Short answer. Imprisonment of six months and one day to four years, plus a fine of ten thousand to fifty thousand pesos. Section 32 of RA 9165 imposes this on any person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board, in addition to whatever administrative sanctions the Board itself imposes.
What the law says
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act
RA 9165, Section 32 — Violating Board Regulations. Read the full provision →
What the law says
in addition to the administrative sanctions imposed by the Board
RA 9165, Section 32 — Violating Board Regulations. Read the full provision →
The penalty in full
Section 32 of RA 9165 provides: The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act. Both parts apply — imprisonment and fine together, not one or the other — with the exact term and amount fixed by the court within those ranges. The offense is not possessing or selling drugs; it is breaching the rules the Board issues to govern how dangerous drugs and their precursors are lawfully handled.
Criminal liability on top of administrative sanctions
The section's closing phrase — in addition to the administrative sanctions imposed by the Board — means the criminal case does not replace the administrative one. A licensed handler who breaks a Board regulation can face both tracks: the Board acting on the license or accreditation through its own processes, and a prosecution carrying the imprisonment and fine. Settling or accepting the administrative consequence therefore does not, by itself, close the criminal exposure, and the two proceedings can run on their own timetables.
Who is realistically exposed
Board regulations chiefly govern the legitimate side of the dangerous drugs system — the licensing, custody, recordkeeping, prescribing, dispensing, transport and reporting rules that let hospitals, pharmacies, physicians, manufacturers, importers and researchers handle controlled substances lawfully. It is people and businesses operating in that regulated space who most often meet Section 32: a recordkeeping lapse, an unauthorized transfer, a failure to comply with a duly issued requirement. Anyone whose work touches controlled substances should treat Board issuances as part of the criminal law that applies to them, because Section 32 makes them exactly that.
The words that matter in a defence
Two phrases in the section carry the arguments. The regulation must be duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act — a charge built on an issuance that was not validly promulgated, or that strays beyond what the law authorises the Board to regulate, attacks the premise of the offense. And the penalty falls on a person found violating the regulation, which requires proof of the violation itself, not merely proximity to a regulated activity. If you are facing a charge under this section, the regulation's text, its issuance history, and the precise conduct alleged are the three documents to put in front of counsel first.