphetyl butyrate40. Diphenoxylate41. Dipipanone42. Drotebanol43. Ecgonine44.
Ethylmethylthiambutene45. Etonitazene46. Etorphine47. Etoxeridine48. Fentanyl49. Furethidine50. Heroin51.
Hydrocodone52. Hydromorphinol53. Hydromorphone54. Hydroxypethidine55. Isomethadone56. Ketobemidone57.
Levomethorphan58. Levomoramide59. Levophenacylmorphan60. Levorphanol61. Metazocine62. Methadone63.
Methadone Intermediate64. Methyldesorphine65. Methyldihydromorphine66. 3-methylfentanyl67. 3-
methylthiofentanyl68. Metopon69. Moramide intermediate70. Morpheridine71. Morphine72. Morphine
methobromide73. Morphine-N-oxide74. MPPP75. Myrophine76. Nicomorphine77. Noracymethadol78.
Norlevorphanol79. Normethadone80. Normorphine81. Norpipanone82. Opium83. Oxycodone84.
Oxymorphone85. Para-fluorofentanyl86. PEPAP87. Pethidine88. Pethidine intermediate A89. Pethidine intermediate
B90. Pethidine intermediate C91. Phenadoxone92. Phenampromide93. Phenazocine94. Phenomorphan95.
Phenoperidine96. Piminodine97. Piritramide98. Proheptazine99. Properidine100. Racemethorphan101.
Racemoramide102. Racemorphan103. Remifentanil104. Sufentanil105. Thebacon106. Thebaine107. Thiofentanyl108.
Tilidine109. Trimeperidine
-----
*
Dextromethorphan (+)-3-methoxy-N-methylmorphinan and dextrorphan (+)-3-hydroxy-N-methylmorphinan are isomers
specifically excluded from this Schedule.
AND the isomers, unless specifically excepted, of the drugs in this Schedule whenever the existence of such isomers is possible
within the specific chemical designation;
The esters and ethers, unless appearing in another Schedule, of the drugs in this Schedule whenever the existence of such
esters or ethers is possible;
The salts of the drugs listed in this Schedule, including the salts of esters, ethers and isomers as provided above whenever the
existence of such salts is possible.
LIST OF DRUGS INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE II
1. Acetyldihydrocodeine2. Codeine3. Dextropropoxyphene4. Dihydrocodeine5. Ethylmorphine6. Nicocodine7.
Nicodicodine8. Norcodeine9. Pholcodine10. Propiram
And the isomers, unless specifically excepted, of the drugs in this Schedule whenever the existence of such isomers is possible
within the specific chemical designation.
The salts of the drugs listed in this Schedule, including the salts of the isomers as provided above whenever the existence of
such salts is possible.
LIST OF DRUGS INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE III

1. Acetyldihydrocodeine,Codeine,Dihydrocodeine,Ethylmorphine,Nicocodine,Nicodicodine,Norcodein
Preparation e andPholcodineWhen compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing not more
s of : than milligrams of the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than 2.5 per cent
in undivided preparations.

2. Propiram containing not more than 100 milligrams of propiram per dosage unit and compounded
Preparation with at least the same amount of Methylcellulose.
s of :

3. Dextropropoxyphene for oral use containing not more than 135 milligrams of dextropropoxyphene
Preparation base per dosage unit or with a concentration of not more than 2.5 per cent in undivided
s of : preparations, provided that such preparations do not contain any substance controlled under the
Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971.

4. Cocaine containing not more than 0.1 per cent of cocaine calculated as cocaine base; and
Preparation Opium or morphine containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine calculated as anhydrous
s of : morphine base and compounded with one or more other ingredients and in such a way that the drug
Preparation cannot be recovered by readily applicable means or in a yield that would constitute a risk to public
s of: health.

48
 5. Difenoxin containing, per dosage unit, not more than 0.5 milligrams of difenoxin and a quantity of
Preparation atropine sulfate equivalent to at least 5 per cent of the dose of difenoxin.
s of :

6. Diphenoxylate containing per dosage unit, not more than 2.5 milligrams diphenoxylate calculated as
Preparation base and a quantity of atropine sulfate equivalent to at least 1 per cent of the dose of diphenoxylate.
s of :

7. Pulvis ipecacuanhae et opii compositus

Preparation 10 per cent opium in powder10 per cent ipecacuanha root, in powder well mixed with80
s of : per cent of any other powdered ingredient containing no drug.

8. Preparations conforming to any of the formulas listed in this Schedule and mixtures such preparations with any
material which contains no drug.
LIST OF DRUGS INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE IV
1. Acetorphine2. Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl3. Alpha-methylfentanyl4. Alpha-methylthiofentanyl5. Beta-hydroxy-3-
methylfentanyl6. Beta-hydroxyfentanyl7. Cannabis and Cannabis resin8. Desomorphine9. Etorphine10. Heroin11.
Ketobemidone12. 3-methylfentanyl13. 3-methylthiofentanyl14. MPPP15. Para-fluorofentanyl16. PEPAP17.
Thiofentanyl
AND the salts of the drugs listed in this Schedule whenever the formation of such salts is possible
1971 UNITED NATIONS SINGLE CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
LIST OF SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULE I
BROLAMFETAMINE (DOB) ()-4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxy-a-methylphenethylamine
Dimethoxybromoamphetamine

CATHINONE (-)-(S)-2-Aminopropiophenone

DET 3-[2-(Diethylamino)ethyl)indole)

DMA ()-2,5-DIMETHOXY-a-methylphenethylamine
2,5 Dimethoxyamphetamine

DMPH 3-(1,2-Dimethylhepty)-7,8,9,-10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-
dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol

DMT 3-[2-(Dimethylamino)ethyl]indole

DOET ()-4-Ethyl-2,5-dimethoxy-a-phorethylamine
2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine

ETICYCLIDINE (PCE) N-Ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine

ETRYPAMINE 3-(2-Aminobutyl)indole

(+)-LYSERGIDE (LSD, LSD-25) 9,10-Didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergoline-8b- carboxamide

MDA (+)-N, a-Dimethyl-3,4-(methylene-dioxy)phenethylamine

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine

MESCALINE 3,4,5-Trimethoxyphenethylamine

METHCATHINONE 2-(Methylamino)-1-phenylpropan-1-one

4-METHYLAMINOREX (+)-cis-2-Amino-4-methyl-5-phenyl-2-oxazoline

MMDA 2-Methoxy-a-methyl-4,5-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine
5-Methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine

N-ETHYL MDA (+)-N-Ethyl-a-methyl-3,4(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine

3-4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine

49
 N-HYDROXY MDA (+)-N-[a-Methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethyl]-hydroxylamine

PARAHEXYL 3-Hexyl-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,-9-trimethyl-6H-
dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol

PMA p-Methoxy-a-methylphenethylamine
Paramethoxyamphetamine

PSILOCINE, PSILOTSIN 3-[2-(Dimethylamino)ethyl]indol-4-ol

PSILOCYBINE 3-[2-(Dimethylamino)ethyl]indol-4-yl
dihydrogen phosphate

ROLICYCLIDINE (PHP, PCPY) 1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine

STP, DOM 2,5-Dimethoxy-a,4-dimethylphenethylamine

TENAMFETAMINE (MDA) a-Methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine

Methylenedioxyamphetamine

TENOCYCLIDINE (TCP) 1-[1-(2-Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperridine

TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL - the following isomers and their stereochemical variants:

7,8,9,10-Tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-
6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
(9R,10aR)-8,9,10,10a-Tetrahydro-6,6,9-
trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
(6aR,9R,10aR)-6a,9,10,10a-Tetrahydro-6,6,9-
trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
(6aR,10aR)-6a,7,10,10a-Tetrahydro-6,6,9-
trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
(6a,7,8,9-Tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-
6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol
(6aR,10aR)-6a,7,8,9,10,10a-Hexahydro-
6,6,dimethyl-9-methylene-3-pentyl-6H-
Dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol

TMA ()-3,4,5-Trimethoxy-a methylphenethylamine

3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine
4-MIA-(a-methyl-4-methylthiophenethylamine)
The stereoisomers, unless specifically excepted, of substances in this Schedule, whenever the existence of such stereou\isomers
is possible within the specific chemical designation.
LIST OF SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULE II
1. AMFETAMINE (AMPHETAMINE)2. DEXAMFETAMINE (DEXAMPHETAMINE)3. FENETYLLINE4. LEVAMFETAMINE
(LEVAMPHETAMINE)5. LEVOMETHAMPHETAMINE6. MECLOQUALONE7. METAMFETAMINE (METHAMPHETAMINE)8.
METHAMPHETAMINE RACEMATE9. METHAQUALONE10. METHYLPHENIDATE11. PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP)12.
PHENMETRAZINE13. SECOBARBITAL14. DRONABINOL (delta-9-tetrahydro-cannabinol and its stereochemical
variants)15. ZIPEPROL16. 2C-B(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine)
LIST OF SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULE III
1. AMOBARBITAL2. BUPRENORPHINE3. BUTALBITAL4. CATHINE (+)-norpseudo-ephedrine5. CYCLOBARBITAL6.
FLUNITRAZEPAM7. GLUTETHIMIDE8. PENTAZOCINE9. PENTOBARBITAL
Substances in Schedule IV
1. ALLOBARBITAL2. ALPRAZOLAM3. AMFEPRAMONE 4. AMINOREX5. BARBITAL6.
BENZFETAMINE(benzphetamine)7. BROMAZEPAM8. Butobarbital9. BROTIZOLAM10. CAMAZEPAM11.
CHLORDIAZEPOXIDE12. CLOBAZAM13. CLONAZEPAM14. CLORAZEPATE15. CLOTIAZEPAM16. CLOXAZOLAM17.
DELORAZEPAM18. DIAZEPAM19. ESTAZOLAM20. ETHCHLORVYNOL21. ETHINAMATE22. ETHYL LOFLAZEPATE23.
ETILAMFETAMINE(N-ethylampetamine)24. FENCAMFAMIN25. FENPROPOREX26. FLUDIAZEPAM27.
FLURAZEPAM28. HALAZEPAM29. HALOXAZOLAM30. KETAZOLAM31. LEFETAMINE(SPA)32. LOPRAZOLAM33.
LORAZEPAM34. LORMETAZEPAM35. MAZINDOL36. MEDAZEPAM37. MEFENOREX38. MEPROBAMATE39.
MESOCARB40. METHYLPHENOBARBITAL41. METHYPRYLON42. MIDAZOLAM43. NIMETAZEPAM44. NITRAZEPAM45.

50
 NORDAZEPAM46. OXAZEPAM47. OXAZOLAM48. PEMOLINE49. PHENDIMETRAZINE50. PHENOBARBITAL51.
PHENTERMINE52. PINAZEPAM53. PIPRADROL54. PRAZEPAM55. PYROVALERONE56. SECBUTABARBITAL57.
TEMAZEPAM58. TETRAZEPAM59. TRIAZOLAM60. VINYLBITAL GHB (Gamma-Hydroxyburic acid)61. Zolpidem

RA 7170 Organ Donation Act of 1991 January 7, 1992

Republic Act No. 7170 January 7, 1992AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE LEGACY OR DONATION OF ALL OR PART OF A HUMAN
BODY AFTER DEATH
FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
Section 1.Title. This Act shall be known as the"Organ Donation Act of 1991".
Section 2.Definition of Terms. As used in this Act the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Organ Bank Storage Facility" - a facility licensed, accredited or approved under the law for storage of human
bodies or parts thereof.
(b) "Decedent" - a deceased individual, and includes a still-born infant or fetus.
(c) "Testator" - an individual who makes a legacy of all or part of his body.
(d) "Donor" - an individual authorized under this Act to donate all or part of the body of a decedent.1awphilalf
(e) "Hospital" - a hospital licensed, accredited or approval under the law, and includes, a hospital operated by the
Government.
(f) "Part" - includes transplantable organs, tissues, eyes, bones, arteries, blood, other fluids and other portions of the
human body.
(g) "Person" - an individual, corporation, estate, trust, partnership, association, the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations; or any other
legal entity.
(h) "Physician" or "Surgeon" - a physician or surgeon licensed or authorized to practice medicine under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines.
(i) "Immediate Family" of the decedent - the persons enumerated in Section 4(a) of this Act.
(j) "Death" - the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or the irreversible cessation of all
functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. A person shall be medically and legally dead if either:1awphilalf
(1) In the opinion of the attending physician, based on the acceptable standards of medical practice, there is
an absence of natural respiratory and cardiac functions and, attempts at resuscitation would not be successful
in restoring those functions. In this case, death shall be deemed to have occurred at the time these functions
ceased; or
(2) In the opinion of the consulting physician, concurred in by the attending physician, that on the basis of
acceptable standards of medical practice, there is an irreversible cessation of all brain functions; and
considering the absence of such functions, further attempts at resuscitation or continued supportive
maintenance would not be successful in resorting such natural functions. In this case, death shall be deemed
to have occurred at the time when these conditions first appeared.
The death of the person shall be determined in accordance with the acceptable standards of medical practice and shall be
diagnosed separately by the attending physician and another consulting physician, both of whom must be appropriately
qualified and suitably experienced in the care of such parties. The death shall be recorded in the patient's medical record.
Section 3.Person Who May Execute A Legacy. Any individual, at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sound mind, may give
by way of legacy, to take effect after his death, all or part of his body for any purpose specified in Section 6 hereof.
Section 4.Person Who May Execute a Donation.
(a) Any of the following, person, in the order of property stated hereunder, in the absence of actual notice of contrary
intentions by the decedent or actual notice of opposition by a member of the immediate family of the decedent, may
donate all or any part of the decedent's body for any purpose specified in Section 6 hereof:
(1) Spouse;
(2) Son or daughter of legal age;
(3) Either parent;
(4) Brother or sister of legal age; or
(5) Guardian over the person of the decedent at the time of his death.
(b) The persons authorized by sub-section (a) of this Section may make the donation after or immediately before
death.
Section 5.Examination of Human Body or Part Thereof. A legacy of donation of all or part of a human body authorizes any
examination necessary to assure medical acceptability of the legacy or donation for the purpose(s) intended.
For purposes of this Act, an autopsy shall be conducted on the cadaver of accident, trauma, or other medico-legal cases
immediately after the pronouncement of death, to determine qualified and healthy human organs for transplantation and/or
in furtherance of medical science.

51
Section 6.Persons Who May Become Legatees or Donees. The following persons may become legatees or donees of human
bodies or parts thereof for any of the purposes stated hereunder:
(a) Any hospital, physician or surgeon - For medical or dental education, research, advancement of medical or dental
science, therapy or transplantation;
(b) Any accredited medical or dental school, college or university - For education, research, advancement of medical
or dental science, or therapy;
(c) Any organ bank storage facility - For medical or dental education, research, therapy, or transplantation; and
(d) Any specified individual - For therapy or transplantation needed by him.
Section 7.Duty of Hospitals. A hospital authorized to receive organ donations or to conduct transplantation shall train
qualified personnel and their staff to handle the task of introducing the organ donation program in a humane and delicate
manner to the relatives of the donor-decedent enumerated in Section 4 hereof. The hospital shall accomplish the necessary
form or document as proof of compliance with the above requirement.
Section 8.Manner of Executing a Legacy.
(a) Legacy of all or part of the human body under Section 3 hereof may be made by will. The legacy becomes effective
upon the death of the testator without waiting for probate of the will. If the will is not probated, or if it is declared
invalid for testamentary purposes, the legacy, to the extent that it was executed in good faith, is nevertheless valid
and effective.
(b) A legacy of all or part of the human body under Section 3 hereof may also be made in any document other than a
will. The legacy becomes effective upon death of the testator and shall be respected by and binding upon his executor
or administrator, heirs, assigns, successors-in-interest and all members of the family. The document, which may be a
card or any paper designed to be carried on a person, must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses
who must sign the document in his presence. If the testator cannot sign, the document may be signed for him at his
discretion and in his presence, in the presence of two witnesses who must, likewise, sign the document in the presence
of the testator. Delivery of the document of legacy during the testator's lifetime is not necessary to make the legacy
valid.
(c) The legacy may be made to a specified legatee or without specifying a legatee. If the legacy is made to a specified
legatee who is not available at the time and place of the testator's death, the attending physician or surgeon, in the
absence of any expressed indication that the testator desired otherwise, may accept the legacy as legatee. If the legacy
does not specify a legatee, the legacy may be accepted by the attending physician or surgeon as legatee upon or
following the testator's death. The physician who becomes a legatee under this subsection shall not participate in the
procedures for removing or transplanting a part or parts of the body of the decedent.
(d) The testator may designate in his will, card or other document, the surgeon or physician who will carry out the
appropriate procedures. In the absence of a designation, or if the designee is not available, the legatee or other
persons authorized to accept the legacy may authorize any surgeon or physician for the purpose.
Section 9.Manner of Executing a Donation. Any donation by a person authorized under subsection (a) of Section 4 hereof
shall be sufficient if it complies with the formalities of a donation of a movable property.
In the absence of any of the persons specified under Section 4 hereof and in the absence of any document of organ donation,
the physician in charge of the patient, the head of the hospital or a designated officer of the hospital who has custody of the
body of the deceased classified as accident, trauma, or other medico-legal cases, may authorize in a public document the
removal from such body for the purpose of transplantation of the organ to the body of a living person: Provided, That the
physician, head of hospital or officer designated by the hospital for this purpose has exerted reasonable efforts, within forty-
eight (48) hours, to locate the nearest relative listed in Section 4 hereof or guardian of the decedent at the time of death.
In all donations, the death of a person from whose body an organ will be removed after his death for the purpose of
transplantation to a living person, shall be diagnosed separately and certified by two (2) qualified physicians neither of whom
should be:
(a) A member of the team of medical practitioners who will effect the removal of the organ from the body; nor
(b) The physician attending to the receipt of the organ to be removed; nor
(c) The head of hospital or the designated officer authorizing the removal of the organ.
Section 10.Person(s) Authorized to Remove Transplantable Organs. Only authorized medical practitioners in a hospital shall
remove and/or transplant any organ which is authorized to be removed and/or transplanted pursuant to Section 5 hereof.
Section 11.Delivery of Document of Legacy or Donation. If the legacy or donation is made to a specified legatee or donee,
the will, card or other document, or an executed copy thereof, may be delivered by the testator or donor, or is authorized
representative, to the legatee or donee to expedite the appropriate procedures immediately after death. The will, card or other
document, or an executed copy thereof, may be deposited in any hospital or organ bank storage facility that accepts it for
safekeeping or for facilitation or procedures after death. On the request of any interested party upon or after the testator's
death, the person in possession shall produce the document of legacy or donation for verification.
Section 12.Amendment or Revocation of Legacy or Donation.
a) If he will, card or other document, or an executed copy thereof, has been delivered to a specific legatee or donee,
the testator or donor may amend or revoke the legacy or donation either by:
(1) The execution and delivery to the legatee or donee of a signed statement to that effect; or

52
 (2) An oral statement to that effect made in the presence of two other persons and communicated to the
legatee or donee; or
(3) A statement to that effect during a terminal illness or injury addressed to an attending physician and
communicated to the legatee or donee; or
(4) A signed card or document to that effect found on the person or effects of the testator or donor.
(b) Any will, card or other document, or an executed copy thereof, which has not been delivered to the legatee or
donee may be revoked by the testator or donor in the manner provided in subsection (a) of this Section or by
destruction, cancellation or mutilation of the document and all executed copies thereof.
Any legacy made by a will may also be amended or revoked in the manner provided for amendment or revocation of
wills, or as provided in subsection (a) of this Section.
Section 13.Rights and Duties After Death.
(a) The legatee or donee may accept or reject the legacy or donation as the case may be. If the legacy of donation is
of a part of the body, the legatee or donee, upon the death of the testator and prior to embalming, shall effect the
removal of the part, avoiding unnecessary mutilation. After removal of the part, custody of the remainder of the body
vests in the surviving spouse, next of kin or other persons under obligation to dispose of the body of the decedent.
(b) Any person who acts in good faith in accordance with the terms of this Act shall not be liable for damages in any
civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding of this Act.
Section 14.International Sharing of Human Organs or Tissues. Sharing of human organs or tissues shall be made only through
exchange programs duly approved by the Department of Health: Provided, That foreign organ or tissue bank storage facilities
and similar establishments grant reciprocal rights to their Philippine counterparts to draw organs or tissues at any time.
Section 15.Information Drive. In order that the public will obtain the maximum benefits from this Act, the Department of
Health, in cooperation with institutions, such as the National Kidney Institute, civic and non-government health organizations
and other health related agencies, involved in the donation and transplantation of human organs, shall undertake a public
information program.
The Secretary of Health shall endeavor to persuade all health professionals, both government and private, to make an appeal
for human organ donation.
Section 16.Rules and Regulations. The Secretary of Health, after consultation with all health professionals, both government
and private, and non-government health organizations shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary or
proper to implement this Act.
Section 17.Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, ordinances, rules and regulations, executive or administrative orders, and
other presidential issuance inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 18.Separability Clause. The provisions of this Act are hereby deemed separable. If any provision hereof should be
declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 19.Effectivity. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or at least
two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: January 7, 1992

AN ACT TO ADVANCE CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY (R. A. NO. 7170), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ORGAN
DONATION ACT OF 1991
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Third Regular Session
Begun and held In Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and ninety-four.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7885]
AN ACT TO ADVANCE CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY (R. A. NO. 7170), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ORGAN
DONATION ACT OF 1991
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7170 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEC. 9. Manner of Executing a Donation. Any donation by a person authorizing under subsection (a) of Section 4 hereof shall
be sufficient if it complies with the formalities of a donation of a movable property.
In the absence of any persons specified under Section 4 hereof and in the absence of any document of organ donation, the
physician in charge of the patient, the head of the hospital or a designated officer of the hospital who has custody of the body
of the deceased classified as accident, trauma, or other medico-legal cases, may authorize in a public document the removal
from such body for the purpose of transplantation of the organ to the body of a living person: Provided, That the physician,

53
 head of the hospital or officer designated by the hospital for this purpose has exerted reasonable efforts, within forty-eight
(48) hours, to locate the nearest relative listed in Section 4 hereof or guardian of the decedent at the time of death: Provided,
however, That the said physician, head or designated officer of the hospital, or the medico-legal officer of any government
agency which has custody of such body may authorize the removal of the cornea or corneas of the decedent within twelve (12)
hours after death and upon the request of qualified legatees or donees for the sole purpose of transplantation: Provided, That
such removal of the cornea or corneas will not interfere with any subsequent investigation or alter the post-mortem facial
appearance of the decedent by such means as placing eye caps after the said cornea or corneas have been removed.
In all donations, the death of a person from whose body and organ will be removed after his death for the purpose of
transplantation to a living person, shall be diagnosed separately and certified by two (2) qualified physicians neither of whom
shall be:
(a) A member of the team of medical practitioners who will effect the removal of the organ from the body, nor
(b) The physician attending to recipient of the organ to be removed; nor
(c) The head of hospital or the designated officer authorizing the removal of the organ.
SEC. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7170 is also amended to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Person(s) Authorized to Remove and Transplant Organs and Tissues. Only authorized medical practitioners in a
hospital shall remove and/or transplant any organ which is authorized to be removed and/or transplanted pursuant to Section
5 hereof: Provided, however, that the removal of corneal tissues shall be performed only by ophthalmic surgeons and
ophthalmic technicians trained in the methodology of such procedure and duly certified by the accredited National Association
of Ophthalmologists.
SEC. 3. The implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 7170 shall be amended accordingly by the Secretary of
Health, in consultation with professional health groups and non-government health organizations, to make it consistent with
the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act are hereby declared separable, and in the event any such provisions is declared
unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in force and effect.
SEC. 5. All other laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

