Short answer. Yes. Where a partnership, corporation or other juridical entity violates the drug law, Section 30 holds the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate administrator or officer who consents to or knowingly tolerates the violation criminally liable as a co-principal. Personal criminal liability attaches to the responsible individual, not just the company.
What the law says
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
RA 9165, Section 30 — Liability Of Company Officers. Read the full provision →
Who Section 30 reaches
The section provides that when a partnership, corporation, association or juridical entity commits a violation of the drug law, 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. Two features of that wording control everything. The person must occupy one of the named positions, and — the real limit — must have consented to or knowingly tolerated the violation. Liability is imposed as a co-principal, which puts the individual on the same footing as a direct offender rather than treating them as a lesser participant.
The knowledge requirement is the key limit
The section does not make every officer automatically answerable for whatever the company does. The trigger is consent or knowing toleration — an officer has to have known of the violation and either agreed to it or let it continue. An officer genuinely unaware of the wrongdoing, and not in a position to have consented to it, falls outside the provision. This is what separates the individuals the law targets from the rest of a corporate structure: a title alone does not create liability, but a title combined with knowledge and acquiescence does.
Misuse of company assets is also covered
Section 30 has a second reach. It imposes the offence's penalty on an officer who knowingly authorises, tolerates or consents to the use of a company vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other facility as an instrument in importing, selling, delivering, distributing, transporting or manufacturing dangerous drugs, where that asset is owned by or under the control of the entity. So allowing corporate property to be turned to the drug trade — not only participating in the trade directly — carries personal exposure for the officer who permits it.
What must be shown, and next steps
Because liability hinges on knowledge and consent, the evidence turns on what a particular officer actually knew and authorised, not on where they sit on the organisational chart. Board minutes, internal communications, approvals and the officer's real role in the matter are what establish or rebut the required state of mind. An officer named in a case of this kind should have the specific allegations, and the proof of knowing involvement behind them, reviewed with counsel, since the distance between a nominal title and a co-principal's liability is measured entirely by what can be shown about consent.