People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Oliver RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, Appellant

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 729 23/09/2019, 1)23 AM
G.R. No. 188133. July 7, 2014.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. OLIVER
RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, appellant.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests;

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.·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
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
256
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Edaño
overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.‰
Criminal Law; Evidence; Trying to run away when no crime has
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d59faef10f6bd217c003600fb002c009e/p/ARL126/?username=Guest Page 1 of 19
been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of

guilt.·That the appellant attempted to run away when PO3 Corbe
approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as
adequate to charge the police officer with personal knowledge that
the appellant had just engaged in, was actually engaging in or was
attempting to engage in criminal activity. As the Court explained in
People v. Villareal, 693 SCRA 549 (2013): Furthermore, appellantÊs
act of darting away when PO3 de Leon approached him should not
be construed against him. Flight per se is not synonymous with
guilt and must not always be attributed to oneÊs 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. Thus, appellantÊs
attempt to run away from PO3 de Leon is susceptible of various
explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it could
likewise signify innocence. In other words, trying to run away when
no crime has been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be
evidence of guilt.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests;
Illegal Searches and Seizures; Considering that the appellantÊs
warrantless arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.·Considering that the
appellantÊs 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.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs; Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; 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.·Even granting, for the sake of
argument, that the appellantÊs warrantless arrest was valid, the
latterÊs acquittal is still in order due to the prosecutionÊs failure to
establish the evidence of the corpus delicti with moral certainty. We
stress that „[t]he exis-
257
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 257
People vs. Edaño
tence 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 · enumerated and discussed below ·
committed by the police in the handling, safekeeping and custody
over the seized drug tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of
the confiscated shabu.
Same; Same; Marking; Words and Phrases; Marking, as used in
drug cases, means the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the item/s seized.
·Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the item/s seized. „Consistency with the Âchain of
custodyÊ rule requires that the ÂmarkingÊ of the seized items · to
truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and
are eventually the ones offered in evidence · should be done (1) in
the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation.‰ The Court clarified in People v. Resurreccion, 603
SCRA 510 (2009), that marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending team. Thus, while marking of the seized drugs at
the police station is permitted, the marking should be done by
the police, and not by the accused. The appellantÊs participation
in the marking procedure should only be as a witness. Why the
police failed to do a basic police procedure truly baffles us.
Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Section 21(a), Article II of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) offers some
flexibility in complying with the express requirements under
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
i.e., „noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.‰·To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the
IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, i.e., „noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable

grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by
258
People vs. Edaño
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid

such seizures of and custody over said items[.]‰ This saving clause,
however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the
procedural lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable
grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.
Same; Same; Same; Exclusionary Rule; Although the Supreme
Court (SC) has recognized that minor deviations from the procedures
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 would not automatically
exonerate an accused, it has also declared that when there is gross
disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive
law (R.A. No. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in
evidence.·Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations
from the procedures under R.A. No. 9165 would not automatically
exonerate an accused, we have also declared that when there is
gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the
substantive law (R.A. No. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated
about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by
simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or
deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards
effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of
official duties.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree; The Supreme Court (SC) holds that the appellantÊs acquittal is
in order since the shabu purportedly seized from him is inadmissible
in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree.·In
sum, we hold that the appellantÊs acquittal is in order since the
shabu purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in evidence for
being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Corollarily, the

prosecutionÊs failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act,
compromised the identity of the item seized, leading to the failure
to adequately prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged.
APPEAL from the decision and resolution of the Court of

Appeals.
259
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 259

People vs. Edaño
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
Renato Sarmiento for appellant.
BRION, J.:
We resolve in this appeal the challenge to the October
16, 2008 decision1 and the December 23, 2008 resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01142.
The challenged CA decision affirmed the April 22, 2004
joint decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
103, Quezon City, finding appellant Oliver Renato Edaño
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and
imposing on him the penalty of life imprisonment. The
assailed resolution, on the other hand, denied the
appellantÊs motion for reconsideration.
Background Facts
The prosecution charged the appellant and Godofredo
Siochi with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 under two separate Informations, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. Q-02-111200 and Q-02-112104.
The appellant and Siochi pleaded not guilty to the
charge on arraignment. Joint trial on the merits followed.
The prosecution presented, as its witnesses, Police
Inspector (P/Insp.) Aylin Casignia and Police Officer (PO)3
Elmer
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,

and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a
member of this Court) and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
2 CA Rollo, p. 139.
3 Id., at pp. 21-27; penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
260

People vs. Edaño
Corbe. The appellant, Siochi and Ruben Forteza took the

witness stand for the defense.
The evidence for the prosecution established that on the
evening of August 6, 2002, members of the Metro Manila
Drugs Enforcement Group, composed of PO3 Corbe, PO3
Nelson Javier, PO3 Dennis Padpad, PO3 Marcelo Alcancia,
Jr., together with a female informant, went to the parking
area of McDonalds, West Avenue to conduct an entrapment
operation against a certain alias „Nato.‰4
At around 7:00 p.m., the appellant arrived on board a
space wagon driven by Siochi.5 The informant approached
the appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle.
Afterwards, the informant waved at PO3 Corbe.6 When
PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the latter went
out of the vehicle and ran away. PO3 Corbe, PO3 Padpad
and PO3 Alcancia chased the appellant; PO3 Corbe was
able to grab the appellant, causing the latter to fall on the
ground. PO3 Corbe recovered a „knot-tied‰ transparent
plastic bag from the appellantÊs right hand, while PO3
Alcancia seized a gun tucked in the appellantÊs waist. The
other members of the police arrested Siochi. Thereafter, the
police brought the appellant, Siochi and the seized items to
the police station for investigation.7
P/Insp. Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the
Western Police District Crime Laboratory, examined the
seized items and found them positive for the presence of
shabu.8
The appellant, for his part, testified that at around 4:00
p.m. on August 6, 2002, he called Siochi on the phone, and
informed him that the motorbike starter the latter needed
4 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 2-3, 18.

5 Id., at pp. 8 and 24.
6 Id., at pp. 19-21.
7 Id., at pp. 5-7, 23.
8 TSN, December 11, 2002, pp. 12-17.
261
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 261

People vs. Edaño
was already available.9 On the same day, Vanessa Paduada

called the appellant, and asked for the directions to
McDonalds, West Avenue.10 At around 6:00 p.m., Siochi and
Ruben arrived at the gate of Philam Homes on board a
space wagon. The appellant met them at the subdivision
gate, and showed the starter to Siochi. Thereafter, Vanessa
called on the appellantÊs cellular phone. The appellant then
boarded the vehicle, and told Siochi that he would just talk
to a person at McDonalds.11 When the space wagon arrived
at McDonalds, the appellant alighted from the vehicle and
proceeded towards the restaurantÊs entrance. Afterwards,
Vanessa called him from inside a parked car. The appellant
approached Vanessa who, for her part, alighted from the
car. Vanessa told the appellant to get inside the carÊs rear.
The appellant did as instructed; Vanessa went to the front
passenger seat, beside a male driver.12 Immediately after,
the male driver alighted from the vehicle and entered the
carÊs rear. The appellant went out of the car, but the male
driver followed him and grabbed his hand. The appellant
resisted, and wrestled with the driver along West Avenue.
During this commotion, the appellant heard a gunfire; four
(4) persons approached him, and then tied his hands with a
masking tape.13 The police placed him on board a pick-up
truck, and then brought him to Bicutan. In Bicutan, the
police brought him to the interrogation room, where they
punched him and placed a plastic on his head.14
In its joint decision dated April 22, 2004, the RTC found
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.

9165,
_______________
9 TSN, December 9, 2003, pp. 3-4.

