Saraum vs. People

Non-compliance with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 regarding the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized drug paraphernalia does not automatically render such items inadmissible in evidence; rather, the issue goes to the weight and probative value of the evidence, provided there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.

On August 17, 2006, PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis received a telephone call regarding illegal drug activities in Sitio Camansi, Barangay Lorega, Cebu City. A buy-bust team was formed composed of PO3 Larrobis, PO1 Romeo Jumalon, PO2 Nathaniel Sta. Ana, PO1 Roy Cabahug, and PO1 Julius Aniñon to conduct an operation against a certain "Pata." PO2 Sta. Ana was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO1 Jumalon as back-up, and the rest as perimeter security. PO1 Aniñon coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared the necessary pre-operation report before the team proceeded to the subject area.

• During the buy-bust operation, "Pata" eluded arrest by running towards his shanty. Inside the house, which was divided by a curtain, the buy-bust team saw Saraum and Peter Esperanza holding drug paraphernalia apparently in preparation for a "shabu" pot session.
• The police recovered from Saraum's possession one lighter, one rolled tissue paper, and one aluminum tin foil (tooter).
• PO3 Larrobis confiscated the items, placed them in a plastic pack of misua wrapper, and made initial markings ("A" for Saraum and "P" for Esperanza).
• At the police station, PO3 Larrobis marked the paraphernalia recovered from Saraum as "AIS-08-17-2006."
• After the case was filed, the subject items were turned over to the property custodian of the Office of the City Prosecutor.
• By way of defense, Saraum testified that he was merely passing by Lorega Cemetery on his way to his parents-in-law's house when armed men held him. He claimed he was with neighbors "Antik" and "Pata" and resisted arrest believing he had done nothing illegal. He learned of the charge only when brought to court.
• The prosecution presented PO3 Jeffrey Larrobis and PO1 Romeo Jumalon as witnesses, while the defense presented only Saraum.
• Counsel for Saraum manifested objection to the admission of the seized drug paraphernalia, invoking illegal arrest and search, only during the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution, not before arraignment.

• Saraum denied the commission of the offense, claiming he was merely passing by the area when apprehended by armed men.
• He argued that he was not committing a crime at the time of his arrest and that the arrest was illegal.
• He contended that the items seized had "countless, lawful uses" and were not necessarily drug paraphernalia.
• He challenged the chain of custody of the seized items, arguing that the police failed to comply with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 requiring immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ representative, and elected public official.
• He argued that the non-compliance with the physical inventory and photographing requirements rendered the seized items inadmissible in evidence.

• The prosecution maintained that Saraum was caught in flagrante delicto holding drug paraphernalia (lighter, rolled tissue paper, and aluminum tin foil) during the buy-bust operation.
• The prosecution argued that the warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure as Saraum was committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers.
• The prosecution asserted that the chain of custody was properly established and the integrity of the evidence preserved, despite the lack of physical inventory and photographs.
• The prosecution argued that the police officers were entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties and that their testimonies were credible and positive.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the objection to the legality of arrest and search can be raised for the first time during the formal offer of evidence, or is deemed waived for failure to move for quashing of the Information before arraignment.
  • Whether strict non-compliance with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 regarding physical inventory and photographing renders the seized items inadmissible in evidence.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 were established beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether the warrantless arrest of Saraum was valid as an arrest in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Saraum's counsel raised the objection only during the formal offer of evidence, not before arraignment, thus the objection was deemed waived.
  • The Court held that non-compliance with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. The Court clarified that there is no provision in RA 9165 or any rule that brings about the non-admissibility of confiscated drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21. The issue is not of admissibility, but of weight—evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight depends on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
  • The Court found that Saraum could not raise the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal, as he failed to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court.
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed that the elements of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The prosecution established these elements beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The Court held that Saraum's arrest was valid as an arrest in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The two requisites concur: (1) Saraum was executing an overt act indicating he was committing a crime (holding drug paraphernalia in preparation for a pot session); and (2) such overt act was done in the presence of the arresting officers. The police officers saw Saraum holding a disposable lighter in his right hand and tin foil and rolled tissue paper in his left hand.
  • The Court ruled that the valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to search the shanty and seize the drug paraphernalia under the plain view doctrine. The items were plainly visible and were the corpus delicti of the crime charged.
  • The Court found that the prosecution established a sufficient chain of custody to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, despite the lack of physical inventory and photographs. The succession of events and the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals showed substantial compliance.
  • The Court held that the defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification by police officers, especially in the absence of any showing of ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers.

• In Flagrante Delicto Arrest — A warrantless arrest is valid when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Two requisites must concur: (1) the person executes an overt act indicating he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Applied in this case to justify the warrantless arrest of Saraum while holding drug paraphernalia.
• Chain of Custody Rule — A method of authenticating evidence that requires testimony about every link in the chain of possession from the moment the item was seized until it is offered in evidence, ensuring no opportunity for alteration or tampering. The Court held that while the chain should be perfect, in reality it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain, and failure to strictly comply does not necessarily render evidence inadmissible if integrity is preserved.
• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information before arraignment. Any objection involving arrest or jurisdiction over the person must be made before entering a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
• Presumption of Regularity in Official Duties — Police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of proof to the contrary. The defense failed to show any odious intent or ill-motive on the part of the police officers that would justify disregarding this presumption.

• "The established rule is that an accused may be estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived."
• "While the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible."
• "We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence."
• "The defense of denial, frame-up or extortion, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."

• Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) — Cited for the definition and procedure of establishing the chain of custody of seized items, explaining that every person who touched the exhibit must describe how and from whom it was received and the precautions taken to ensure no change in condition.
• Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710 (2009) — Cited for the rule that objections to illegal arrest must be made before arraignment, and for the principle that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 goes to weight rather than admissibility.
• Ambre v. People, 692 Phil. 681 (2012) — Cited for the requirements of in flagrante delicto arrest and the principle that the chain of custody need not be perfect if integrity is preserved.
• People v. Mariano, 698 Phil. 772 (2012) — Cited for the elements of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165 and the disfavored status of denial/frame-up defenses in drug cases.
• People v. Campomanes, 641 Phil. 610 (2010) — Cited for the principle that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal if there is justifiable ground and integrity is preserved, and that objections to custody must be raised before trial court.
• People v. Alivio, 664 Phil. 565 (2011) — Cited for the definition of chain of custody and the requirement of an unbroken link in the chain of custody.

• Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Defines the crime of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, which requires possession of items fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing dangerous drugs into the body without legal authorization.
• Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 — Mandates that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall immediately after seizure and confiscation physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, media, DOJ representative, and elected public official.
• Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 — Provides the saving clause that non-compliance with physical inventory and photographing requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as integrity and evidentiary value are preserved, shall not render void and invalid such seizures.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides for lawful warrantless arrest when in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
• Section 3, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court — States that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the rules, cited to support that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render evidence inadmissible.
• Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to final disposition.