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 chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the *corpus delicti* be shown to have been preserved from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court. Any break or gap in this chain raises reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the evidence, warranting 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 handed over the marked money, and in exchange, Bartolome gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
4. Santos gave the pre-arranged signal. The back-up team arrested Bartolome. The marked money was not recovered from him.
5. At the police station, the seized sachet was marked by PO2 Santos with “RB” (his initials) and “JBG” (the accused’s initials). It was then turned over to the investigator, who prepared a request for laboratory examination.
6. The sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory by a certain PO3 Renato B. Magpantay. Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Lourdeliza C. Cejes examined the item and found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
7. Bartolome was charged with and convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
8. Before the Supreme Court, Bartolome argued, among others, that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug.

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 Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome on reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. The following critical gaps and irregularities were identified:

1. Absence of Required Witnesses During Inventory and Photograph: The law mandates that the physical inventory and photographing of seized items must be conducted *immediately after seizure and confiscation* in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for the absence of these required witnesses. Their presence is crucial to prevent planting, switching, or contamination of evidence.

2. Gap in the Chain of Custody Between Seizure and Laboratory Examination: After PO2 Santos marked the sachet at the police station, the evidence was turned over to the investigator. However, the prosecution did not present the investigator as a witness to testify on how he handled and safeguarded the item before it was sent to the lab. Instead, it was a different officer, PO3 Magpantay, who delivered the evidence to the forensic chemist. PO3 Magpantay was also not presented in court. This created a significant gapthere was no testimony on who had custody of the evidence between the investigator and PO3 Magpantay, and how PO3 Magpantay received, handled, and transported it.

3. Failure to Explain Non-Compliance: The prosecution did not acknowledge these lapses, much less provide any justifiable reason for failing to follow the strict procedural safeguards. In the face of these unexplained breaches, the identity and integrity of the shabu presented in court as evidence became highly questionable.

The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the drug itself is the very *corpus delicti*. Its identity must be proven with an unbroken chain of custody. Every linkfrom seizure, to marking, to turnover to investigating officer, to delivery to the lab, to receipt by the forensic chemist, and finally to presentation in courtmust be accounted for by credible testimony. The broken chain in this case created reasonable doubt as to whether the shabu presented in court was the same item allegedly bought from Bartolome. Consequently, his acquittal was imperative.