SC: Gov should hunt more 'big fish' drugs cases
_2016_06_14_17_38_59.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
The Supreme Court said in People v. Holgado (G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014):It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short [on] prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish."
We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels.
Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace.
We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.In that case of Holgado, the quantity of drugs seized was so miniscule it amounts to only about 2.5% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams). Holgado and Misarez were acquitted by the Regional Trial Court of all other charges (i.e., for possession of dangerous drugs and for possession of drug paraphernalia).While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21 (Chain of Custody). In Malilin v. People, the High Court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible innature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." (G.R. No. 207992)
ADDITIONAL READINGS:
[1] G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[2] People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
[3] 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
[4] G.R. No. 186467, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 803 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
[5] G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
[6] G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[7] People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