Q. DR. FILOTEO A. ALANO vs. ZENAIDA MAGUD-LOGMAO G.R. No. 175540 April 7, 2014
NAME DR. FILOTEO A. ALANO vs. ZENAIDA MAGUD-LOGMAO G.R. No. 175540 April 7, 2014

FACT At around 9:50pm of March 1, 1988, Arnelito Logmao then 18 y/o, was brought to the East Avenue Medical Center
(EAMC) in Quezon City by two sidewalk vendors, who allegedly saw the former fall from the overpass near the Farmers
Market in Cubao, Quezon City. The patients data sheet identified the patient as Angelito Lugmoso of Boni Ave.,
Mandaluyong. However, the clinical abstract prepared by Dr. Paterno F. Cabrera, the surgical resident on-duty at the
emergency room of EAMC, stated the patient is Angelito Logmao. Dr. Cabrera reported that Logmao was drowsy with
alcoholic breath, was conscious and coherent; that the skull x-ray showed no fracture; that at around 4:30am of March
2, 1988, Logmao developed generalized seizures and was managed by the neuro-surgeon resident on-duty; that the
condition of Logmao progressively deteriorated and he was intubated and ambu-bagging support was provided; that
admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation support became necessary, but there was no vacancy at the ICU and
all the ventilation units were being used by other patients; that a resident physician of NKTI, who was rotating at
EAMC, suggested that Logmao be transferred to NKTI; and that after arrangements were made, Logamo was
transferred to NKTI at 10:10am. At the NKTI, the name Angelito Logmao was recorded as Angelito Lugmoso. Lugmoso
was immediately attended to and given the necessary medical treatment. As Lugmoso had no relatives around,
Jennifer Misa, transplant coordinator was asked to locate his family by enlisting police and media assistance. Dr.
Enrique Ona, chairman of the Department of Surgery, observed that severity of the brain injury of Lugmoso manifested
symptoms of brain death. He requested the laboratory section to conduct tissue typing and tissue cross-matching
examination, so that should Lugmoso expire despite the necessary care and medical management and he would be
found to be a suitable organ donor and his family would consent to organ donation, the organs thus donated could
be detached and transplanted promptly to any compatible beneficiary. The identity of Lugmoso was verified by Misa
from EAMC and she was furnished the patients data sheet. She then contacted several radio and television stations
to request for air time for the purpose of locating the family of Angelito Lugmoso of Boni Ave., Mandaluyong who was
confined at NKTI with severe head injury after allegedly falling from the Cubao overpass, as well as police station no.
5 Eastern Police District. Lugmoso was pronounced brain dead on March 3, 1988 7:00am. Two hours later, Dr. Ona
was informed that EEG recording exhibited a flat tracing thereby confirming his brain death. He was found to be a
suitable donor of the heart, kidneys, pancreas, and liver, and after the extensive search, no relatives were found. Dr.
Ona then requested the removal of the specific organs of Lugmoso from the herein petitioners, Dr. Alano, the director
of NKTI who thereafter issued a memorandum stating that only after the requirements of RA 349 as amended by PD
856 was complied, they can remove the specified organs of Lugmoso. Lugmosos remains was brought at La Funeraria

54
 Oro. A press release made by NKTI announcing a double organ transplant led to the findings of the relatives of
Lugmoso.
ISSUE Whether or not the removal of Lugmosos organs were valid.
HELD Yes. The internal organs of the deceased were removed only after he had been declared brain dead; thus the
emotional pain suffered by respondent due to the death of her son cannot be in any way be attributed to petitioner.
Neither can the court find evidence or second to show that respondents emotional suffering at the sight of the pitful
state in which she found her sons lifeless body be categorically attributed to petitioners conduct.
Thus, there can be no cavil that petitioners employed reasonable means to disseminate notifications intended to reach
the relatives of the deceased. The only question that remains pertains to the sufficiency of time allotted for notices to
reach the relatives of the deceased.
If respondent failed to immediately receive notice of her sons death because the notices did not properly state the
name or identity of the deceased, fault cannot be laid at petitioners door. The trial and appellate courts found that it
was the EAMC, who recorded the wrong information regarding the deceaseds identity to NKTI. The NKTI could not
have obtained the information about his name from the patient, because as found by the lower courts, the deceased
was already unconscious by the time he was brought to NKTI.

R. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4226 - AN ACT REQUIRING THE LICENSURE OF ALL HOSPITALS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZING
THE BUREAU OF MEDICAL SERVICES TO SERVE AS THE LICENSING AGENCY
Section 1. This Act shall also be known as the Hospital Licensure Act.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Act

(a) 'Hospital' means a place devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the diagnosis, treatment
and care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing
care. The term 'hospital shall also be construed as any institution, building or place where there are installed beds, or cribs, or
bassinets for twenty-four-hour use or longer by patients in the treatment of diseases, diseased-conditions, injuries,
deformities, or abnormal physical and mental states, maternity cases, and all institutions such as those for convalescence,
sanitarial or sanitarial care, infirmities, nurseries, dispensaries and such other names by which they may designated.

(b) 'Government hospital' means a hospital operated and maintained either partially or wholly by the national, provincial,
municipal or city government or other political subdivision, or by any department, division, board or other agency thereof.

(c) 'Private hospital' means one which is privately owned, established and operated with funds raised or contributed through
donations, or by private capital or other means, by private individuals, association, corporation, religious organization, firm,
company or joint stock association.

(d) 'Clinic' means a place in which patients avail of medical consultations or treatments on an out-patient basis. However,
any clinic or dispensary where there is at least six beds or cribs or bassinets installed for twenty-four-hour use by patients shall
be construed to fall within the definition of a hospital as described in this Act.

(e) 'Licensee' is the person or persons granted a license to operate and maintain a hospital according to an approved
minimum standard.

Sec. 3. Construction Permit. No hospital, government or private, shall be constructed unless plans have been approved
and construction permit issued by the licensing agency as defined in this Act.

Sec. 4. Registration and license. No hospital shall operate or be opened to the public unless it shall have been registered
and a license for its operation obtained from the licensing agency provided in this Act.

Sec. 5. Licensing Agency. For purposes of setting standards in hospital construction and operation, the Bureau of Medical
Services in addition to its present duties shall act as the licensing agency. The Secretary of Health shall reorganize this Bureau
to include a staff of hospital architects, hospital administrators, sanitary engineers and such personnel as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act without necessarily increasing the present personnel strength of this Bureau.

Sec. 6. Powers and duties of the licensing agency. The Bureau of Medical Services, or the licensing agency shall have the
following powers and duties:

a. To conduct an ocular survey of all existing hospitals in the Philippines, government or private, with a view to determine
their fitness to operate considering their facilities and physical plant.
55
b. To prescribe standard plans for government hospital plants in consultation with the Division of Architecture, Bureau of
Public Works.

c. To approve plans for hospital plants, government or private, and to issue permits or authority to construct hospitals in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.

d. To keep a permanent register of approved hospitals or those issued licenses to operate indicating the name of the hospital,
address or location, type of hospital, name of the director or administrator, ownership, number of authorized beds and
bassinets and such other pertinent data as may be necessary.

e. To grant licenses for the operation and maintenance of hospitals or revoke the same in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.

f. To make periodic inspection of all hospitals so as to check compliance with rules and regulations legally promulgated or
with the provisions of this Act and to make recommendations to directors or administrators of hospitals for the correction of
defects found during such inspections.

g. To publish yearly a list of all approved hospitals indicating the name, location, type, authorized beds, and name of the
director or administrator.

h. To submit yearly reports to the Secretary of Health, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the
Senate and the chairmen and members of the Committees on Health of both Houses of Congress, such reports to include a
list of approved hospitals indicating the name of the hospital, location, bed capacity and name of the director or administrator
and make recommendations on hospital needs or requirements for hospital service in certain communities that do not enjoy
such hospital services.

