G.R. No. 229675 - People vs. Orcullo y Susa

On October 29, 2010, in Quezon City, John Susa Orcullo was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 by allegedly selling illegal drugs.
The alleged transaction involved the sale of five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance (shabu) with individual weights of approximately 4.4 to 4.54 grams, in exchange for a payment of P125,000.00.
The operation was conducted as part of a buy-bust operation coordinated by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), where designated team members (IO1 Jake Million, IO1 Joanna Marie Betorin, among others) were involved in the planning and execution.
Prior to the transaction, the operation was triggered by intelligence received from a regular confidential informant through Intelligence Agent Liwanag Sandaan, who coordinated with team members to establish a deal with an alias and later identify the accused.

IO1 Betorin was designated as the poseur-buyer and, after receiving instructions at the PDEA office, coordinated with local police in Camp Karingal using a Pre-Operation Report and an Authority to Operate.
The team managed logistics including the withdrawal of buy-bust money consisting of genuine P500.00 bills and additional boodle money.

At around 2:00 p.m., John Susa Orcullo arrived at the predetermined location along Quezon Avenue.
The accused engaged with the designated buyer (IO1 Betorin), and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal by Betorin (a missed call), IO1 Million along with other officers swiftly intercepted and arrested the accused in flagrante delicto.

Following his arrest, the buy-bust money was recovered from the accused, and efforts were made to secure and document the plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu.
Due to the presence of several onlookers and concerns for safety, the physical inventory and photographic documentation of the seized items were carried out at the PDEA office rather than immediately at the crime scene.
The inventory was conducted with the participation of a barangay kagawad (Jose Ruiz Jr.) but without the presence of representatives from the media or the Department of Justice.

Forensic Chemist Sheila Esguerra of the PDEA examined the specimens in a laboratory setting and produced a Chemistry Report confirming the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in the samples.
Despite such testing, there emerged issues regarding the immediate chain of custody, such as the delayed submission of the Request for Laboratory Examination and the absence of proper documentation linking the seizure to the lab analysis.

Testimonies of IO1 Jake Million and IO1 Joanna Marie Betorin detailed their roles in the operation, the identification of the accused, and the procedural steps taken during the buy-bust operation.
Both witnesses confirmed the sequence of events including the agreement for drug sale, the handling and movement of the seized items, and subsequent identification procedures in court.
The forensic analysis by Sheila Esguerra, although stipulated by both parties, served as corroborative evidence regarding the chemical nature of the substance.

The accused, John Susa Orcullo, testified to a different narrative, claiming he was at home engaged in a separate activity when unidentified persons forcibly took him away.
He recounted instances of alleged coercion and intimidation, including being shown pictures and forced to provide identification under duress, which he claimed compromised the legitimacy of the procedures.
The defense emphasized inconsistencies and lapses in the execution of the buy-bust operation and the preservation of evidence.

On October 2, 2014, the RTC of Quezon City convicted John Susa Orcullo for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The RTC held that the prosecution had established the elements of the offense with moral certainty, despite acknowledging the non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

On February 9, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, underscoring that the deviations in procedural requirements (e.g., inventory at the crime scene) did not automatically compromise the integrity of the chain of custody.
The CA maintained that the overall conduct of the buy-bust operation, grounded in accepted police practices, justified the seizure and subsequent evidence handling.

Whether the buy-bust operation, as implemented by the PDEA during which the alleged drug sale occurred, was conducted properly and within the bounds of lawful procedure.
If the deviation from prescribed protocols (i.e., not conducting the physical inventory immediately at the crime scene and the absence of media/DOJ representatives) qualifies as grounds to declare the operation invalid.

Whether the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165—specifically regarding the immediate inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the required witnesses—resulted in a break in the chain of custody.
Whether such lapses allowed for reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the seized shabu and its evidentiary integrity when presented at trial.