Saraum vs People

G.R. No. 205472

January 25, 2016
THIRD DIVISION : PERALTA, J.

FACTS: Amado I. Saraum was charged with violation of Sec. 12 (Possession of Paraphernalia
for Dangerous Drugs) of RA 9165.

On August 17, 2006, after the buy bust team recovered from Saraum’s possession the drug
paraphernalia. The confiscating officer initially marked the confiscated items at the scene and
placed the final markings of the paraphernalia recovered from Saraum at the police station. After
which the case was filed, the confiscated items were turned over to the property custodian of the
Office of City Prosecutor. It is noteworthy that during the trial, the prosecution did not to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia. Subsequently, RTC
and CA convicted Saraum of the crime charged. On appeal to the SC, the counsel for Saraum
claimed that the arrest was illegal and the seized drug paraphernalia used as evidence was
inadmissible due to the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUE: Are the seized drug paraphernalia inadmissible as evidence due to the police officers’
failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165

HELD: NO. The SC laid down the rule in ascertaining the identity of the illegal drug
paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, it must show
that: the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied
with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No.
9165;  and there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to
the confiscated items.

The SC applied Section 21(a) of the IRR in ruling regarding the non-compliance of the
Chain of Custody Rule. It held that although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the
apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground
and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items was preserved. In this
case, there was no showing that there exist a "justifiable ground" in not complying with the
physical inventory and taking a photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized.
However, here it was said that such omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence because Saraum failed to specifically
challenge the custody and safekeeping of the drug paraphernalia before the trial court.

Next, In Mallillin v. People the court held that 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 items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The issue therefore, if there is non-
compliance with Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary
merit or probative value - to be given the evidence. In this case, the prosecution was able to
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had
not been compromised as it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized
items. Applying the rules provided in this case, it can be said there is substantial compliance by
the police as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items.