Sec. 7. Filing of Application for Construction Permit. Application for a permit to construct a hospital shall be submitted to
the Office of the Director, Bureau of Medical Services in a form prescribed by the latter and accompanied by a plan of the
hospital plant proposed to be constructed. The application shall state the name of the hospital, ownership, number of beds
proposed to be operated, location and type of hospital to be constructed.

Sec. 8. Minimum Standards of Construction. In order that a permit to construct a hospital can be issued the hospital plan
shall provide sufficient bed space for the hospital bed capacity proposed, a laboratory room, an operating room, including
work rooms for sterilization, anesthesia preparation, etc., an X-ray or radiology room, pharmacy, dispensary or out-patient
department, delivery room, isolation rooms, autopsy room or morgue, sufficient quarters for residents, nurses, attendants
and helpers and sufficient number of toilet facilities.

Wards shall be constructed such that segregation of the sexes is observed and as far as practicable classified as to the type of
cases to be confined.

Sec. 9. Application for Registration and Issuance of License. Application for registration of a hospital and for the issuance
of a license for its operation and maintenance shall be filed with the Bureau of Medical Services on a form prescribed by it.
Registration may be made and license issued upon compliance with the provisions of Section eight hereof and the rules and
regulations prescribed by the licensing agency pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 10. Inspection. Permit to construct a hospital or a major portion thereof and license to operate and maintain the
same shall be issued by the licensing agency only after a representative of the licensing agency has conducted an ocular
inspection and certified that the applicant has satisfactorily complied with requisites prescribed in this Act. The license to
operate and maintain a hospital shall be renewed every year upon payment of the prescribed fees.

SECTION 11. Revocation of License. The licensing agency may suspend or revoke a license already issued for any of the
following grounds: (a) repeated violation by the licensee of any provision of this Act or of any other existing law; (b) repeated
violation of rules and regulations prescribed in the implementation of this Act; or (c) repeated failure to make necessary
corrections or adjustments required by the licensing agency in the improvement of facilities and services.

SECTION 12. Hearing. Any person, association, corporation, or any other private entity who has been refused a license to
operate and maintain a hospital or whose license for such hospital has been suspended or revoked shall be entitled to an
administrative hearing to be conducted by the Secretary of Health and his two undersecretaries to determine the justifiability

56
 of such denial, suspension or revocation of the license: provided, that the licensee may resort to the courts, as in other cases
provided by law.

SECTION 13. Separate Licenses Required. Separate licenses shall be required for hospitals or branches thereof maintained
in separate premises, even though they are operated under the same management: provided, however, that separate licenses
shall not be required for separate buildings in the same compound: provided, further, that permits for construction or
alteration of buildings within the same compound shall also be secured from the licensing agency to determine compliance
with standards and requirements herein authorized.

SECTION 14. License not transferable. License for the operation of hospitals shall not be transferable. The licensing agency
shall be notified of any change in ownership, change of name of the hospital, and transfer of location and in the latter case,
an application for a new license should be submitted.

SECTION 15. Rules and Regulations. The Bureau of Medical Services acting as a licensing agency and subject to the approval
of the Secretary of Health, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 16. Classification of Hospitals. The licensing agency shall study and adopt a system of classifying hospitals in the
Philippines as to: (1) general or special; (2) hospital services capabilities; (3) size or bed capacity and (4) class of hospital
whether training or not.

SECTION 17. Fees. Each applicant for a permit to construct a hospital shall pay the amount of five pesos as permit fee. A
registration fee of five pesos and an annual license fee of ten pesos shall likewise be collected for each hospital and for each
approved license: provided, that a government hospital shall be exempt from the payment of such fees. The amount herein
collected shall be officially receipted by the licensing agency and shall constitute as a revolving fund for the use of the licensing
agency.

SECTION 18. Penalties. Any person, partnership, association, or corporation who establishes, operates, conducts, manages
or maintains a hospital or hospital clinic within the meaning of this Act without first obtaining a license as provided for in this
Act or violates any provision hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine of
not more than five hundred pesos for the first offense and not more than one thousand pesos for each subsequent offense,
and each day that the hospital shall operate after the first conviction shall be considered a subsequent offense.

SECTION 19. Repeal. Any law or laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

Sec. 20. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

S. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9439 April 27, 2007

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DETENTION OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS ON GROUNDS OF NONPAYMENT
OF HOSPITAL BILLS OR MEDICAL EXPENSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1.It shall be unlawful for any hospital or medical clinic in the country to detain or to otherwise cause, directly or
indirectly, the detention of patients who have fully or partially recovered or have been adequately attended to or who may
have died, for reasons of nonpayment in part or in full of hospital bills or medical expenses.
SEC. 2.Patients who have fully or partially recovered and who already wish to leave the hospital or medical clinic but are
financially incapable to settle, in part or in full, their hospitalization expenses, including professional fees and medicines, shall
be allowed to leave the hospital or medical clinic, with a right to demand the issuance of the corresponding medical certificate
and other pertinent papers required for the release of the patient from the hospital or medical clinic upon the execution of a
promissory note covering the unpaid obligation. The promissory note shall be secured by either a mortgage or by a guarantee
of a co-maker, who will be jointly and severally liable with the patient for the unpaid obligation. In the case of a deceased
patient, the corresponding death certificate and other documents required for interment and other purposes shall be released
to any of his surviving relatives requesting for the same:Provided, however, That patients who stayed in private rooms shall not
be covered by this Act.
SEC. 3.Any officer or employee of the hospital or medical clinic responsible for releasing patients, who violates the provisions
of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), but not more than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than one month, but not more than six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment, at the discretion of the proper court.
SEC. 4.The Department of Health shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 5.If any provision of this Act is declared void and unconstitutional the remaining provisions hereof not affected thereby
shall remain in full force and effect.
57
 SEC. 6.All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or part thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.
SEC. 7.This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,

T. Republic Act No. 8344 August 25, 1997

Republic Act No. 8344 August 25, 1997
AN ACT PENALIZING THE REFUSAL OF HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS TO ADMINISTER APPROPRIATE INITIAL MEDICAL
TREATMENT AND SUPPORT IN EMERGENCY OR SERIOUS CASES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG
702, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DEMAND OF DEPOSITS OR ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR THE
CONFINEMENT OR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS IN CERTAIN CASES"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
Section 1.Section 1 ofBatas Pambansa Bilang 702is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. In emergency or serious cases, it shall be unlawful for any proprietor, president, director, manager or any
other officer, and/or medical practitioner or employee of a hospital or medical clinic to request, solicit, demand or
accept any deposit or any other form of advance payment as a prerequisite for confinement or medical treatment of
a patient in such hospital or medical clinic or to refuse to administer medical treatment and support as dictated by
good practice of medicine to prevent death or permanent disability: Provided, That by reason of inadequacy of the
medical capabilities of the hospital or medical clinic, the attending physician may transfer the patient to a facility where
the appropriate care can be given, after the patient or his next of kin consents to said transfer and after the receiving
hospital or medical clinic agrees to the transfer: Provided, however, That when the patient is unconscious, incapable
of giving consent and/or unaccompanied, the physician can transfer the patient even without his consent: Provided,
further, That such transfer shall be done only after necessary emergency treatment and support have been
administered to stabilize the patient and after it has been established that such transfer entails less risks than the
patient's continued confinement: Provided, furthermore, That no hospital or clinic, after being informed of the medical
indications for such transfer, shall refuse to receive the patient nor demand from the patient or his next of kin any
deposit or advance payment: Provided, finally, That strict compliance with the foregoing procedure on transfer shall
not be construed as a refusal made punishable by this Act."
Section 2.Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby deleted and in place thereof, new sections 2, 3 and 4 are added, to
read as follows:
"SEC. 2. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall govern:
"(a) 'Emergency' - a condition or state of a patient wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent
medical officer on duty for the day there is immediate danger and where delay in initial support and
treatment may cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.
"(b) 'Serious case' - refers to a condition of a patient characterized by gravity or danger wherein based on the
objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day when left unattended to, may cause loss
of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.
"(c) 'Confinement' - a state of being admitted in a hospital or medical clinic for medical observation, diagnosis,
testing, and treatment consistent with the capability and available facilities of the hospital or clinic.
"(d) 'Hospital' - a facility devoted primarily to the diagnosis, treatment and care of individuals suffering from
illness, disease, injury or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing care. It shall also
be construed as any institution, building or place where there are facilities and personnel for the continued
and prolonged care of patients.
"(e) 'Emergency treatment and support' - any medical or surgical measure within the capability of the hospital
or medical clinic that is administered by qualified health care professionals to prevent the death or permanent
disability of a patient.
"(f) 'Medical clinic' - a place in which patients can avail of medical consultation or treatment on an outpatient
basis.
"(g) 'Permanent disability' - a condition of physical disability as defined under Article 192-C and Article 193-B
and C of Presidential Decree No 442; as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
"(h) 'Stabilize' - the provision of necessary care until such time that the patient may be discharged or
transferred to another hospital or clinic with a reasonable probability that no physical deterioration would
result from or occur during such discharge or transfer.
"SEC. 3. After the hospital or medical clinic mentioned above shall have administered medical treatment and support,
it may cause the transfer of the patient to an appropriate hospital consistent with the needs of the patient, preferably
to a government hospital, specially in the case of poor or indigent patients.
58
 "SEC. 4. Any official, medical practitioner or employee of the hospital or medical clinic who violates the provisions of
this Act shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one
(1) day but not more than two (2) years and four (4) months, or a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00), but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both, at the discretion of the court:
Provided, however, That if such violation was committed pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or clinic or
upon instruction of its management, the director or officer of such hospital or clinic responsible for the formulation
and implementation of such policy shall, upon conviction by final judgment, suffer imprisonment of four (4) to six (6)
years, or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), but not more than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) or both, at the discretion of the court."
Section 3.Section 3 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 is hereby repealed.
Section 4.Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 702 shall become Section 5 thereof and shall be amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 5. The Department of Health shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of
this Act."
Section 5.This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8344,

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN ACT PENALIZING THE REFUSAL OF HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS TO ADMINISTER
APPROPRIATE INITIAL MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SUPPORT IN EMERGENCY OR SERIOUS CASES, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 702, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DEMAND OF DEPOSITS OR
ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR THE CONFINEMENT OR TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS IN
CERTAIN CASES"
WHEREAS, the Tenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 8344 on June 05, 1997;
WHEREAS, the President of the Republic of the Philippines signed into law R.A. 8344 on August 25, 1997;
WHEREAS, under Section 5 of R.A. 8344, the Department of Health (DOH) is mandated to promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of the aforementioned law.
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 8344 authorizing the Department of Health to promulgate the necessary
rules and regulations, the following are hereby issued:
1. Section 1 of said Act provides: "In emergency or serious cases, it shall be unlawful for any proprietor, president,
director, manager or any other officer, and/or medical practitioner or employee of a hospital or medical clinic to
request, solicit, demand or accept any deposit or any other form of advance payment as a prerequisite for confinement
or medical treatment of a patient in such hospital or medical clinic or to refuse to administer medical treatment and
support as dictated by good practice of medicine to prevent death or permanent disability: Provided, That by reason
of inadequacy of the medical capabilities of the hospital or medical clinic, the attending physician may transfer the
patient to a facility where appropriate care can be given, after the patient or his next of kin consents to said transfer:
Provided, however, That when the patient is unconscious, incapable of giving consent and/or unaccompanied, the
physician can transfer the patient even without his consent, Provided, further, That such transfer shall be done only
after the necessary emergency treatment and support have been administered to stabilize the patient and after it has
been established that such transfer entails less risks than the patient's continued confinement: Provided, finally, That
strict compliance with the foregoing procedure on transfer shall not be construed as a refusal made punishable by this
Act."
2. For the purpose of implementing the above, the following definitions are provided:
2.1 Emergency - A condition or state of patient wherein based on the objective findings of a prudent medical
officer on duty for the day there is immediate danger and where delay in initial support and treatment may
cause loss of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.
2.2 Serious Case - refers to a condition of a patient characterized by gravity or danger wherein based on the
objective findings of a prudent medical officer on duty for the day when left unattended to, may cause loss
of life or cause permanent disability to the patient.
2.3 Confinement - a state of being admitted in a hospital or medical clinic for medical observation, diagnosis,
testing, and treatment consistent with the capability and available facilities of the hospital or clinic.
2.4 Hospital - a facility devoted primarily to the diagnosis, treatment and care of individuals or other medical
and nursing care. It shall also be construed as any institution, building or place where there are facilities and
personnel for the continued and prolonged care of patients. The hospital shall be duly licensed by the Bureau
of Licensing and Regulation of the DOH.
2.5 Emergency Treatment and Support - any medical or surgical measure within the capability of a hospital
or medical clinic that is administer by qualified health care professionals to prevent the death or permanent
disability of a patient. (In determining the capability of a hospital or clinic, the standards and the classification
of these facilities set by the DOH Bureau of Licensing and Regulation shall be used).
59
 2.6 Medical Clinic - a place in which patients can avail of medical consultation or treatment on an outpatient
basis.
2.7 Permanent Disability - a condition of physical disability as defined under Article 192-C and Article 193-B
and C of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
2.8 Stabilize - the provision of necessary care until such time that the patient may be discharged or transferred
to another hospital or clinic with a reasonable probability that no physical deterioration would result from or
occur during such discharge or transfer.
3. Transfer of Patients - Section 3 of R.A. 8344 provides: "After the hospital or medical clinic mentioned above shall
have administered medical treatment and consistent with the needs of the patients preferably to a government
hospital, specially in the case of poor or indigent patients."
3.1 The transferring and receiving hospital, shall be as much as practicable, be within ten (10) kilometer radius
of each other.
3.2 The transfer of patients contemplated under this Act shall at all times be properly documented.
3.3 Hospitals may require a deposit or advance payment when the patient is no longer under the state of
emergency and he/she refuses to be transferred.
4. All hospitals shall use a Uniform Discharge/Transfer Slip for cases covered by RA 8344 which shall include the
following information:
4.1 Admission Form of transferring hospital.
4.2 Transfer Form of Transferring Hospital, to include but not necessarily limited to the following information:
4.2.1 Vital signs
4.2.2 Name of Attending Physician
4.2.3 Treatment given to patient
4.2.4 Name of receiving hospital
4.2.5 Name of contact person and approving official at receiving hospital
4.2.6 Consent of the patient or companion. In case of an unaccompanied minor or patient, they may
be transferred without consent provided that the provisions of Section 1 of RA 8344 is strictly
observed.
The hospital shall endeavor to use all forms of media to contact the next of kin of the unaccompanied
minor or patient.
4.2.7 In case of refusal of transfer, the name of the hospital, the name(s) of persons who refused
and the reason(s) for the refusal.
A copy of the Uniform Discharge/Transfer Slip is hereto attached as Annex A*.
5. Penal Provisions - any official, medical practitioner or employee of the hospital or medical clinic who violates the
provisions of RA 8344 shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6)
months and one (1) day but not more than two (2) years and four months, or a fine of not less than Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) or both at the discretion of the
court: Provided, however, That if such violation was committed pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or
clinic or upon instruction of its management, the director or officer of such hospital or clinic responsible for the
formulation and imprisonment of four (4) to six (6) years, or a fine of not less than One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00), but not more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) or both, at the discretion of the court.
6. In order to demonstrate compliance with the Act's provisions, all hospitals and medical clinics are instructed to
institute the following measures:
6.1 A copy of the law and this implementing rules and regulations should be displayed prominently at hospital
emergency rooms, hospital admission, counters and medical clinic premises.
6.2 Hospital and clinic managers shall establish billing and collection procedure for treatment or confinement
of emergency and serious cases which shall not commence until the essential appropriate treatment of such
cases has been completed.
6.3 Hospital and clinic managers shall instruct their personnel to provide prompt and immediate medical
attention to emergency and serious cases without any prior requirements for payment or deposit.
6.4 It is clarified that the law and this administrative order covers only the provision of medical and surgical
goods and services, and do not cover the provision of non-medical amenities which have nothing to do with
the treatment of the emergency or serious case. The provisions of and payment for these non-medical
amenities shall be subject to appropriate institutional business practice.
6.5 Alleged violations of the Act and this Order may be reported to the Bureau of Licensing and Regulations,
Office for Standards and Regulations, Department of Health, Sta. Cruz, Manila, or to the nearest Regional
Health Office which shall immediately conduct a fact-finding investigation. The findings shall be referred to
the appropriate fiscal for criminal prosecution. Persons convicted of violation shall be punished in accordance
with the Act.

60
 6.6 At the instance of the Bureau of Licensing and Regulation, Administrative proceedings may also be
pursued against erring clinics or hospitals that could lead to either suspension or revocation of appropriate
licenses.
These Rules and Regulations shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation.

U. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6615 - AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND CLINICS TO EXTEND MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE IN EMERGENCY CASES
Section 1. All government and private hospitals or clinic duly licensed to operate as such are hereby required to render
immediate emergency medical assistance and to provide facilities and medicine within its capabilities to patients in emergency
cases who are in danger of dying and/or who may have suffered serious physical injuries.
Sec. 2. The expenses and losses of earnings incurred by a private hospital of clinic for medicines, facilities and services beyond
first aid extended to emergency cases as required herein, and not to exceed fifty thousand pesos per year, shall be deductible
expenses and losses for income tax purposes which may be carried over for a period of five years, any provision of law or
regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sec. 3. Any hospital director, administrator, officer-in-charge or physician in the hospital, medical center or clinic, who shall
refuse or fail without good cause to render the appropriate assistance pursuant to the requirements of section one after said
case had been brought to his attention, or any nurse, midwife or medical attendant who shall refuse to extend the appropriate
assistance, subject to existing rules, or neglect to notify or call a physician shall be punished by imprisonment of one month
and one day to one year and one day, and a fine of three hundred pesos to one thousand pesos, without prejudice to the
provisions of Republic Act Numbered Twenty-three hundred eighty-two in the case of physicians.

In the case of Government hospitals, the imposition of the penalty upon the person or persons guilty of the violations shall be
without prejudice to the administrative action that might be proper.

In the case of private hospitals, aside from the imposition of penalty upon the person or persons guilty of the violations, the
license of the hospital to operate shall, whenever justified, be suspended or revoked.

Sec. 4. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Health, the Bureau of Medical Services shall promulgate the necessary rules
and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Sec. 5. Any law or laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval

V. CASES:

Name: MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL vs SO UN CHUA and TY G.R. No. 150355 July 31, 2006
Facts When her mother and sister were confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital
in Manila, incurring the total hospital bill of P1,075,592.95. Vicky issued
seven postdated checks to secure payment of the obligation. Upon
presentment for payment, however, the checks bounced. Despite demand
to pay, the Vicky failed to pay the face value of the checks, hence, the
hospital sued her for violation of BP 22. In her defense, Vicky alleged that
her issuance of the checks was due to an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury. She was forced to issue the checks to obtain release of her mother
who was treated inhumanely and harshly treated, and would not be
discharged unless the the bills are paid. Her mother was deprived of room
facilities, such as the air-condition unit, refrigerator and television set, and
61
 subject to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line, late
delivery of her mothers food and refusal to change the latters gown and
bedsheets. She also bewailed the hospitals suspending medical treatment
of her mother. Because of the inhumane and debasing treatment, her
mother contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the
hospital. She was forced to sign the promissory note, open an account with
Metrobank, and issue the checks so her mother could be immediately
discharged.

After trial, the court rendered a decision finding Vicky guilty of BP 22. On
appeal, the CA rejected her claim of involuntariness in the issuance of the
checks and the hospitals knowledge of her checking accounts lack of
funds. It held that B.P. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check
punishable as a special offense, it being a malum prohibitum. What the law
punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which
it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its
issuance. Invoking the case of Vaca vs CA, the CA imposed the penalty of
fine instead of a prison term.
Issue
Held/Ratio: We find the petition to be without merit and accordingly sustain Tys
conviction.

Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and
will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would
substantially affect the disposition of the case.1 Jurisdiction of this Court
over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or
revising errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals whose factual
findings are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court
affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings
are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly
erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.2
In the instant case, the Court discerns no compelling reason to reverse the
factual findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

Name: FELIX MARQUEZ vs. BOM G.R. No. L-24119 August 8, 1925

62
Facts It appears that petitioner is a graduate of the Chicago Medical College, having received the degree
of M.D. from said institution on June 8, of the year 1922. No question appears to have been made
by the respondents with respect to the petitioner's qualifications of the physician's examinations in
other respects, but they have denied him admission to the examinations on the grounds that the
Chicago Medical College, where the petitioner was graduated, has been classified as a Class C
medical college by the National Medical State Board of the United States. For this reason the
respondents, in accordance with the regulations of the board now in effect, have denied the
requisite standing to said institution and excluded petitioner.
Issue whether a medical institution is "a reputable medical school," in the sense intended by the law, is
vested in the Board of Medical Examiners, and although the action taken by them may conceivably,
in isolated cases, result in hardship, nevertheless the interests of the public require that the board
should be free to exercise its judgment and discretion without reference to the effect of the
determination of the question in particular instances.
Held/Ratio: there can in the nature of things be no vested right in an existing law, which would preclude its
change or repeal. No one who has commenced preparation in a particular institution has any
inchoate right on account of that fact. If the law were otherwise upon this point, it would be
impossible for the Board of Medical Examiners to give effect to the knowledge which they from time
to time acquire as to the standing of medical schools; and an intending physician, upon
matriculating in a particular college, takes upon himself the risk of changes that may be made in
the standing of the institution by the board.

NAME DECS vs. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE DIZON-CAPULONG G.R. No. 144681 June 21, 2004
FACTS Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test) three times. When he applied to take
again, petitioner rejected his application based on the three-flunk-rule. He then filed a petition before the RTC on
the ground of due process and equal protection and challenging the constitutionality of the order. The petition was
granted by the RTC therefore this petition.
ISSUE : Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid and constitutional.
HELD Yes. It is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents
to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the challenged regulation is
not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The right to quality education is not absolute.
The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality
education as a guarantee of the Constitution but one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation
and promise. Petition was granted and the RTC ruling was reversed.

