G.R. No. 215192 , July 27, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee vs. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant

FACTS

The appellant, Bernabe M. Bartolini, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the alleged sale of 26 marijuana sticks. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on June 22, 2004, in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. A confidential informant acted as poseur-buyer using marked money. The team leader, SPO4 Larot, witnessed the exchange where Bartolini received the money and later handed over the marijuana sticks. Upon the pre-arranged signal, Bartolini was arrested, and the marked money and additional marijuana stalks were recovered. The seized items were marked at the police station, and an inventory was signed by SPO4 Larot, Bartolini, and a Barangay Kagawad. Chemistry reports confirmed the substances were marijuana and that the marked money and Bartolini’s hands tested positive for fluorescent powder.
Bartolini presented a defense of frame-up and denial. He claimed he was merely conversing with acquaintances when apprehended by police officers who mistakenly identified him as another person. He alleged that the officers planted evidence in his house and forced him to hold money and provide a urine sample at the station. He insisted no buy-bust operation occurred and that the evidence against him was fabricated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bartolini’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs. The testimonies of the buy-bust team, particularly SPO4 Larot who witnessed the transaction, were credible and consistent. The defense of frame-up and denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over these positive testimonies absent clear evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled that while there was a deviation from the strict witness requirements of Section 21—as the inventory was witnessed only by a Barangay Kagawad and not by a representative from the DOJ and media—this did not automatically invalidate the seizure or warrant acquittal. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The marking was done immediately at the police station by the arresting officer in the presence of the accused and a local official. The items were then submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed they were marijuana. The prosecution satisfactorily explained the absence of additional witnesses, citing the late hour of the operation and the unavailability of the required representatives. The core requirement of proving the corpus delicti and ensuring the identity of the drugs from seizure to presentation in court was met, as there was no evidence of tampering, alteration, or substitution. Thus, the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.