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 present the *corpus delicti* in a drug-related case is not fatal, provided that the prosecution has sufficiently established, through credible and competent testimony and evidence, the identity of the prohibited drug and its existence. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is a method of authentication to ensure the integrity of the seized item, and non-compliance with its procedural requirements may be excused when there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

FACTS

1. On June 15, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant Joselito Bartolome based on information from a confidential informant.
2. PO2 Rodelio Celestino acted as the poseur-buyer. He was given marked money and pre-arranged signals.
3. During the transaction, Bartolome handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Celestino in exchange for the marked money. Upon giving the signal, the backup team arrested Bartolome.
4. The seized plastic sachet was marked by PO2 Celestino at the place of arrest. It was then turned over to the investigator, who prepared a request for laboratory examination.
5. The forensic chemist, Police Inspector Lourdeliza C. Cejes, received the request and the specimen. She conducted tests, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She then prepared the Physical Sciences Report.
6. The prosecution presented PO2 Celestino and PI Cejes as witnesses. The *corpus delicti* (the seized sachet of shabu) was not presented in court.
7. The defense was one of denial and frame-up, claiming Bartolome was arrested while fixing a tricycle and that the drugs were planted.
8. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bartolome for violation of Section 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
9. Before the Supreme Court, Bartolome argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the *corpus delicti* itself was not presented as evidence in court.

ISSUE

Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the *corpus delicti* (the seized sachet of shabu) in court is fatal to its case, thereby warranting the acquittal of the accused-appellant.

RULING

NO. The failure to present the *corpus delicti* in court is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

1. The *Corpus Delicti* and Its Authentication: The *corpus delicti* in drug cases is the prohibited drug itself. Its existence and identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt. However, the presentation of the physical drug in court is not always indispensable. It is merely the best evidence. Its existence may be established by credible and competent testimony, particularly when the drug has been lost or destroyed under justifiable grounds.

2. Application to the Case: Here, the prosecution presented the testimony of the forensic chemist, PI Lourdeliza Cejes. She testified in detail about receiving the request and the specimen sachet marked “RC-JB,” conducting qualitative examinations on its contents, and finding it positive for shabu. She identified the Chemistry Report she prepared. This testimony, coupled with the testimony of PO2 Celestino on the seizure and marking, sufficiently established the existence and identity of the shabu as the *corpus delicti*. The non-presentation of the physical exhibit did not create a hiatus in the evidence.

3. Chain of Custody and Integrity of Evidence: The Court examined the chain of custody. While there were procedural lapses (e.g., the lack of immediate physical inventory and photographing at the place of seizure as required by Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165), these did not automatically invalidate the seizure. The marking of the item immediately after seizure at the scene by PO2 Celestino, its turnover to the investigator, and its submission to the forensic chemist were duly established. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The defense of frame-up was also found to be weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.

4. Conclusion: The guilt of Joselito Bartolome for the illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which established the fact of sale and the identity of the drug. The failure to present the physical drug in court was not fatal under the circumstances. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.