Why the ‘Hulidap’ Defense Rarely Works in Philippine Drug Cases

The ‘hulidap’ defense—claiming police framed you in a drug bust for extortion—is a common tactic in the Philippines, but it rarely succeeds. This defense hinges on proving that law enforcers are corrupt and fabricated the charges. However, Philippine courts operate under the presumption that police officers perform their duties regularly and lawfully. To overturn a drug conviction, defendants must present solid, convincing evidence that they were indeed victims of a ‘hulidap’ operation, not drug dealers caught in the act. Absent compelling proof, the courts will likely side with the prosecution, as illustrated in the Supreme Court case of People v. Cheng Ho Chua.

G.R. No. 127542, March 18, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine being suddenly accused of a serious crime, not because you committed it, but because corrupt individuals in power decided to target you. This is the essence of the ‘hulidap’ defense in the Philippines, often invoked in drug-related cases. It’s a claim that the police operation wasn’t a legitimate bust, but a frame-up designed for extortion. In People v. Cheng Ho Chua, the Supreme Court scrutinized this defense, reinforcing the high bar for proving police misconduct and highlighting the judiciary’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in law enforcement.

Cheng Ho Chua was convicted of selling a kilo of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, in a buy-bust operation. His defense? He wasn’t a drug dealer; he was a victim of ‘hulidap.’ The central legal question was straightforward: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chua was guilty of drug dealing, or was his ‘hulidap’ defense credible enough to warrant an acquittal?

LEGAL CONTEXT: THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

Philippine law presumes that public officials, including police officers, perform their duties in a regular and lawful manner. This is known as the ‘presumption of regularity.’ For someone accused of a crime stemming from a police operation, like a buy-bust, this presumption creates a significant hurdle. The burden of proof rests on the accused to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption and prove that the police acted improperly.

The case against Chua was rooted in Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, specifically Section 15, Article III, which penalizes the sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs. The law states:

“SEC. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos, shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.”

For a conviction under this law, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold regulated drugs without legal authority. In buy-bust operations, the prosecution typically presents the testimonies of police officers who acted as poseur-buyers and arresting officers, along with forensic evidence confirming the seized substance as an illegal drug.

CASE BREAKDOWN: PROSECUTION VS. ‘HULIDAP’

The prosecution presented a straightforward narrative: Following surveillance of a drug trafficking group, police arranged a buy-bust operation. An informant introduced an undercover officer to Chua as a shabu buyer. They negotiated a deal for one kilo of shabu for P600,000. The exchange happened at Fortune Hotel in Binondo, Manila, where Chua handed over a shopping bag of shabu in exchange for ‘boodle money’ (fake money with genuine bills on top). Upon receiving the shabu, the undercover officer signaled his team, and Chua was arrested.

Chua, however, presented a starkly different version of events, claiming ‘hulidap.’ He testified that he was in Manila for business and met a friend, Luisito Go, for lunch. Afterward, he checked into Fortune Hotel for a rendezvous with his girlfriend. According to Chua, in the early hours of the following morning, plainclothes policemen barged into his room without a warrant, searched it, and then took him and Go to a camp in Bicutan. He alleged he was mauled and pressured to admit to drug possession. He further claimed that police demanded P1 million for his release, later reduced to P700,000, which his friend Lolita Lee supposedly delivered, but he was not released.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with the prosecution, finding the buy-bust operation credible and dismissing Chua’s ‘hulidap’ defense. The RTC highlighted inconsistencies and improbabilities in the defense’s evidence, particularly the hotel staff’s alleged nonchalance about the purported illegal arrest and the questionable fundraising efforts of Lolita Lee. The RTC stated:

“Neither can much faith and credence be given [to] the statements and testimonies of the staff at Fortune Hotel, nor in the entries in its record and logbook. … Said nonchalance of the hotel personnel [was] not the normal reaction to such a startling occurrence if indeed it took place.”

Chua appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three main errors:

1. The trial court erred in believing the buy-bust operation story.
2. The trial court should have found that he was illegally arrested in his hotel room without a warrant.
3. The evidence was insufficient to prove drug dealing, warranting acquittal.