10 Id., at p. 6.
11 Id., at pp. 8-12; and TSN, February 16, 2004, pp. 11-12.
12 TSN, December 9, 2003, pp. 14-18.
13 Id., at pp. 19-25.
14 Id., at pp. 26-29.
262

People vs. Edaño
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life

imprisonment. It also ordered him to pay a P500,000.00
fine.
The RTC, however, acquitted Siochi on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
The CA found PO3 Corbe to be a credible witness. The CA
also found the appellantÊs warrantless arrest to be valid; it
explained that the appellantÊs act of running when PO3
Corbe was approaching him reinforced the latterÊs
suspicion that „something was amiss.‰15
The CA added that strict compliance with Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not required as long as the
integrity of the seized item had been ensured. It further
held that the police officers were presumed to have
regularly performed their official duties.
Finally, the CA held that the prosecution was able to
establish all the elements of illegal possession of shabu.
The appellant moved to reconsider this decision, but the
CA denied his motion in its resolution dated December 23,
2008.
In his brief16 and supplemental brief,17 the appellant
essentially alleged that PO3 CorbeÊs testimony was „vague
and equivocal‰;18 it lacked details on how the appellant was
lured to sell shabu to the informant, and how the

entrapment operation had been planned. The appellant
also argued that his warrantless arrest was illegal since he
was not committing any crime when the police arrested
him. He also claimed that the police did not mark and
photograph the seized items, and that there was a broken
chain of custody over the confiscated drugs.
_______________
15 Supra note 1 at p. 10.
16 CA Rollo, pp. 44-54, 104-107.
17 Rollo, pp. 24-40.
18 Supra note 16 at p. 48.
263
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 263

People vs. Edaño
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with

the argument that the testimony of PO3 Corbe was clear
and convincing; the inconsistencies in his court testimony
pertained only to minor details. It also claimed that the
appellantÊs arrest was valid, and the seized shabu was
admissible in evidence. Finally, the OSG maintained that
there was no break in the chain of custody over the seized
plastic bag containing shabu.19
The CourtÊs Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUIT the
appellant.
Warrantless arrest invalid; seized

items inadmissible
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.20
„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.‰21
In the present case, there was no overt act indicative of
a felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to
the
_______________
19 CA Rollo, pp. 72-95.

20 See George Antiquera y Codes v. People, G.R. No. 180661, December
11, 2013, 712 SCRA 339.
21 See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 191267, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 42,
51; italics supplied.
264

People vs. Edaño
appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that

he (appellant) had just committed, was actually
committing, or was attempting to commit a crime. In fact,
PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant
were just talking with each other when he approached
them. For clarity and certainty, we reproduce PO3 CorbeÊs
court testimony dated February 21, 2003, thus:
ATTY. RENATO SARMIENTO:

Q: You and the informant were not able to approach Nato
because he sense[d] that you are (sic) a policeman?
PO3 CORBE:
A: Our informant first approached Renato Edano[,] and they
talked but when he (sic) called me, Renato run (sic), sir.
Q: You said tinawag ka[,] who was that that call (sic) you?
A: Team informant, sir.
xxxx
Q: How did she call you?
A: She waived (sic) her had (sic), sir.
Q: What was she doing?
A: She was talking to Alias Nato[,] sir.

Q: Did you hear what they are talking? (sic)
A: I was still in the car[.] I was not able to hear[,] sir.
Q: How would you know that they are talking, Mr. Witness? (sic)
A: I could see them, sir.
Q: What did you see?
A: They were talking, sir.
Q: They were not exchanging stuff and money, Mr.
Witness?
A: Not yet, sir.
265
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 265

People vs. Edaño
Q: While talking[,] the female informant call[ed] you, Mr.

