PREVIEW

PREVIEW — figures are transcribed, not yet reviewed. Check the cited instrument before relying on them.

MultaGuide
RESEARCH STATUSEvery figure on this site is at research status. No reviewer has signed one off, and the national schedule was transcribed by eye from page scans.

Drink and drug driving

This is the clearest case on the site of a number that does not exist where everyone looks for it. The national schedule's drink-driving item states licence consequences and no peso figure whatsoever; the money is in the Act, and the Act gives a court a floor and a ceiling rather than an amount.

Where the money is

Three bands, each a floor and a ceiling

Set by outcome rather than by reading, and every one of them names an imprisonment term in the same clause as the fine.

← swipe to see the whole table →

The statutory fine bands
OutcomeNot less thanNot more thanImprisonment
No injury caused₱20,000₱80,0003 months imprisonment
Physical injuries caused₱100,000₱200,000Revised Penal Code art. 263 penalty, or the §12(a) penalty, whichever is higher
Homicide₱300,000₱500,000Revised Penal Code art. 249 penalty
Two figures per row, never one. The Act gives a court a range and this site does not average it, take the floor as the answer, or present either bound as what you will be charged.

Every figure in that table comes from the Act, not from the national schedule. The schedule’s own drink and drug driving item states no amount at all — which is the finding further down this page, and the reason none of these rows carries a scan citation.

SourceSTATUTERA 10586 (Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act, 2013), §12(a)In force 27 May 2013. That is the day the Act was approved. The Act itself commences fifteen days after it is published, and the publication record is not in this site’s corpus — so the real start date is later than the date above by an unknown margin.Source last read 7 August 2026 — a read date, not a sign-off.

Check a band

What the Act states for your circumstances

Two controls, both of which change the answer — and neither of which produces a single peso figure, because none exists.

The circumstances

What happened
Licence type and conviction

The 2014 national schedule states no amount at all for this. Its drink and drug driving item opens “In addition to the fines and penalties prescribed by law” and then lists licence consequences only — so a table showing a zero there would tell you drink driving is free, and this site shows none.

What the Act states

Court-set range
Fine — not less than
₱20,000
Fine — not more than
₱80,000
Imprisonment
3 months imprisonment
Licence
Suspended 12 months from payment of the fine

The two figures above are a floor and a ceiling, not a fine. The Act gives a court a range and this site will not average it, take the floor as the answer, or present either bound as the amount you will be charged.

The vehicle's owner or operator is directly and principally liable for the fine together with the driver, unless they convincingly prove extraordinary diligence in choosing and supervising drivers.

The finding

The schedule states nothing here at all

The national schedule states no amount at all for drink or drug driving

The national schedule's drink and drug driving item opens with the words “In addition to the fines and penalties prescribed by law:” and then lists licence consequences only. It states no peso amount whatsoever. The money is entirely in the Act the item cites, and that Act gives a court a floor and a ceiling rather than a fixed figure. This site shows the Act's ranges and shows no amount for the schedule, because the schedule has none — a zero in that place would tell you drink driving is free.

After a perpetual revocation

No licence of any kind, thereafter

A perpetual revocation disqualifies the person from being granted any kind of driver’s licence afterwards. It is not a long suspension with an end date.

Not only the driver

The owner or operator is directly liable too

The vehicle’s owner or operator is directly and principally liable for the fine together with the offender, unless they convincingly prove extraordinary diligence in selecting and supervising drivers. That is a defence somebody has to establish, not a default.

UNRESOLVED

An older band is still printed, with no repeal marker on it

The 1964 Traffic Code carried its own drink-driving penalty, and the 2013 Act’s repealing clause names it expressly. The consolidated text this site read still prints that older clause with no repeal marker of any kind at that point — so a reader working from that text alone would find a live-looking provision that has been repealed.

This site prices from the 2013 Act. The older clause appears here as a warning about the consolidated text, not as an alternative figure.

RA 10586 (Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act, 2013), §19 (Repealing Clause)

Every figure names the instrument it came from and whether that instrument was a statute text or a page scan.