Short answer. Yes. Section 18 punishes a practitioner who prescribes a dangerous drug to a person whose condition does not require it, or in an excessive dosage. Beyond imprisonment and a fine, it carries revocation of the licence to practise. Whether the prescription was needed is determined by the Dangerous Drugs Board.
What the law says
shall prescribe any dangerous drug to any person whose physical or physiological condition does not require the use or in the dosage prescribed therein
RA 9165, Section 18 — Unnecessary Prescription Of Drugs. Read the full provision →
Who the offence is aimed at
Section 18, on unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs, is directed at the practitioner — the licensed professional with authority to prescribe. That is what distinguishes it from the offences aimed at people with no authority at all. The wrong it punishes is the misuse of a genuine prescribing power: writing a prescription for a dangerous drug where the patient's condition does not call for it. It presupposes someone who could lawfully prescribe in the right case, and penalises them for prescribing in the wrong one.
What makes a prescription 'unnecessary'
The section reaches a 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. Two situations are covered: prescribing when the condition does not require the drug at all, and prescribing more than the condition requires. Importantly, the statute does not leave that judgement to the accusing party. Whether the drug or dosage was unnecessary is as determined by the Board, in consultation with competent experts — including those involved in the care of persons with severe pain, whose legitimate treatment the provision is careful not to sweep in.
The penalty includes losing the licence
This offence carries more than imprisonment and a fine. Section 18 adds the additional penalty of the revocation of his/her license to practice. For a professional that is often the gravest consequence, because it ends the ability to work in the field, and it follows directly from the criminal liability rather than as a separate administrative step. The pairing signals that the law treats abuse of prescribing authority as going to the practitioner's fitness to hold that authority at all, not merely as an isolated act.
The line this protects
The provision is not an attack on aggressive but genuine treatment. Its own text ties the judgement to expert determination and expressly contemplates the care of patients in severe pain, for whom strong medication may be entirely appropriate. The dividing line is medical necessity, assessed through the Board's process, not second-guessing by a complainant. A practitioner facing such an allegation will want the clinical record — the diagnosis, the indication and the dosage rationale — because that is the material on which the necessity question is actually decided.