Title
People vs. Bartolini
Case
G.R. No. 215192
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2016
Bartolini acquitted as prosecution failed to prove chain of custody, corpus delicti, and fact of sale beyond reasonable doubt in marijuana case.
drug charges
unbroken chain of custody
corpus delicti
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 215192)

Facts:

On June twenty-two, two thousand four, at about seven forty o’clock in the evening, in Barangay Sugbongcogon, Municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Misamis Oriental, Bernabe M. Bartolini was charged by Information dated September twenty-one, two thousand four with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. The charge alleged that he was not authorized by law to possess and to sell any dangerous drugs and that he knowingly, willfully, and feloniously sold and conveyed to a third person twenty-six (twenty-six) pieces of white rolled marijuana sticks with a total weight of 2.2 grams, which tested positive for marijuana. Upon arraignment, Bartolini pleaded not guilty. The prosecution evidence showed that on June twelve, two thousand four, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit of Misamis Oriental conducted a test-buy operation and bought two marijuana sticks from Bartolini. The following day, it attempted to conduct a buy-bust operation but failed because Bartolini could not be found. On June twenty-two, two thousand four, the buy-bust operation proceeded with SPO4 Lorenzo Larot as team leader and SPO3 Wilfred Saquilayan, PO3 Arthur Catalan, PO3 Juancho Dizon (PO3 Dizon), PO2 Roel Sereno, and Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Abenque as members, with a confidential informant serving as the poseur-buyer. Marked money amounting to Eighty Pesos (P80) was given to the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust team members were inside a store; the poseur-buyer was about two meters outside. Bartolini approached the poseur-buyer, SPO4 Larot saw the decoy show and give the marked money to Bartolini, and Bartolini then went to his house and returned giving the decoy twenty-six sticks of marijuana. The decoy placed a white towel on his shoulder as the prearranged signal. The buy-bust team rushed to Bartolini and arrested him. The team recovered the marked money and three stalks of marijuana, and thereafter, went to the Tagoloan Police Station where the seized items were marked by SPO4 Larot and a Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by SPO4 Larot, Bartolini, and Barangay Kagawad Abenque. SPO4 Larot also prepared the request for laboratory examination, the drug test for Bartolini, and the test for ultra-violet radiation of the marked money and Bartolini’s body. Chemistry Reports from the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory confirmed that the sticks tested positive for marijuana, Bartolini tested positive for marijuana, and the marked money and Bartolini’s hands were positive for bright green ultra-violet fluorescent powder. Bartolini denied the accusation and claimed that he was merely passing by on his way home, where two acquaintances, Dodong and Lito, introduced a supposed job query, when SPO4 Larot and PO3 Dizon arrested him, searched his house, and allegedly planted items, thereafter subjecting him to actions intended to frame him. He asserted that no buy-bust operation ever occurred and that he was a victim of frame-up. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, in its Judgment dated November sixteen, two thousand six, found Bartolini guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, and ordering forfeiture of the twenty-six marijuana sticks. The Court of Appeals affirmed in its Decision dated August thirteen, two thousand fourteen. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and acquitted Bartolini on reasonable doubt.

Issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming Bartolini’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, in light of alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, failure to establish the corpus delicti, and an allegedly unbroken chain of custody.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms