Case Digest (G.R. No. 205472)
Facts:
Amado I. Saraum, G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Amado I. Saraum, was charged with violating Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs) in Criminal Case No. CBU-77737 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City.On August 17, 2006, police received a tip about illegal drug activity in Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City. A buy-bust team, including PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis and PO1 Romeo Jumalon, performed an operation aimed at a suspect called “Pata.” During a hot pursuit of Pata into a shanty, the team encountered Saraum and Peter Esperanza; officers testified they observed Saraum holding a disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil and rolled tissue paper in his left hand. The items were confiscated, initially marked at the scene, later marked at the police station, and eventually turned over to the Office of the City Prosecutor’s property custodian.
Saraum pleaded not guilty at arraignment and was released on bail. At trial the prosecution presented the arresting officers as witnesses; the defense offered Saraum’s testimony only, in which he denied involvement and claimed he was passing by when men with firearms accosted him. On May 5, 2009, the RTC found Saraum guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine, ordering forfeiture of the paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CEB CR No. 01199 affirmed that conviction in a Decision dated September 8, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the warrantless arrest of petitioner and the ensuing search and seizure lawful under the in flagrante delicto rule (procedural issue)?
- Does non-compliance with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (physical inventory and photography) or alleged defects in the chain of custody render the seized paraphernalia inadmissible (procedural/substantive evidentiary issue)?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner possessed drug paraphernalia as defined under Section 12, A...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)