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

DOCTRINE: In prosecutions for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence to ensure its integrity and identity. A break in this chain of custody, without justifiable grounds, casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the *corpus delicti* and warrants acquittal.

FACTS

1. Based on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust operation was planned against accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome for selling shabu.
2. On June 15, 2004, PO2 Rodelio Santos acted as the poseur-buyer. He was given two marked PHP100 bills. The team proceeded to the target area.
3. PO2 Santos and the informant approached Bartolome. The informant introduced Santos as a buyer. Santos gave the marked money to Bartolome, who in turn handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
4. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested Bartolome. PO2 Santos recovered the marked money from Bartolome’s pocket and kept the plastic sachet.
5. At the police station, PO2 Santos marked the sachet with “RB-1” and “JBG.” The case investigator, PO3 Reynaldo Raymundo, prepared the request for laboratory examination. The sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory by a certain PO3 R. Salvador.
6. Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Lourdeliza C. Cejes confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride. The sachet was returned to the investigator and was subsequently presented in court.
7. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bartolome for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
8. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Bartolome appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing breaks in the chain of custody.

ISSUE

Did the prosecution successfully establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the identity and integrity of the *corpus delicti* beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING

NO. The conviction is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome y Garcia is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court found fatal gaps in the chain of custody, which compromised the identity and integrity of the seized drug, the very *corpus delicti* of the crime.

1. First Link (Seizure and Marking): While PO2 Santos, the poseur-buyer, immediately marked the sachet at the police station, the prosecution failed to establish who had physical custody of the drug *from the time of seizure at the scene until its marking at the station*. The testimony was silent on whether PO2 Santos kept the sachet on his person or handed it to another officer during the transfer. This gap creates doubt about the preservation of the item’s integrity during a critical period.

2. Second Link (Turnover to Investigating Officer): After marking, PO2 Santos turned over the sachet to the case investigator, PO3 Raymundo. This link was established.

3. Third Link (Turnover to Forensic Laboratory): PO3 Raymundo stated he entrusted the sachet to “PO3 R. Salvador” for delivery to the crime lab. However, PO3 R. Salvador was never presented in court to testify on how he received, handled, and delivered the evidence. His absence is a significant break. The prosecution did not offer any justification for not presenting him, nor did they account for his handling procedures. The forensic chemist could only testify to receiving the item from a courier, not its condition prior to receipt.

4. Fourth Link (Turnover to Court): The forensic chemist stated she returned the examined specimen to the investigator, but there was no testimony on how it was stored, retrieved, and brought to court. The prosecution merely relied on the presumption that official duty was regularly performed, which cannot prevail over the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent and the prosecution’s specific duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the identity of the drug must be established with unwavering exactitude. The chain of custody rule is designed to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. The unjustified breaks in the linksparticularly the unaccounted handling by the evidence courierfailed to ensure that the substance presented in court was the very same one seized from the accused. The integrity and evidentiary value of the *corpus delicti* were therefore compromised. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove Bartolome’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, mandating his acquittal.