Lawyerly

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

LEONEN, J.

"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused."[1]

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

We reiterate our extensive discussion on this matter in People v. Holgado:[31]

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

Section 21 spells out matters that are imperative. "Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."[33] This is especially so when the prosecution claims that the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia is the result of carefully planned operations, as is the case here.

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." [The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act] requires compliance with Section 21.[37]

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered[.][40] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 214490

2016-01-13

HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE

LEONEN, J.

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 of 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.[41]

GR No. 208685

2015-03-09

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO

LEONEN, J.

The seized shabu weighed 0.04 grams, a miniscule amount. In People v. Holgado:[76]

GR No. 208685

2015-03-09

PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO

LEONEN, J.

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 of 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.[88]

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

We reiterate the extensive discussion on this matter from our recent decision in People v. Holgado:[22]

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."[37] In People v. Garcia,[38] this court noted that the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section 21 to be present, does not suffice: Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.[39] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 205821

2014-10-01

PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN

LEONEN, J.

Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. . . . [44] (Citations omitted)

	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused."[1]
	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
We reiterate our extensive discussion on this matter in People v. Holgado:[31]
	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Section 21 spells out matters that are imperative. "Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."[33] This is especially so when the prosecution claims that the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia is the result of carefully planned operations, as is the case here.
	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is "negated." [The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act] requires compliance with Section 21.[37]
	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered[.][40] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 214490 2016-01-13	HOWARD LESCANO Y CARREON v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
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 of 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.[41]
	GR No. 208685 2015-03-09	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO LEONEN, J.
The seized shabu weighed 0.04 grams, a miniscule amount. In People v. Holgado:[76]
	GR No. 208685 2015-03-09	PEOPLE v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO LEONEN, J.
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 of 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.[88]
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
We reiterate the extensive discussion on this matter from our recent decision in People v. Holgado:[22]
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."[37] In People v. Garcia,[38] this court noted that the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section 21 to be present, does not suffice: Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.[39] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 205821 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN LEONEN, J.
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. . . . [44] (Citations omitted)

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