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. A break in this chain, especially involving the handling and turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officers, raises reasonable doubt 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 poseur-buyer. He was given two marked PHP 100 bills. The team, including PO2 Rodel Bautista, proceeded to the target area.
3. The informant introduced PO2 Santos to Bartolome. Santos handed the marked money, and in exchange, Bartolome gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
4. Upon Santos’s pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested Bartolome. The marked money was not recovered from him.
5. At the police station, PO2 Santos marked the seized sachet with “RB-JB” (his initials and the accused’s initials). He then turned it over to the investigator, PO3 Reynaldo Francisco.
6. Crucial Gap in Custody: PO3 Francisco testified that he prepared the request for laboratory examination and delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory. However, he did not personally deliver it. Instead, he gave the request and the item to a certain “PO3 Rivera,” who was not presented in court. The forensic chemist, PSI Lourdeliza Cejes, received the item from this unidentified officer.
7. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Bartolome was convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) by the Regional Trial Court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

NO. The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions. The prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the *corpus delicti*.

1. Importance of Chain of Custody: In drug cases, the drug itself is the very *corpus delicti*. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude. The chain of custody rule ensures that the substance seized from the accused is the very same substance offered in court.
2. The Fatal Break in the Chain: The Court identified a critical gap in the links of custody. After PO2 Santos turned over the seized item to the investigator, PO3 Francisco, the latter did not personally bring it to the crime lab. He entrusted it to “PO3 Rivera,” a person who did not testify in court.
3. Failure to Account for a Vital Link: The prosecution did not offer any explanation for PO3 Rivera’s non-presentation. There was no testimony on how Rivera handled, safeguarded, and delivered the item to the forensic chemist. This gap breached the chain of custody between the police station and the crime laboratory.
4. Non-Compliance with Section 21: While the implementing rules of R.A. No. 9165 allow the marking to be done at the police station, the subsequent links remain paramount. The failure to account for the transfer from Francisco to Rivera to the chemist violated the procedure designed to preserve the integrity of the evidence.
5. Presumption of Regularity Cannot Prevail: The presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, especially when the handling of the evidence is marred by significant lapses. The burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and it failed to discharge this burden.

CONCLUSION: Due to the broken chain of custody, the integrity and identity of the seized substance were compromised. Consequently, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release, unless detained for another lawful cause.