G.R. No. 188133 ; July 7, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. OLIVER RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Oliver Renato Edaño, was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of shabu. The prosecution evidence established that on August 6, 2002, police officers conducted an entrapment operation at a McDonald’s parking area in West Avenue, Quezon City, targeting an alias “Nato.” The appellant arrived in a vehicle driven by Godofredo Siochi. A female informant approached and talked to the appellant inside the vehicle. When the informant waved, PO3 Elmer Corbe approached, prompting the appellant to alight and run. PO3 Corbe chased and apprehended the appellant, recovering a knot-tied transparent plastic bag from his right hand and a gun from his waist. The seized plastic bag tested positive for shabu. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The appellant appealed, arguing that his warrantless arrest was illegal, the chain of custody of the seized drugs was broken, and the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid.
2. Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti (the seized dangerous drugs) with moral certainty, considering the chain of custody requirements under R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the appellant.
1. The warrantless arrest was invalid. For a valid arrest in flagrante delicto under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the person must commit an overt act indicating the commission of a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. Here, PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant were merely talking, with no exchange of drugs or money when he approached. The appellant’s act of running away, without more, did not constitute an overt act of criminal activity. Flight alone is not synonymous with guilt. Consequently, the search and seizure incident to the unlawful arrest were illegal, rendering the seized plastic bag inadmissible in evidence.
2. The corpus delicti was not proved with moral certainty. Even assuming a valid arrest, the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , tainting the integrity of the seized drugs. The police committed several lapses:
– The appellant was allowed to mark the seized drugs himself at the police station, which was highly irregular.
– There was no evidence that the seized items were photographed or inventoried immediately after seizure.
– The prosecution did not present the informant or other witnesses to corroborate the arrest and seizure.
– The forensic chemist who examined the drugs was not presented to testify on the handling and examination procedures.
These lapses breached the chain of custody, casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction, and the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. Due to the invalid arrest and broken chain of custody, the appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was ordered immediately released unless confined for another lawful cause.