The Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision dated 2 October 2014, the RTC convicted appellant of violating Section
5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to
establish with moral certainty the elements of the crime in the present case, as well
as the integrity of the corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drug. Although the RTC recognized that the prosecution was not able to strictly
comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, it declared that the non-compliance was not fatal
to the case of the prosecution.

The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding

accused John Susa Orcullo Guilty of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.

Accordingly, this Court sentences accused John Susa Orcullo to suffer the
penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine in the amount of Five
[H]undred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole in
accordance with R.A. 9346.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine

Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper
disposition and final disposal.

SO ORDERED.4

The CA's Ruling

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

The CA found that the prosecution duly established the elements of the crime of
illegal sale of drugs. There was identification of the buyer (IO1 Betorin) and seller
(appellant); there was identification of the object of the sale (the sachets of shabu)
and the consideration (₱125,000); and there was delivery of the thing sold upon
payment as appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto of selling shabu.

The CA also declared that the failure of the police officers to mark the items seized
from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon their confiscation at the
place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and
render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. The CA justified the
prosecution's failure to immediately conduct an inventory in this manner:

Furthermore, the conduct of the inventory of the items seized from appellant at the
scene of the crime would not be practical and was dangerous to the numbers [sic] of
the buy-bust team as commotion already ensued after the arrest of appellant.
Nonetheless, the integrity of the said items was not compromised as the marking
and inventory were done in the presence of appellant and Barangay Kagawad Jose
Y. Ruiz, Jr. The absence of a representative from the media and [the] Department of
Justice is not fatal. Thus, the foregoing circumstances clearly indicate that there was
substantial compliance with the mandates of RA N[o]. 9165 and its Implementing
Rules. Too the prosecution was able to show that the plastic sachets
of shabu confiscated from appellant were the very same items that were examined
by the Crime Laboratory.5

The CA summarized:

In sum, appellant failed to prove any improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to falsely incriminate him. In the absence of evidence
of such ill motive, none is presumed to exist.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is validly resorted to for trapping

and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is
sanctioned by law and has consistently been proved to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that
the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive