Case Digest (G.R. No. 149907) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Roma Drug and Romeo Rodriguez, as Proprietor of Roma Drug v. Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga et al. (G.R. No. 149907, April 16, 2009), petitioner Romeo Rodriguez operated Roma Drug, a duly registered sole proprietorship drugstore in San Matias, Guagua, Pampanga. On August 14, 2000, a team of National Bureau of Investigation operatives and inspectors of the Bureau of Food and Drugs executed Search Warrant No. 00-43 issued by Branch 57 of the Regional Trial Court in Angeles City. They seized several imported antibiotic products—Augmentin, Orbenin, Amoxil, and Ampiclox—manufactured abroad by SmithKline Beecham Research Limited and not distributed through its Philippine affiliate, Glaxo SmithKline. The NBI filed a complaint against Rodriguez for violating Sections 3(b)(3), 4, and 5 of Republic Act No. 8203 (Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs), which defines any unregistered imported drug as a counterfeit drug. During preliminary investigation, Rodriguez questioned the cons... Case Digest (G.R. No. 149907) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and context
- Petitioners: Roma Drug, a sole proprietorship, and its proprietor Romeo Rodriguez.
- Respondents: RTC of Guagua, Pampanga; Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga; BFAD; Glaxo SmithKline (successor of SmithKline Beecham).
- Raid, seizure and preliminary investigation
- On 14 August 2000, NBI operatives and BFAD inspectors, under Search Warrant No. 00-43 issued by RTC Angeles City, raided Roma Drug in Guagua, Pampanga. They seized imported medicines—Augmentin (375 mg), Orbenin (500 mg), Amoxil (250 mg) and Ampiclox (500 mg)—all manufactured by SmithKline and imported directly, not through the local distributor.
- NBI filed a criminal complaint against Rodriguez for violating Section 4 (with Sections 3 and 5) of Republic Act No. 8203 (Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs), which defines “counterfeit drugs” to include “unregistered imported drug product.”
- Challenge and petition for prohibition
- During preliminary investigation, Rodriguez questioned the constitutionality of Sections 3(b)(3), 4 and 5 of the SLCD under the Equal Protection Clause, Section 11, Article XIII (affordable health services), and Section 15, Article II (right to health). Assistant Prosecutor Pineda nonetheless recommended charges under Section 4(a), approved by the Provincial Prosecutor.
- Rodriguez filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court to halt the RTC’s proceedings and to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional. On 15 October 2001, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining further prosecution.
- Opposition and intervening legislation
- Glaxo SmithKline and the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, invoking the presumption of constitutionality of SLCD and arguing that the constitutional provisions relied upon are not self-executing.
- In 2008, Republic Act No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act) was enacted, amending Section 72 of the Intellectual Property Code to grant any private third party the unqualified right to import drugs once introduced in the Philippines or elsewhere. Its Implementing Rules (Rule 9) reaffirm this right.
Issues:
- Are Sections 3(b)(3), 4 and 5 of the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause and the constitutional right to health?
- Does the enactment of RA 9502, granting unqualified importation rights for drugs, render the SLCD’s criminal provisions on unregistered imported drugs moot and abrogated?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)