The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s decision. It emphasized the trial court’s role in assessing witness credibility and found no reason to overturn its findings. The Supreme Court pointed to the clear and consistent testimonies of the arresting officers, Jeffrey Inciong and Pablo Rebaldo, who positively identified Chua and detailed the buy-bust operation. The Court quoted Inciong’s testimony:

“I told him I [would] look first for the stuff and he showed me the stuff. Then I gave to him the boodle money placed inside a brown leather attache bag… After Ben Chua received the boodle money, [w]hat happened? I signaled the rest of my companions, my back up, to arrest Ben Chua…”

The Supreme Court dismissed the alleged inconsistencies raised by Chua, such as discrepancies in dates on documents and minor variations in the officers’ testimonies. Crucially, the Court reiterated the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and found Chua’s ‘hulidap’ defense unconvincing, stating:

“Courts generally view with disfavor this defense commonly raised in drug cases, for it is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. Moreover, there is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties. In the present case, the defense failed to overcome this presumption or to present clear and convincing evidence to prove ‘hulidap.’”

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FROM CHENG HO CHUA

People v. Cheng Ho Chua serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in using the ‘hulidap’ defense in Philippine drug cases. The ruling underscores the significant weight courts give to the presumption of regularity and the high evidentiary burden placed on the accused to disprove it. For individuals facing drug charges who believe they are victims of a frame-up, this case offers crucial lessons:

Key Lessons:

• Credibility is Paramount: The testimonies of defense witnesses must be highly credible. In Chua’s case, the trial court and Supreme Court found the hotel staff and Lolita Lee’s accounts unpersuasive due to inconsistencies and improbabilities.
• Solid Evidence is Essential: Vague allegations of ‘hulidap’ are insufficient. Defendants need concrete evidence – impartial witnesses, documents, recordings, or forensic evidence – to support their claims of police misconduct.
• Overcoming Presumption of Regularity is Difficult: The presumption that police acted lawfully is a strong legal principle. Simply claiming ‘hulidap’ without substantial proof will likely fail.
• Focus on Procedural Lapses: While proving ‘hulidap’ is tough, highlighting significant procedural errors in the police operation (e.g., illegal search, lack of warrant, violations of chain of custody of evidence) can weaken the prosecution’s case. However, in Chua’s case, the Court found the buy-bust operation to be lawful.

For law enforcement, Cheng Ho Chua reinforces the importance of meticulous adherence to procedure and maintaining the integrity of buy-bust operations to withstand legal scrutiny and bolster successful prosecutions.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What exactly is the ‘hulidap’ defense in Philippine drug cases?

A: ‘Hulidap’ is a Tagalog term referring to robbery-holdup. In Philippine drug cases, it’s a defense where the accused claims they were framed by police officers, not to enforce the law, but to extort money or for other illicit motives. The accused argues the supposed drug bust was fabricated.

Q: Why is the ‘hulidap’ defense so difficult to prove?

A: Because Philippine courts operate under the ‘presumption of regularity.’ This means judges assume police officers acted lawfully unless proven otherwise. The accused must present compelling evidence to overcome this presumption and prove police misconduct, which is a high bar to clear.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to support a ‘hulidap’ defense?

A: Strong evidence is crucial. This could include credible testimonies from impartial witnesses (not just friends or family), CCTV footage, official records contradicting police accounts, or evidence of extortion attempts (recordings, messages). Vague claims and self-serving testimonies are generally insufficient.

Q: Is it enough to simply claim that the police are lying?

A: No, it’s not enough. You must present affirmative evidence that demonstrates the police are lying and that the ‘buy-bust’ was a fabrication. Challenging the prosecution’s evidence is important, but actively proving your ‘hulidap’ claim with solid evidence is necessary.

Q: What if there are minor inconsistencies in police testimonies? Can that help the ‘hulidap’ defense?

A: Minor inconsistencies are common and often don’t significantly impact a case. Courts understand that witnesses’ recollections may vary slightly. However, major inconsistencies or contradictions that undermine the core narrative of the police operation could be more helpful to the defense, but still need to be part of a larger, credible ‘hulidap’ claim.

Q: What should I do if I believe I am a victim of ‘hulidap’?

A: Immediately seek legal counsel. An experienced lawyer can advise you on how to gather evidence, build your defense, and navigate the legal process. Document everything, including dates, times, names, and any interactions with the police. Preserve any potential evidence that supports your claim.

Q: Does the failure of the ‘hulidap’ defense in Cheng Ho Chua mean it can never succeed?

A: No, it doesn’t mean it can never succeed. It means it’s extremely challenging and requires a very high level of proof. If a defendant can present truly compelling and credible evidence of police misconduct and frame-up, the ‘hulidap’ defense could potentially succeed. However, such cases are rare.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Drug Cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.