NAME PRC vs. DE GUZMAN et al G.R. No. 88259 August 10, 1989
FACTS The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed the
Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure
examination. Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from
Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and
Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100%
in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-
Gyne.
For its part, the NBI found that the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination
leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.
ISSUE Was the act pursuant to R.A. 2382 a valid exercise of police power
HELD Yes, it is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of
study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who desire
to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

Name: THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs. ALFONSO, G.R. No. 8825 August 10, 1989

63
Facts Petitioners BME, the government agency which supervises and regulates thecountrys medical colleges, Sec.
Quisimbing, chairman of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports prayed for a writ of certiorari to nullify
the order of herein Respondent Judge Alfonso in Civil case No. 1385 restraining the enforcement of Pet. Order
of closure of Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine Foundation Inc(the college). -The college was
founded on 1981 for the purpose of producing physicians who will emancipate Muslim citizens from age-old
attitudes of health. -However, because of the unstable peace and order situation in Mindanao, the college was
established in Antipolo, Rizal, given a temporary permit to operate instead of the originally proposed location in
Zamboanga City. Antipolo was adopted as its permanent site and the name was changed to Rizal College of
Medicine. -In 1985, DECS & BME authorized the Commission on Medical Education to conduct a study of all
Medical Schools in the Philippines. -The report showed that the college fell very much short of the minimum
standards set for medical schools. Further, the team of inspectors cited the ff. Grounds among others: (a)the
College was not fulfilling its purpose due inappropriate location (b)lack of university affiliation for balance
humanistic and scientific education (c)absence of philosophy based hospitals for students training
(d)more than 60% of the college faculty did not teach full time -The school disputed these findings as biased and
discriminatory and requested BME to send another team of doctors for re-evaluation. 2nd team confirmed the
previous findings and recommended the phase-out of the school. -There were third and fourth evaluations but
the college failed both and was rendered inadequate in all aspects. -The DECS recommended the college for
closure but somehow the college succeeded to have the Board form yet another team of inspectors but although
the findings show that there were major efforts to improve the college, it is still rendered inadequate and
recommended for closure w/ provisions to disperse its students to other medical schools. -Mr. Victor
Sumulong(chairman of BOT), upon learning the same proposed a gradual phase-out so as not to dislocate the
students and minimized financial losses
ALLOWED to operate until May 1989. -The college appealed the decision to the OP, but the Executive Secretary
found no reason to disturb the contested decisio
AFFIRMED! -The college filed civil case No. 1385 applying for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain its
implementation
APPROVED! (by Judge Alfonso holding that there were no evidence supporting the findings in the June 18, 1988
report, and that contrary to the findings, the laboratory and library areas were big enough and operations in the
base hospital was going smoothly.) -Thus, the present petition.
Issue WON Judge Alfonso acted with grave abuse of discretion in substituting his judgment to for the
members/evaluators.
Held/Ratio: YES! It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice should not generally interfere with purely administrative and
discretionary functions; that courts having no supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the
administrative departments of the government; involving the exercise of judgment and findings of facts, because
by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the latter are in
a better position to pass judgment on such matters and their findings of facts in that regard are generally
accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.There are, to be sure, exceptions to this general rule but none of
them obtains in this case

Name: PMA vs. BOM and TORRES G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968
Facts The Board of Medical Examiners and Jose Ma. Torres, to annul a resolution of the former and a
certificate issued by the same authorizing the latter to practice medicine in the Philippines without
examination.The facts are not disputed. Jose Ma. Torres hereinafter referred to as respondent
is a Spanish subject and a member of the Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
otherwise known as the Claretian Missionaries. Having graduated from the University of Barcelona,
Spain, with the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery, he is entitled, under the laws of Spain,
to practice medicine and surgery throughout the territory thereof.On January 21, 1955, respondent
was granted special authority to practice medicine in Lamitan, Basilan City, where he resides,
pursuant to Section 771(e) of the Revised Administrative Code reading:SEC. 771. Persons exempt
from registration. Registration shall not be required of the following classes of persons: . . .(e)
In cases of epidemic or in municipalities where there is no legally qualified practicing physician, or
when the circumstances require it, in the interest of the public health, the Director of Health may
issue special authorizations, to all medical students who have completed the first three years of
their studies, or to persons who have qualified in medicine, and to graduate or registered nurses,
who may request it.this authority was revoked, on November 8, 1960, by the then Secretary of
Health, upon the ground that "the conditions under which it was granted no longer obtained in
Lamitan Basilan City, there being enough practising physicians in that locality.
Issue
Held/Ratio:

64
 Name: TABLARIN vs. GUTIERREZ G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987
Facts Teresita Tablarin, Ma. Luz Ciriaco, Ma. Nimfa B. Rovira, and Evangelina S. Labao sought admission into colleges
or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, they either did not take or did not successfully
take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education and administered
by the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM). On 5 March 1987, Tablarin, et. al., in behalf of applicants for
admission into the Medical Colleges who have not taken up or successfully hurdled the NMAT, filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition
with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement
from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2382, as amended, and MECS Order 52 (series of 1985), dated
23 August 1985 [which established a uniform admission test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance
of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the school year
1986-1987] and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from
administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the petition for
issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted
and administered as previously scheduled. Tablarin, et. al. accordingly filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari
with the Supreme Court to set aside the Order of the RTC judge denying the petition for issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.
Issue Whether NMAT requirement for admission to medical colleges contravenes the Constitutional guarantee for
the accessibility of education to all, and whether such regulation is invalid and/or unconstitutional.
Held/Ratio: No. Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts 4224 and 5946, known as the Medical Act of 1959
defines its basic objectives to govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education; (b) the
examination for registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control and regulation of the practice of
medicine in the Philippines. The Statute created a Board of Medical Education and prescribed certain minimum
requirements for applicants to medical schools.

Name: BOARD OF MEDICINE vs YASUYUKI OTA, G.R. No. 166097 July 14, 2008
Facts Yasuyuki Ota (respondent) is a Japanese national, married to a Filipina,
- who has continuously resided in the Phil. for more than 10 years.
- He graduated from Bicol Christian College of Medicine on April 21, 1991 with a
degree of Doctor of Medicine
- After successfully completing a one-year post graduate internship training at
the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, he filed an application to take the medical
board examinations in order to obtain a medical license.
In spite of all these, the Board of Medicine (Board) of the PRC, in a letter dated March 8,
1993,denied respondent's request for a license to practice medicine in the Phil.
Issue Did the CA commit a reversible error in finding that Respondent had established the existence
of reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Phil and Japan?
Held/Ratio: In fine, the only matter being questioned by petitioners is the alleged failure of respondent to prove that there
is reciprocity between the laws of Japan and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine.
Respondent has satisfactorily complied with the said requirement and the CA has not committed any reversible
error in rendering its Decision dated November 16, 2004 and Resolution dated October 19, 2003.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

W. RPC PHYSICAL INJURIES Art. 262, 263, 264, 265, 266

Physical Injuries
ARTICLE 262. Mutilation. The penalty of reclusin temporal to reclusin perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.

Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prisin mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
article 263. Serious Physical Injuries. Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries and shall suffer:

65
1. The penalty of prisin mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane,
imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prisin correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the
person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm,
or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore
habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the
person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or
shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than
ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisin correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted
shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in article 246, or with attendance of any of the
circumstances mentioned in article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this article shall be punished by reclusin
temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prisin correccional in its maximum
period to prisin mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prisin correccional in its medium
and maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
ARTICLE 264. Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages. The penalties established by the next preceding article shall be
applicable in the respective cases to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical injury,
by knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity.
ARTICLE 265. Less Serious Physical Injuries. Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the
preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical
attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person, or
under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offenders parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of
rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the
case of persons in authority, the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such persons.
ARTICLE 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment. The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from
one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not
prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed
without causing any injury.

X. CASES:

Name: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BULING G.R. No. L-13315 April 27, 1960
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. YORAC G.R. No. L-29270 November 23, 1971
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: PEOPLE vs. ADIL and FAMA, JR. G.R. No. L-41863 April 22, 1977
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

66
 Name: ENRILE AND ENRILE vs. MANALASTAS G.R. No. 166414 October 22, 2014
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: PEOPLE vs MAPALO G.R. No. 172608 February 6, 2007

Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: MUPAS vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 172834 February 6, 2008

Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: AGUIRRE vs. SECRETARY OF DOJ G.R. No. 170723 March 3, 2008
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: PENTECOSTES, JR. vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 167766 April 7, 2010
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: THE PEOPLE vs. OCAYA G.R. No. L-47448 May 17, 1978
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

Name: BONGALON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 169533 March 20, 2013
Facts
Issue
Held/Ratio:

====

67