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, particularly under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, requires a showing that the substance seized from the accused is the very same substance presented in court. Any failure to comply with the prescribed procedure must be adequately explained, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item must be shown to have been preserved.

FACTS

On June 15, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Joselito Bartolome based on information from a confidential informant. PO2 Renato Bautista acted as the poseur-buyer and was given two marked ₱100 bills. Upon meeting Bartolome, PO2 Bautista handed the marked money in exchange for a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the transaction, PO2 Bautista gave the pre-arranged signal, and the backup team arrested Bartolome. The seized item was marked “RB” at the police station. The substance was later confirmed by a forensic chemist to be 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or 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, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug, thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of shabu.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Joselito Bartolome.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti of the offense. The buy-bust team did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Specifically:
1. The seizure and inventory of the drug were not immediately conducted at the place of arrest. The marking was done only at the police station, without a justifiable reason for the deviation.
2. There was no physical inventory or photograph of the seized item taken in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, as required by law.
3. The prosecution offered no explanation for these lapses. The testimony of PO2 Bautista did not account for the custody of the drug from the time of seizure until its marking at the station, creating a gap in the chain.
4. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were therefore compromised. In cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs (0.03 gram in this case), strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is even more critical.

The Court emphasized that the State must prove compliance with the chain of custody procedure, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Consequently, the failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti warranted acquittal on reasonable doubt.