People v.

Edao

FACTS:

Prosecution charged Edao and Siocho with violation of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act)
under two separate information. They both pleaded not guilty on the charge during arraignment. The
prosecution presented Police Inspector Casignia and Police Office Cobre. Edao, Siochi and Forteza took
the witness stand for defense.

Prosecutions side of the story:

On the evening of Aug. 6, 2002, the Drug Enforcement Group of Metro Manila composed of Police Officer
Corbe and 3 others together with an informant went to the parking area of Mcdonalds West Avenue to
conduct an entrapment operation against Nato (Edao). Edao arrived on board a vehicle driven by
Siochi. The informant then approached Edao and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards, informant
waved at Corbe and as Corbe was approaching, Edao went out of the vehicle and ran away. The police
officers chased Edao and Corbe was able to grab him, causing Edao to fall on the ground. Corbe recovered
a knit-tied small plastic bag from Edaos right hand and found a gun tucked in his waist. The other police
officers arrested Siochi and they brought them and the seized items to the police station for investigation.
Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer, examined the seized items and confirmed that the plastic bag
contained shabu.

Defenses Side of the story (Edao):

Edao called Siochi at around 4pm on August 6 to inform him about the motorbike starter the latter needed.
On the same day, Vanessa Paduada called him asking for directions to McDonalds West Ave. Siochi arrived
at the gate of Philam Homes with Forteza to meet up with Edao there. Edao showed the starter to Siochi
and afterwards, he boarded the vehicle and told Siochi that he will just talk to someone at Mcdonalds. When
they arrived, Edao alighted from Siochis vehicle and Vanessa called Edao from inside her parked car.
Vanessa told Edao to get in the cars rear and when he did, the male driver of that car went to the rear as
well. Edao then went out of the car and started running away. Edao heard a gunfire and four persons
approached him, tied his hands with masking tape and placed him on board a pick-up truck to bring him
to Bicutan for interrogation where they punched him and placed a plastic on his head.

RTC found Edao guilty beyond reasonable doubt but however acquitted Siochi on the ground of reasonable
doubt. CA affirmed the decision finding Corbe as credible witness. CA also found the warrantless arrest to
be valid and explained that the running away of Edao when Corbe approached him reinforced the latters
suspicion.

Edao alleged that Corbes testimony was vague and equivocal for it lacked details on how Edao was lured
to sell shabu to Vanessa. He also said that the warrantless arrest was illegal because he was not committing
any crime when he was arrested. He also claimed that the police did not mark or photograph the seized
items and that there was a broken chain of custody. OSG said that Corbes testimony was clear and
convincing and the inconsistencies pertained only to minor details. It also claimed that the arrest and
seizure was valid and that there was no break in the chain of custody.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the warrantless arrest of Edao was illegal?
2. W/N there was a break in the chain of custody over the confiscated drugs?

HELD:
1. YES
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is known an arrest in flagrante
delicto. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must
concur:
 1. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that 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."

In the present case, there was no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could be properly
attributed to Edao to rouse suspicion in the mind of Corbe that Edao had just committed, was actually
committing, or was attempting to commit a crime. In fact, Corbe testified that Edao and the informant
were just talking with each other when he approached them.

Corbe, in his testimony, said Edao and the informant were just talking to each other; there was no
exchange of money and drugs when he approached the car. Notably, while it is true that the informant
waved at Corbe, the latter admitted that this was not the pre-arranged signal to signify that the sale of drugs
had been consummated. Corbe also admitted on cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge on
whether there was a prohibited drug and gun inside the vehicle when he approached it.

The attempt of Edao to run away when Corbe approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be
construed as adequate to charge the police officer with personal knowledge that Edao had just engaged in,
was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. As held in People v. Villareal,
Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to ones consciousness of guilt.
It is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances, for even in high crime areas there are
many innocent reasons for flight, including fear of retribution for speaking to officers, unwillingness to
appear as witnesses, and fear of being wrongfully apprehended as a guilty party.

Considering that Edaos warrantless arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that resulted from it was
likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag containing white crystalline substances seized from him is
inadmissible in evidence, having come from an invalid search and seizure.

2. YES

If granted that the warrantless arrest was valid, Edaos acquittal is still in order due to the prosecutions
failure to establish the evidence of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. We stress that "the existence of
dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous
drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes. Thus, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the various lapses committed by the police in the handling, safekeeping and custody
over the seized drug tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. Corbe made Edao
mark the evidence as opposed to him doing so and just having Edao as a witness as he performs the
marking. The police also did not inventory or photographed the seized drugs whether at the place of
confiscation or at the police station. These are requirements under RA 9165 in handling the seized evidence
which obviously was not complied with by the prosecution.

The Court ordered the Acquittal of Edao for the reason of his warrantless arrest and the inadmissibility of
the items seized.