Police in Manila confiscated two plastic balikbayan boxes containing 100 infrared thermometers that were being sold for P4,700 each, far above the legal ceiling of P1,500 per unit. The haul, valued by authorities at P235,000, represents a 213 percent markup over the maximum price set by the Department of Trade and Industry for essential medical devices during emergencies. The arrest of 38‑year‑old Jackson Chua took place on Sunday afternoon in the Ermita district.
CIDG officers, posing as bulk purchasers, met Chua inside a budget hotel on Kalaw Avenue. After he handed over the thermometers, the officers presented a search warrant, recovered marked bills from his sling bag and seized the boxes.
According to Lt‑Col. Arnel Aquino, chief of the CIDG National Capital Region, Chua did not resist the operation. Chua, who is registered as a textiles importer, did not hold a license to trade medical devices. Investigators traced the thermometers to a warehouse in Tondo where they were reportedly repackaged at night.
The warehouse was sealed on the following Monday. The case stems from complaints by hospitals that thermometers were disappearing from pharmacy shelves while online sellers were listing the same devices for up to P6,000.
Under Republic Act 7581, as amended by RA 10623, a maximum 10 percent markup is allowed on essential goods during a national emergency. The Price Act, the Consumer Act of the Philippines, and the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases Law all prescribe penalties of five to fifteen years’ imprisonment and fines up to P2 million for violations that disrupt the health supply chain. Chua defended his pricing by describing it as “market‑driven.” The phrase highlights the tension between genuine market forces and the government’s anti‑profiteering drive, which began on 29 March 2020 as COVID‑19 cases surged.
While demand for thermometers spiked and supply chains tightened, the legal ceiling remained at P1,500, creating a gap that some sellers, including Chua, exploited. The operation illustrates the enforcement tactics being employed: undercover buyers, a search warrant, marked currency and the sealing of a suspected distribution hub.
Yet it also raises questions about the broader network behind the profiteering. The use of a textiles import permit to move medical equipment and the nighttime repacking suggest a systematic approach rather than an isolated act. Justice Under‑Secretary Emmel, identified only by title in the original report, will oversee the prosecution. The case will test whether the existing legal framework can act swiftly enough to curb profiteering in a pandemic context, where courts often move slower than supply‑chain dynamics.
By the time the trial concludes, the seized thermometers may be well past the peak of demand that prompted the price controls. This underscores a core challenge of emergency price regulations: they are only effective when enforcement outpaces the incentives for profiteering.
The two balikbayan boxes now serve as evidence in a criminal proceeding and as a snapshot of a moment when a textiles importer chose to price a thermometer at P4,700 instead of the legally mandated P1,500. The courts will determine Chua’s penalty, while the market will watch to see whether other sellers simply adjust prices to offset the risk of detection.
