Short answer. Both can be. Section 37 punishes false or fraudulent drug test results issued not only knowingly or wilfully, but also through gross negligence. So a carelessly wrong result can attract criminal liability — provided the carelessness rises to gross negligence. An ordinary, honest mistake is a different matter.
What the law says
who issues false or fraudulent drug test results knowingly, willfully or through gross negligence
RA 9165, Section 37 — False Drug Test Results. Read the full provision →
Three states of mind, not one
Many people assume this offence needs proof of deliberate fabrication. The statute is wider. It reaches an accredited tester who issues false or fraudulent drug test results knowingly, willfully or through gross negligence. That is three alternative mental states joined by 'or': acting with knowledge, acting wilfully, or acting with gross negligence. Any one of them can complete the offence. So the prosecution is not confined to showing a conscious lie; it may instead build the case around how the result was produced and how careless that process was.
Gross negligence brings carelessness within reach
The inclusion of gross negligence is what makes a careless result punishable. A tester who does not set out to deceive, but who handles the examination so carelessly that a false result comes out, is not automatically outside the section merely because there was no intent to lie. The law treats the integrity of drug testing as important enough that reckless indifference to getting the result right is itself culpable, not just deliberate falsification. That is a meaningful widening of exposure for anyone in the testing business.
But the negligence must be 'gross'
The qualifier matters as much as the noun. The section does not say 'negligence'; it says gross negligence. That points to a serious failure — a want of even slight care, or a reckless disregard of the proper procedure — not every slip or ordinary error a competent professional might occasionally make. An honest mistake made despite reasonable care is not what the provision is aimed at. So the real question in a given case is where on that spectrum the tester's conduct sits, which is a fact-specific judgement rather than a foregone conclusion.
The consequences do not soften for negligence
It is worth noting that the section attaches the same penalties whichever mental state is proven. A result issued through gross negligence carries the same imprisonment, fine, licence revocation and closure of the centre as one issued knowingly. The law does not offer a lighter track for the careless offender. For a practitioner or facility, that is a strong reason to document how each test is conducted and reviewed, since the records of the process are what separate a defensible mistake from gross negligence if a result is later challenged.