View full case

PEOPLE v. MARILOU HILARIO Y DIANA

FACTS:

This case involves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Marilou D. Hilario and Lalaine R. Guadayo. The accused were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The witness, Police Officer (PO) 1 Nemesio Brotonel de Sagun, testified about a buy-bust operation where Hilario sold shabu to the poseur-buyer. Hilario was arrested, and the items were seized and marked. Another sachet of shabu was seized from Guadayo when she attempted to escape.

The prosecution presented evidence including the statements of the police officers and a chemistry report confirming the seized substances as methamphetamine hydrochloride. Hilario and Guadayo testified that they were in Hilario's house when the police officers entered without a warrant, searched the house without finding anything, and then brought them to the police station for questioning. They were subsequently put in jail and subjected to a drug test.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Hilario and Guadayo guilty, but the Court of Appeals acquitted them of certain charges due to discrepancies and insufficient evidence.

In the first case, Hilario was charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug, but only one sachet of shabu was confiscated from her, the same as the one subject to the sale. The Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of guilt.

In the second case, Guadayo was charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution established her possession, but there was a break in the chain of custody and a lack of identification of the seized shabu, creating doubt as to her guilt.

The Court of Appeals partially granted the appeal, acquitting Hilario and Guadayo of certain charges due to reasonable doubt. Hilario was considered absorbed in the commission of another offense.

The accused argued that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, including the lack of clear details about the buy-bust operation and confusion regarding the markings on the seized item.

The Court found merit in the appeal and proceeded to review the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

  2. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the details of the buy-bust operation.

  3. Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

  4. Whether the testimony of SPO1 Gonzales, who relayed the information of the confidential informant, is admissible as evidence in court.

  5. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the material details of the buy-bust operation.

  6. Whether there were material inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the seized drugs.

  7. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

  8. Whether the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  9. Whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged.

  10. Whether the appellant is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

RULING:

  1. No, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PO1 de Sagun's testimony, which lacked material details, was inconsistent, uncorroborated, and consisted of generalizations. Thus, the evidence presented did not prove the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. No, the prosecution did not sufficiently establish the details of the buy-bust operation. The police officer conducting the operation failed to provide specific details on how he came to know of the accused as a seller of illegal drugs, how the transaction was conducted, and what the pre-arranged signal was for the arrest. The lack of specific details casts doubt on the credibility and regularity of the operation.

  3. The evidence presented is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Without properly establishing the buy-bust operation, the court cannot rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The prosecution failed to present a complete picture of the transaction, from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher to the delivery of the illegal drugs. Therefore, the guilt of the accused has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. The testimony of SPO1 Gonzales, relaying the information of the confidential informant, is hearsay and possesses no probative value unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. Since the confidential informant was not presented as a witness, the appellant's constitutional right to confront the witness against him was violated. Imparting probative value to the hearsay statements would render the appellant's right to examine the witness for his truthfulness nugatory. Therefore, the testimony of SPO1 Gonzales is inadmissible.

  5. The prosecution failed to present all the material details of the buy-bust operation. As a result, their claim of a valid entrapment must fail.

  6. There were material inconsistencies between the testimony of PO1 de Sagun and the evidence submitted by the prosecution. This raises doubts as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same drugs seized from the appellant during the buy-bust operation.

  7. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. There were discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the number of sachets seized and their markings. The documentary evidence presented also indicated the existence of two sachets of shabu seized from the accused, contradicting the prosecution's claim of only one sachet. Therefore, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the drugs with moral certainty.

  8. The Court emphasized that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, in this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient and unreliable. The arresting officer could not positively identify the sachet seized from the accused, and the discrepancies in the evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. As a result, the Court acquitted the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to meet the high standard of proof required.

  9. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the corpus delicti or the body or elements of the crime charged. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal.

  10. The court emphasized that regardless of the societal harm caused by drugs, the constitutional protection of presumption of innocence remains in place. The appellant, being presumed innocent, cannot be convicted unless the prosecution has proven all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal is a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of law.

  • In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua or a lesser penalty, an appeal can be filed as a matter of right before the Supreme Court, opening the entire case for review on any question.

  • In a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

  • The integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved through the chain of custody rule to remove any doubts concerning the evidence's identity.

  • A buy-bust operation is a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law but must be conducted within the bounds of the law.

  • The burden is on the prosecution to establish the details of the buy-bust operation, including the manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase, the payment, and the delivery of the illegal drugs.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should not prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual.

  • It is the duty of the courts to ensure that the purity of the law is preserved and that innocent persons are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

  • The testimony of a witness relaying the information of a confidential informant is hearsay and lacks probative value unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.

  • Failure to present all the material details of a buy-bust operation weakens the prosecution's claim of a valid entrapment.

  • Material inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the prosecution raise doubts as to the authenticity and integrity of the seized drugs.

  • The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is disputable and can be overcome by contrary proof.

  • The lack of conclusive identification of seized drugs strongly militates against a finding of guilt.

  • The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including all elements of the crime charged.

  • The presumption of innocence is a constitutionally guaranteed right that cannot be disregarded.

  • In cases where the prosecution fails to establish the corpus delicti or the elements of the crime charged, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.