Roma Drug V RTC of Gua Gua

 

Roma Drug v. RTC of Guagua FACTS: On Aug. 14, 2000, a raid was conducted on Roma Drug, located at San Matias, Guagua, Pampanga. The raid was conducted pursuant to a search warrant. The raiding team seized sei zed several imported medicines. Roma Drug was one of the six drug stores which were raided upon the request of SmithKline Beecham Research Limited. The local SmithKline has merged with Glaxo to form Glaxo SmithKline.  The medicine that were seized were manufactured by SmithKline, but were directly imported from abroad, and not purchased through the local SmithKline.  The NBI NBI subsequently filed a co complaint mplaint against Rodriguez (the owner) for violation of Sec. 4 of RA 8203 (Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs), which prohibits the sale of counterfeit drugs,  which under Sec.3b3, includes “an unregistered imported drug product.” Unregistered signifies the lack of registration with the Bureau of Patent. In the present case, there is no doubt that the subject seized drugs are identical in content  with their Philippine-registered Philippine-registered counterparts. They were not adulterated nor mislabeled. Their classification as “counterfeit” is because they were imported from abroad and not purchased from the Philippine-registered owner of the patent or trademark of the drugs. Rodriguez challenged the constitutionality of the SLCD, but the Assistant Prosecutor skirted the challenge and issued a Resolution, recommending that Rodriguez be charged with the  violation of Sec. 4a 4a of SLCD. The rec recommendation ommendation was approved by the Provincial Prosecutor. Prosecutor. ISSUES: 1.   W/N Secs. 3b3, 4, and 5 of the SLCD be declared unconstitutional? unconstitutional? This issue is now moot and academic. HELD: 1.  RA 9502, Sec. 7 amends Sec. 72 of the Intellectual Property Code as it shows the unqualified right of private third parties, such as petitioner to import or possess “unregistered imported drugs” in the Philippines.  Thus, the classification of SLCO of “unregistered imported drugs” as “counterfeit drugs” is irreconcilable with RA 9502 as  it grants private third persons the unqualified right to import or to use such drugs. 2.   Thus, the prosecution of petitioner is no longer warranted and the quested writ of prohibition should be issued. 3.   The said law denies the basic decencies of humanity. It prevents people from getting the drug from somewhere else if the local pharmacy is out of stock of the said medicine. It is a malum prohibitum, which is a heartless, soulless legislative piece. The said provisions proscribe a range of constitutionally permissible behavior.