Witness?
A: Yes, sir.22 (emphases ours)
As testified to by PO3 Corbe himself, the appellant 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 PO3
Corbe, the latter admitted that this was not the
prearranged signal to signify that the sale of drugs had
been consummated. PO3 Corbe also admitted on cross-
examination that he had no personal knowledge on
whether there was a prohibited drug and gun inside the
space wagon when he approached it.
That the appellant attempted to run away when PO3
Corbe approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be
construed as adequate to charge the police officer with
personal knowledge that the appellant had just engaged in,
was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in
criminal activity.
As the Court explained in People v. Villareal:23
Furthermore, appellantÊs act of darting away when PO3 de Leon

approached him should not be construed against him. Flight per se
is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to
oneÊs 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. Thus, appellantÊs
attempt to run away from PO3 de Leon is susceptible of various
explanations; it could easily have meant guilt just as it could
likewise signify innocence.24
_______________
22 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 19-21.

23 G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 549.
24 Id., at p. 560; italics supplied, citations omitted.
266

People vs. Edaño
In other words, trying to run away when no crime has

been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be
evidence of guilt.
Considering that the appellantÊs 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.
Corpus delicti not proved with moral

certainty
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the
appellantÊs warrantless arrest was valid, the latterÊs
acquittal is still in order due to the prosecutionÊs failure to
establish the evidence of the corpus delicti with moral
certainty.
We stress that „[t]he 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.‰25 Thus, the evidence of the corpus
delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the various lapses · enumerated
and discussed below · committed by the police in the
handling, safekeeping and custody over the seized drug

tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu.
First, we find it highly unusual and irregular that the
police officers would let the appellant mark the drugs
seized from him, instead of doing the marking themselves.
To directly quote from the records:
ATTY. SARMIENTO:
Q: This item was not marked at the place allegedly where you
apprehended the suspect at McDonaldÊs,
_______________
25 See People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 402; 567 SCRA 86, 94 (2008).
267
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 267

People vs. Edaño
West Avenue, Quezon City, am I correct to say that?

PO3 CORBE:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You are also required not only to mark it but to put your
initial to it, my question did you place your initial in this
evidence? (sic)
A: No, sir.
Q: You did not, Mr. Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: You were also required to put the date of apprehension, being
the arresting officer, did you put the date in this evidence, Mr.
Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not do that, Mr. Witness?
A: What I remembered there is an initial of the accused, sir.
Q: Who put the initial, Mr. Witness?
A: He was the one, sir.
Q: At your station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not put your initial?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you not put your initial?
A: I was not able to put sir.26 (emphases ours)
Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by

the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the item/s seized. „Consistency
with the Âchain of custodyÊ rule requires that the ÂmarkingÊ
of the seized items · to truly ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the
ones offered in evidence · should be done (1) in the
presence of the appre-
26 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 14-15.
268

People vs. Edaño
hended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.‰27 The

Court clarified in People v. Resurreccion28 that marking
upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.
Thus, while marking of the seized drugs at the police
station is permitted, the marking should be done by
the police, and not by the accused. The appellantÊs
participation in the marking procedure should only be as a
witness. Why the police failed to do a basic police procedure
truly baffles us.
We also point out that per the testimony of P/Insp.
Casignia, the Forensic Chemical Officer, the police
forwarded two (2) plastic bags containing white crystalline
substances to the crime laboratory for examination · one
marked with the initials „OR‰ and the other marked with
„GS.‰ Both plastic bags were used as evidence against the
appellant. The records, however, did not indicate who
marked the plastic bag with „GS,‰ who witnessed this
marking, and when this marking had been made. As with
the bag that had been marked „OR,‰ we express doubts on
whether the plastic bag containing white crystalline
substances marked as „GS‰ was the same plastic bag taken
from the appellantÊs co-accused, Siochi.
Second, the police did not inventory or photograph

the seized drugs, whether at the place of confiscation or at
the police station. These omissions were admitted by the
prosecution during pre-trial.29
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of
drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, which states:
_______________
27 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241; 569 SCRA 194, 198 (2008).
28 618 Phil. 520, 532; 603 SCRA 510, 520 (2009).
29 See Records, p. 43.
269
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 269

