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 proven to have been preserved in its original condition, without alteration, from the time of seizure until its presentation in court. A broken chain of custody creates reasonable doubt and warrants acquittal.

FACTS

1. On June 15, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Joselito Bartolome based on information from a confidential informant.
2. PO2 Rodelio Bautista acted as the poseur-buyer. He was given two marked PHP 100 bills. The team agreed that he would scratch his head to signal the consummation of the sale.
3. Bartolome arrived on a motorcycle. The informant introduced PO2 Bautista as a buyer. Bartolome asked for PHP 200, and after receiving the marked money, gave PO2 Bautista a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
4. PO2 Bautista gave the pre-arranged signal. The back-up officers arrested Bartolome. The marked money was recovered from him.
5. At the police station, PO2 Bautista marked the seized sachet with “RB-1” and “JB.” The case investigator, PO3 Rodel Estiller, prepared the request for laboratory examination. The sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory by a certain PO3 Rodel Rodis.
6. Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Josephine Llena received the specimen, conducted tests, and confirmed it was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She then turned it over to the evidence custodian.
7. Bartolome was charged with and convicted of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) 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 prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The identity and integrity of the *corpus delicti* were compromised, creating reasonable doubt that warrants acquittal.

The Court emphasized that in drug cases, the drug itself is the *corpus delicti*. Its identity must be proven with unwavering exactitude. The chain of custody rule, outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, is designed to ensure this integrity.

The Court found critical gaps in the chain of custody:
1. Transfer from Arresting Officer to Investigator: There was no testimony on how the seized sachet was transferred from PO2 Bautista (the arresting/poseur-buyer officer) to PO3 Estiller (the investigator). The records were silent on who had possession during this interim and how it was safeguarded.
2. Transfer to the Crime Lab: PO3 Estiller stated he prepared the request for examination, but it was PO3 Rodel Rodis who actually delivered the specimen to the forensic chemist. PO3 Rodis was never presented in court to testify. There was no account of how he received the item, how he kept it, or how he delivered it. This was a glaring break in the chain.
3. Post-Examination Custody: While Forensic Chemist Llena testified on receiving, examining, and storing the item, there was no testimony from the evidence custodian to whom she turned it over. The final link from the laboratory to the court was not established.

The prosecution’s heavy reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty could not prevail over these clear breaches in the chain of custody. The broken links negated the certainty that the shabu presented in court was the very same item seized from Bartolome. When the integrity of the *corpus delicti* is compromised, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome y Garcia was ACQUITTED and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody.