PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO BARTOLOME y GARCIA, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2012.

DOCTRINE: The failure of the prosecution to offer the *corpus delicti* of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs as an exhibit, despite its identification and marking during trial, constitutes a fatal procedural lapse that breaks the chain of custody. This failure, coupled with the inability to account for the whereabouts of the drugs, raises reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence and warrants acquittal.

FACTS

1. Accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling one plastic sachet of *shabu* to a police poseur-buyer for PHP 200.00.
2. During the trial, the prosecution presented the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The plastic sachet allegedly sold was marked “JBG” at the police station.
3. The marked sachet was identified by the witnesses in court. However, the prosecution failed to formally offer it as evidence.
4. The trial court convicted Bartolome. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the failure to formally offer the drug exhibit was not fatal since it had been identified and testified upon.

ISSUE

Whether the failure of the prosecution to formally offer the seized dangerous drug as an exhibit, despite its identification in court, warrants the acquittal of the accused.

RULING

YES. The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt demand the utmost fidelity to the rules establishing the chain of custody in drug cases.
1. Formal Offer is Indispensable: The identification of an object during trial does not automatically make it evidence. Evidence only becomes part of the judicial record for the court’s consideration upon its formal offer. Since the seized sachet was never offered as an exhibit, it is as if it does not exist for the purpose of proving the *corpus delicti*.
2. Fatal Break in the Chain of Custody: The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to account for each link in the handling of the seized drugsfrom seizure, to marking, to turnover for laboratory examination, to submission to the court. The failure to offer the object itself creates a missing link. The Court cannot determine what happened to the drugs after they were marked, nor can it verify their integrity and identity independently.
3. 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 when there is a clear procedural lapse that casts doubt on the integrity of the very evidence that constitutes the crime.
4. Consequence: Without the drug exhibit being formally offered in evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the prohibited drug, which is the very *corpus delicti* of the offense. This failure results in a failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. The Court ordered the immediate release of the accused unless he is detained for another lawful cause.