People vs. Edaño
(1) 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 or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] [emphases
ours]
This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/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 or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest

police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items[.] [emphasis ours]
To be sure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers

some flexibility in complying with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, i.e., „noncompliance with these requirements
under justifiable
270

People vs. Edaño
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value

of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]‰ This
saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution
recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter explained
the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized had been preserved.30
These conditions were not met in the present case, as
the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any
justification for its failure to follow the prescribed
procedures in the handling and safekeeping of the seized
items. „We stress that it is the prosecution who has the
positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were
employed in contacting the representatives enumerated
under Section 21[a] of R.A. No. 9165, or that there was a
justifiable ground for failing to do so.‰31 The Court cannot
simply presume what these justifications are.
Although the Court has recognized that minor
deviations from the procedures under R.A. No. 9165 would
not automatically exonerate an accused, we have also
declared that when there is gross disregard of the

procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law
(R.A. No. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented
in evidence. This doubt cannot be remedied by simply
invoking the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, for a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural
safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in
the performance of official duties.32
_______________
30 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 431; 580 SCRA 259, 273 (2009), citing
People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214; 569 SCRA 194 (2008).
31 See People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA
324, 354; citations omitted.
32 See People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 604,
617.
271
VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 271

People vs. Edaño
In sum, we hold that the appellantÊs acquittal is in order

since the shabu purportedly seized from him is
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of
the poisonous tree. Corollarily, the prosecutionÊs failure to
comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and
with the chain of custody requirement of this Act,
compromised the identity of the item seized, leading to the
failure to adequately prove the corpus delicti of the crime
charged.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE
and SET ASIDE the October 16, 2008 decision and the
December 23, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01142. Appellant Oliver Renato
Edaño y Ebdane is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless
he is otherwise legally confined for another cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be sent to the Director of the

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court
within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-

Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside,

appellant Oliver Renato Edaño y Ebdane acquitted and
ordered immediately released.
Notes.·Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the

forestry officer or employee of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or any
personnel of the PNP to arrest, even without a warrant,
any person who has committed or is committing in his
presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code.
(Revaldo vs. People, 585 SCRA 341 [2009])
272

People vs. Edaño
The exception of search incidental to a lawful arrest

includes a warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an
equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the
search. (People vs. Delos Reyes, 656 SCRA 417 [2011])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Oliver RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Oliver RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines, Appellee, vs. Oliver RENATO EDAÑO y EBDANE, Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 729 23/09/2019, 1)23 AM

G.R. No. 188133. July 7, 2014.*

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Arrests;

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Edaño

been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 257

People vs. Edaño

tence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction

9165, i.e., „noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Edaño

the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid

being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. Corollarily, the

APPEAL from the decision and resolution of the Court of

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 259

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1 Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corbe. The appellant, Siochi and Ruben Forteza took the

informed him that the motorbike starter the latter needed

4 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 2-3, 18.

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 261

was already available.9 On the same day, Vanessa Paduada

possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.

9 TSN, December 9, 2003, pp. 3-4.

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life

lured to sell shabu to the informant, and how the

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 263

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with

Warrantless arrest invalid; seized

the person to be arrested must execute an overt act

19 CA Rollo, pp. 72-95.

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that

ATTY. RENATO SARMIENTO:

A: She was talking to Alias Nato[,] sir.

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 265

Q: While talking[,] the female informant call[ed] you, Mr.

As testified to by PO3 Corbe himself, the appellant and

Furthermore, appellantÊs act of darting away when PO3 de Leon

many innocent reasons for flight, including fear of retribution for

22 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 19-21.

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In other words, trying to run away when no crime has

Corpus delicti not proved with moral

handling, safekeeping and custody over the seized drug

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 267

West Avenue, Quezon City, am I correct to say that?

A: I was not able to put sir.26 (emphases ours)

Marking, as used in drug cases, means the placing by

26 TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 14-15.

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

hended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.‰27 The

Second, the police did not inventory or photograph

VOL. 729, JULY 7, 2014 269

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control