PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BARTOLOME y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191726 , February 6, 2012.

DOCTRINE: The failure of the prosecution to present the *corpus delicti* in a drug case is not fatal to its cause if it has sufficiently established by credible and convincing evidence that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved. The chain of custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.

FACTS

1. Based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust operation was planned against accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome for selling illegal drugs.
2. On July 1, 2004, PO2 Rodelio Bautista acted as the poseur-buyer. He was given marked money and pre-operation coordination was made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
3. During the operation, Bartolome sold one plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO2 Bautista in exchange for the marked money. Upon consummation, PO2 Bautista gave the pre-arranged signal and Bartolome was arrested.
4. A body search yielded two more plastic sachets from Bartolome’s pocket. The seized items were marked at the scene.
5. The items were turned over to the investigator, then to the crime laboratory for examination, which confirmed they contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
6. At trial, the prosecution presented PO2 Bautista and the forensic chemist. However, the *corpus delicti* (the three sachets of shabu) itself was not presented in court. The prosecution offered in evidence only the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Chemistry Report.
7. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bartolome for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
8. Bartolome appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to present the drugs in court violated his right to confront the evidence against him and broke the chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the *corpus delicti* (the seized drugs) in court is fatal to the prosecution’s case and warrants the acquittal of the accused.

RULING

NO. The failure to present the *corpus delicti* in court is not fatal per se, provided the prosecution has established an unbroken chain of custody and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that while the drugs are the best evidence, their absence can be justified, and conviction can still be sustained based on the totality of evidence proving an unbroken chain of custody.

The Court explained:
1. Chain of Custody as a Substitute for Authentication: The rule on chain of custody, as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules, is precisely designed to ensure the integrity of seized drugs from the moment of seizure until their presentation in court. It is a method of authenticating evidence. If the chain is shown to be unbroken, the drugs’ identity can be established even without their physical presentation.
2. Justification for Non-Presentation: The prosecution presented a justifiable reason for the non-presentation: the evidence custodian testified that the drugs had been destroyed pursuant to a court order after the case was submitted for decision in the RTC. This was a legitimate destruction under the law and did not imply bad faith.
3. Establishment of the Chain: The prosecution successfully established every link in the chain of custody through testimonial and documentary evidence:
* First Link (Seizure and Marking): PO2 Bautista, the poseur-buyer, testified to seizing and immediately marking the sachets at the scene.
* Second Link (Turnover to Investigator): The items were turned over to the case investigator, PO3 Lagman, at the police station, as shown by the Turn-Over of Confiscated Evidence form.
* Third Link (Forensic Examination): The Request for Laboratory Examination and the Chemistry Report documented the transfer to and examination by the forensic chemist, who confirmed the contents as shabu.
* Fourth Link (Post-Trial Custody): The evidence custodian testified on the safekeeping and eventual lawful destruction of the items.
4. Presumption of Regularity: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the police officers performed their duties in a regular manner stands. Bartolome failed to present any credible evidence of tampering, switching, or bad faith.
5. Right to Confront Witnesses vs. Physical Evidence: The right to confront witnesses was not violated. The witnesses who handled the evidence (the arresting officer, the investigator, and the chemist) were presented in court, cross-examined, and testified to the handling and identity of the drugs. The Constitution guarantees confrontation of witnesses, not of physical objects.

Therefore, the guilt of Joselito Bartolome was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the chain of custody intact and the non-presentation of the drugs adequately explained and justified. The decisions of the lower courts were affirmed.