PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEL LANSON HASSIM AND ABDUL SAMAD LUMAWAN DIMAKUTA, ACCUSED, JOEL LANSON HASSIM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
Trial Court (RTC) Branch 65 of Infanta, Quezon, in Crim. Case No. 1847-I
which found Joel Lanson Hassim guilty of violating Section 11,
subparagraph 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and which sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as
minimum to life imprisonment as maximum, pay a fine of Php 500,000.00,
plus all accessory penalties.
The Information dated January 15, 2004 charged Joel Lanson Hassim
(Hassim) and Abdul Samad Lumawan Dimakuta (Dimakuta) of violating
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in this wise:
“That on or about the 16th day of September 2003, at
Barangay Tignoan, Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without any authority of the law, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to a police
asset, who posed as a poseur-buyer, one (1) mailing envelop containing
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), weighing 97.49 grams, a dangerous drug.Contrary to law.” (Records, p. 2).
Upon arraignment on December 13, 2005, Hassim pleaded “not guilty”. (Records, p. 238).
The prosecution, through witnesses SPO4 Orlando Isaga, SPO2 Nestor
Ruzol, and SPO2 Elmer Ortiz averred that: On September 16, 2003 at
around noon, they were at Llever Beach Resort in Sitio Mahaba, Brgy.
Tignoan, Real, Quezon, to conduct an entrapment operation based on an
information given by Atty. Romeo Llever that a sale of drugs will take
place between him and two other persons. Llever acted as poseur-buyer,
while the officers waited inside the resort. At around 12 noon, Hassim
and Dimakuta arrived with a brown envelope. They were met by Llever and
soon, the police approached them. The police ordered Dimakuta, who was
in possession of the brown envelope to open the same. Inside was a
plastic sachet, about 3 by 5 inches, containing what appeared to be
shabu. The police officers informed Dimakuta and Hassim of their rights
and brought them to the police headquarters in Kiloloron, Real, Quezon.
The police averred that Dimakuta admitted, in the presence of barangay
officials, that the brown envelope in their possession contained shabu.
Hassim meanwhile admitted to the fact that he was the companion of
Dimakuta. The police brought the crystalline substance to the crime
laboratory which later tested positive for shabu.(Rollo, pp. 35-38).
Hassim for his part testified that around noon of September 16, 2003,
he and his co-accused Dimakuta, a husband of his cousin, were in the
resort of Atty. Llever to attend Llever’s birthday party. He does not
know of any reason why the police would arrest them. Hassim also
claimed that they were brought to a police camp in Kiloloron and were
forced to sign a document, the contents of which, he did not understand.
(Rollo, pp. 38-39).
On September 27, 2012, the RTC rendered its decision:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered against accused Joel Lanson Hassim, finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of subpar. 5 of the 1st par.
of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165, and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (applying the case of People v. Teodoro, 590 SCRA 494),
this court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of the minimum of
reclusion temporal in its medium period which is Fourteen (14) Years,
Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day as minimum to life imprisonment as
maximum and to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00, to suffer all the accessory
penalties and to pay the cost of suit.The 97.49 grams of shabu which were found to be positive for
shabu is ordered confiscated in favor of the State to be disposed of in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165, and
its implementing rules and regulations.SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 44).
The RTC held that although Hassim is not liable for the crime of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, he is liable for illegal possession
thereof. Hassim and Dimakuta arrived at the resort on September 16,
2003, purposely to deliver 97.49 grams of shabu to Atty. Llever. The
trial court did not give weight to Hassim’s defense that he was just
invited to accompany Dimakuta to attend Llever’s birthday party in Real,
Quezon and that he did not know that Dimakuta would sell or deliver
shabu to the latter. From the inception of the entrapment operation,
there were already two persons involved that would deliver the shabu,
Dimakuta and Hassim. When the two were confronted about the contents of
the envelope Dimakuta was carrying, Hassim never made any protest.
During his testimony, Hassim also never showed any anger towards
Dimakuta for involving him in an illegal transaction. The police did not
have any motive to falsely accuse him. Finally, Hassim’s alibi in his
counter-affidavit was inconsistent with the one he made in open court,
that is, he first stated that he went with Dimakuta to swim at the
resort while he claimed during his testimony that he was invited to
attend Llever’s birthday party.(Rollo, p. 40-43).
As to the chain
of custody, the trial court held that the prosecution was able to show
the police officers’ compliance to Sec.21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. In
any event, failure to strictly comply with the rules is not fatal as it
is enough that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
were preserved. (Rollo, p. 43).
Hassim is now before the Court claiming that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED DRUG WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
CONSPIRACY AMONG THE VIOLATORS IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. (Rollo,
p. 18).
Hassim avers that there is nothing from the evidence on record or
from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that would show that the
confiscated prohibited substance was found in his possession. Even
SPO4 Isaga testified that the brown envelope containing the illicit item
was carried by Dimakuta and that Isaga arrested him (Hassim) because he
was with Dimakuta. Absent any evidence to show that he participated in
perpetrating the offense charged, conspiracy cannot be appreciated
against him. Intentional participation is indispensable since a
person’s mere presence at the crime scene cannot be considered as proof
of conspiracy. Isaga and the rest of the prosecution witnesses were not
privy to the alleged transaction between Llever and Dimakuta. (Rollo,
pp. 23-28).
