Case Summary (G.R. No. 205472)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Charged conduct: August 17, 2006.
RTC Decision convicting petitioner: May 5, 2009 (sentenced to six months and one day to two years imprisonment and P20,000 fine; paraphernalia forfeited).
CA Decision affirming RTC: September 8, 2011; CA Resolution: December 19, 2012.
Supreme Court decision denying petition for review under Rule 45: January 25, 2016 (petition denied; CA and RTC judgments affirmed).
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Primary statutory law applied: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), in particular Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia) and Section 21 (custody and disposition of confiscated items). Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165, including Section 21(a) and Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (definition of “chain of custody”). Procedural authorities: Rules of Court (Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari; Section 5(a), Rule 113 on warrantless arrests cited). Constitutional baseline: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990); constitutional presumption of innocence noted by the Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia where: (a) petitioner was allegedly arrested in the course of a buy-bust operation and found holding a lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil; (b) the prosecution did not conduct an immediate physical inventory and take photographs as prescribed by Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165; and (c) whether the chain of custody of the seized items was properly maintained and proven.
Core Facts Found by Trial and Appellate Courts
Police received information regarding illegal drug activities in Sitio Camansi and formed a buy-bust team. During a hot pursuit of “Pata,” the target eluded arrest and fled into a shanty. Inside the shanty, officers saw petitioner and Peter Esperanza holding items identified as drug paraphernalia. The items recovered from petitioner were: one lighter, one rolled tissue paper, and one aluminum tin foil (tooter). PO3 Larrobis placed the items in a plastic pack and made initial markings (“A” for Saraum). At the police station Larrobis marked the paraphernalia “AIS-08-17-2006.” The items were later turned over to the property custodian of the Office of the City Prosecutor and were offered and admitted in evidence at trial. Petitioner pleaded not guilty, denied involvement, and testified that he was passing by and was seized by men with firearms; the defense did not present other witnesses.
Elements of the Offense and Their Application
The Court reiterated the statutory elements under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: (1) possession or control by the accused of equipment, apparatus, or paraphernalia fit or intended for ingesting or introducing dangerous drugs into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The appellate and trial courts found both elements satisfied: the three items were identified and admitted in evidence, and petitioner was apprehended in circumstances showing possession during the buy-bust incident. The Court applied the established evidentiary findings and gave them great weight absent any showing of arbitrariness or palpable error by petitioner.
Lawful Warrantless Arrest (In Flagrante Delicto) and Its Consequences
The Court applied Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to treat the apprehension as a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto (apprehension at the time of committing or attempting to commit an offense). The Court set out the two requisites for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest and found them satisfied based on PO3 Larrobis’s testimony that he saw petitioner holding the paraphernalia while arresting another person in the shanty. Because the arrest was lawful, the subsequent search of the shanty and seizure of plainly visible paraphernalia were deemed lawful and admissible. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of innocence and emphasized that the prosecution’s detailed account of the arrest and seizure outweighed petitioner’s unsupported denial.
Objection to Arrest and Waiver Doctrine
The Court addressed the procedural requirement that objections to the legality of arrest must be raised before plea by moving to quash the Information; failure to do so results in waiver. Petitioner’s counsel manifested objection to admission of evidence on grounds of illegal arrest and search only during formal offer of evidence, i.e., after arraignment and plea; thus, the Court held the objection was waived and could not be entertained for the first time on appeal. The Court therefore treated procedural challenges to the arrest as forfeited.
Physical Inventory and Photograph Requirement under Section 21(1) and the IRR
Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 and its IRR require that the apprehending team immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph confiscated items in the presence of specified persons, and further allow that non-compliance may be excused for justifiable grounds so long as integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court acknowledged that the prosecution did not show the “justifiable ground” excusing their failure to comply strictly with the physical inventory and photographic requirement. Nevertheless, the Court held that non-compliance with Section 21(1) is not necessarily fatal to admissibility where the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved and where the accused did not timely challenge custody, safekeeping, disposition, or preservation below. The Court emphasized that the question is one of evidentiary weight, not automatic inadmissibility, absent a law rendering the evidence inadmissible for that reason.
Chain of Custody: Legal Standard and Its Application
The Court explained the chain of custody rule as requiring identification of persons who handled the confiscated items and an account of authorized movements from seizure to presentation in court, citing Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 and the Mallillin standard for authenticating exhibits. While recognizing that a perfect, unbroken chain is rarely practicable, the Court required that the prosecution demonstrate substantial compliance and preservation of integrity. In this case the Court found that the prosecution established the crucial link: the arrests and initial markings on the items by PO3 Larrobis, subsequent markings at
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 205472)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Amado I. Saraum (Saraum) seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 8, 2011 and Resolution dated December 19, 2012 in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01199.
- Those CA rulings affirmed the judgment of conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-77737.
- The case originated from an Information charging Saraum with violation of Section 12, Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
- The Supreme Court issued its Decision on January 25, 2016 (authored by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.), denying the petition and affirming the lower courts’ rulings. The decision was received by the Clerk of Court on February 15, 2016.
Accusatory Allegations (Information)
- Date and time alleged: on or about August 17, 2006, at about 12:45 A.M., in the City of Cebu.
- Allegation: Saraum, with deliberate intent and without legal authorization, had in his possession:
- One (1) lighter;
- One (1) rolled tissue paper;
- One (1) aluminum tin foil;
- The listed items alleged to be instruments/equipment fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
- Offense charged: Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.
Plea, Trial, and Evidence Presented
- Arraignment: Saraum, with counsel, pleaded not guilty.
- Pre-trial: Saraum was released on bail pending trial.
- Prosecution witnesses:
- PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis (testified to the operation, arrest and physical handling/marking of seized items);
- PO1 Romeo Jumalon (testified regarding the operation and roles);
- Other members of the buy-bust team were referenced: PO2 Nathaniel Sta. Ana (poseur-buyer), PO1 Roy Cabahug, PO1 Julius AniAon, and involvement/coordination with PDEA.
- Defense evidence:
- Saraum was the sole defense witness and denied commission of the offense; he offered an alternative account of his presence and arrest.
- Physical evidence:
- Lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil (tooter) recovered from Saraum and offered/admitted in evidence.
- Initial markings by PO3 Larrobis: the items were placed in a plastic pack of misua wrapper and marked “A” for Saraum and “P” for Esperanza; later marked “AIS-08-17-2006” at the police station and turned over to the property custodian of the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Facts as Found by the Prosecution and Trial Court
- A telephone tip regarding illegal drug activities in Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City, prompted formation of a buy-bust team.
- The buy-bust plan: PO2 Sta. Ana as poseur-buyer accompanied by the informant; PO1 Jumalon as back-up; other team members as perimeter security. PO1 AniAon coordinated with PDEA; pre-operation report submitted.
- During the operation, a suspect known as “Pata” attempted to elude arrest and ran toward his shanty.
- Inside the shanty, which had a curtain partition, Saraum and one Peter Esperanza were observed holding items consistent with preparation for a “shabu” pot session.
- PO3 Larrobis described apprehending Saraum while he was holding a disposable lighter in his right hand and a tin foil and rolled tissue paper in his left hand.
- The buy-bust team confiscated the items, made initial physical markings, and later labeled them and turned them over to the appropriate custody.
Defense Version and Denial
- Saraum’s testimony:
- Claimed he was merely passing by Lorega Cemetery on his way to his parents-in-law’s house when men with firearms stopped him.
- Stated that he was already with neighbors “Antik” and “Pata” at the time of arrest.
- Maintained he had committed no illegal act and resisted arrest; he only learned of the criminal charge upon being brought to court.
- Argued that the seized items had “countless, lawful uses” and denied that they were drug paraphernalia.
Trial Court Decision (RTC)
- On May 5, 2009, the RTC found Saraum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
- Sentence imposed: imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and a fine of Php20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- The trial court ordered the forfeiture of the drug paraphernalia in favor of the government.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Issues on Appeal
- The CA affirmed the RTC judgment in its Decision dated September 8, 2011 and issued a Resolution dated December 19, 2012.
- The CA’s affirmance centered on factual findings, admissibility of seized paraphernalia, validity of warrantless arrest in the course of a buy-bust/hot pursuit, and sufficiency of proof regarding preservation of integrity and evidentiary value of seized items.
Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition
- The Supreme Court denied Saraum’s petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the CA and RTC rulings.
- The Court found no arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness in the lower courts’ findings of fact; such findings were accorded great weight and deemed conclusive and binding.
- Because the prosecution established the elements of the offense and preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items, the judgment of conviction was sustained.
Elements of the Offense Applied (Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165)
- The elements required to convict for illegal possession of paraphernalia are:
- (1) Possession or control by the a