G.R. No. 217311 - Aleson Shipping Lines vs. CGU International Insurance Plc.

Amado I. Saraum was charged with the violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for possessing drug paraphernalia.
The charged paraphernalia included one (1) lighter, one (1) rolled tissue paper, and one (1) aluminum tin foil—items commonly used in drug consumption.

On or about August 17, 2006, in Cebu City, a telephone tip regarding illegal drug activities prompted law enforcement action.
A buy-bust team was organized which included members from the Philippine National Police: PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis, PO1 Romeo Jumalon, PO2 Nathaniel Sta. Ana, PO1 Roy Cabahug, and PO1 Julius AniAon, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
During the operation aimed at a suspect known as “Pata,” the team observed Saraum and another individual, Peter Esperanza, holding drug paraphernalia in a shanty, suggesting a “shabu” pot session.

Law enforcement officers made a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto as Saraum was apprehended holding a disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil with rolled tissue paper in his left hand.
The items recovered were clearly intended for smoking dangerous drugs and were seized in plain view during the operation.
The seized items were marked, inventoried (albeit incompletely as physical inventory and photographs were not rigorously taken per Section 21 of R.A. 9165), and later turned over to the property custodian of the Office of City Prosecutor.

Saraum, having pleaded not guilty with legal representation, underwent trial despite his release on bail.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City rendered a decision on May 5, 2009, finding Saraum guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years, and imposing a fine of Php20,000.00.
Additionally, the consolidated drug paraphernalia was ordered forfeited in favor of the government.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s judgment of conviction.
Saraum filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging issues related to the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of the seized evidence.
His defense challenged the police procedure and invoked the insufficiency of compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding the safeguarding of the seized items.

Whether the warrantless, in flagrante delicto arrest of Saraum complied with the legal requisites for such action.
Whether the facts surrounding the hot pursuit and buy-bust operation justified the immediate apprehension of Saraum.

Whether the absence of immediate physical inventory and photographic documentation of the confiscated paraphernalia rendered the evidence inadmissible.
Whether the chain of custody, despite not being perfect, maintained the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Whether the testimonies of the police officers and the handling of the evidence were sufficient to prove possession and control of the paraphernalia beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether Saraum’s denial and absence of corroborative evidence could discredit the established chain of testimonies by law enforcement.

Whether Saraum’s failure to timely object to the legality of his arrest at arraignment or prior to entering his plea constituted a waiver of his rights against the admission of the evidence.