Filipina's 10-year drug sentence overturned in Dubai Court ruling

Dubai: The Dubai Court of Appeal has overturned a 10-year prison sentence previously issued against, a 35-year-old Filipina accused of smuggling cannabis extract into the UAE.

In its final judgment, delivered in open court, the appellate court ruled:

“The court rules in the presence of the appellant, accepting the appeal in form and in substance, annulling the contested judgment, and ruling anew to acquit the appellant — of all charges brought against her, and to confiscate the seized narcotic substance.”

Background of the case

The case began on December 15, 2024, when customs officials at Dubai International Airport’s Terminal 3 flagged the  defendant’s luggage during routine screening. Inspector  discovered 20 vape cartridges hidden inside pancake mix packages. Forensic tests confirmed the contents as 20 grams of cannabis extract, a substance banned under Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances.

In March 2025, the Dubai Criminal Court sentenced the defendant  to 10 years in prison, fined her Dh100,000, and ordered her deportation after serving her sentence. The trial court dismissed her plea of ignorance, ruling that possession and importation of narcotics were sufficiently proven by the evidence presented.

Defense arguments and appeal

Defendant ‘s legal team challenged the conviction, arguing that she had a clean criminal record, no prior involvement in illegal activities, and no intent to smuggle narcotics. They cited Article 96 of the federal narcotics law, which allows for mitigation or alternative sentencing in cases with special circumstances, and emphasized that she was a first-time offender with family and social ties in the UAE.

The appeal memorandum stressed that the concealment of the cartridges may have been unknown to defendant, and that the quantity involved was not indicative of trafficking for commercial purposes.

Court of Appeal’s decision

In September, after reviewing the case file, hearing arguments, and reassessing the evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was insufficient proof that defendant knowingly imported or possessed the banned substance. Consequently, the conviction was overturned, her name was cleared, and only the confiscation of the seized material was upheld.