Hassim further argues that even if conspiracy was
established, still the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain
of custody. It is not clear who was in custody of the seized item from
the time it was confiscated from Dimakuta until its turn over to the
investigator who took custody of the item when it was booked in the
police blotter. The identity of the person from whom the laboratory
chemist received the specimen was also not established. There could be
no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug if doubt persists as
to whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and
found to be an illegal drug. (Rollo, pp. 29-30).
The Office of
the Solicitor General on the other hand asserts that Hassim’s acts
before, during and after the commission of the crime proves that he is a
conspirator to the offense. He purposely accompanied Dimakuta in the
delivery of the drugs. His arrival with Dimakuta at the Llever Beach
Resort was in accordance with the commitment of Dimakuta to the
poseur-buyer as overheard by SPO2 Ruzol. Hassim did not protest his
apprehension by the police officers, which is contrary to the normal
behavior of an innocent man. He gave materially inconsistent
explanations respecting his reason for the long travel to Real, Quezon
where the delivery was made. Such behavior indicates knowing
participation in the delivery of the illegal drugs.(Rollo, p. 54-57).
The OSG further asserts that there was an unbroken chain of custody
respecting the seized illegal drugs from their confiscation to its
presentation at the trial. (Rollo, p. 58).
The Court finds MERIT in the appeal.
The general rule is that the findings of fact and conclusions of trial
courts as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect and
due weight. (People v. Balag-ey, 427 SCRA 384, 392 [2004]).
Exceptions would be instances where there are glaring errors and gross
misapprehension of facts, and the findings are speculative, arbitrary
and unsupported by evidence. (People v. Santos, 555 SCRA 578, 592 [2008]).
In this case, the Court finds that a deviation from the general rule is in order.
Hassim was accused of conspiring with his co-accused Dimakuta in the
illegal possession of a dangerous drug. For conviction of illegal
possession of a probihited drug to lie, the following elements must be
established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of the drug. (People v. Batoon, 636 SCRA 210, 219 [2010]).
Evidence showed that it was Dimakuta who possessed the illegal
drugs. The prosecution argues however that Hassim should be held
equally liable on the ground of conspiracy.
We disagree.
Conspiracy is said to exist when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
It must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself,
without need however of proving it by direct evidence. (People v. Desuyo,
625 SCRA 590, 603 [2010]). It is not necessary that the parties
actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and
pursue a common design. Proof of concerted action before, during and
after the crime, that demonstrates their unity of design and objective,
is sufficient. (People v. Santos, 555 SCRA 578, 602-603 [2008]).
While the trial court found sufficient the prosecution’s evidence on conspiracy, We find otherwise.
Where the prosecution failed to show by convincing proof that the
accused knew of the contents of the bag or envelope and that he
conspired with his co-accused to possess the illegal item, there could
be no conviction for illegal possession of drugs. (See People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 484 [2007]).
The police officers who testified for the prosecution were one in saying that it was Dimakuta who carried the shabu.
SPO2 Ortiz testified:
SPO4 Orlando Isaga, meanwhile testified:
SPO2 Ruzol and SPO2 Ortiz likewise testified that it was
Dimakuta who carried the envelope. (TSN, SPO2 Nestor Ruzol, April 7,
2005; TSN, SPO2 Elmer Ortiz, September 30, 2009, p. 6).
Isaga also testified that Hassim did not admit that he was
carrying shabu. Hassim only admitted that he was a companion of
Dimakuta. (TSN, March 8, 2005, pp. 20-21).
The rule is settled
that absent any other evidence, mere presence at the scene of the crime
is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy. (People v. Balag-ey, supra, p. 403). The mere fact that appellant arrived with the perpetrator does not necessarily establish conspiracy. (People v. Mandao, 393 SCRA 282, 302 [2002]).
In order to be held guilty by reason of conspiracy, the
accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to
be taken lightly or accepted at every turn. It is a legal concept that
imputes culpability under specific circumstances. Thus, it must be
established as clearly as any element of the crime. Evidence to prove
conspiracy must be positive and convincing, considering that it is a
convenient and simplistic device by which an accused may be ensnared and
kept within the penal fold. Criminal liability cannot be based simply
on a general allegation of conspiracy and a judgment of conviction must
always be founded on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. (People v. Mandao, supra, p. 298-299, 304).
As the prosecution failed to prove that Hassim performed an
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity, or that there
was concerted action before, during and after the crime that
demonstrates unity of design and objective, Hassim must be acquitted of
the crime.
Moral certainty and not mere possibility determines
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Even when the evidence for the
defense is weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution
failed to prove guilt with the requisite quantum of proof required in
all criminal cases. (People v. Mandao, supra, p. 305).
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED.
The Decision dated September 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 65 of Infanta, Quezon in Crim. Case No. 1847-I is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant Joel Lanson Hassim is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant Joel Lanson Hassim is ordered immediately
released from confinement, unless there is any other legal or valid
cause to detain him further. The director of the Bureau of Corrections
shall report to this Court, within ten (10) days from notice of this
judgment, on his action in obedience to this directive.
SO ORDERED.
Lopez and Inting, JJ., concur.