PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEL LANSON HASSIM AND ABDUL SAMAD LUMAWAN DIMAKUTA, ACCUSED, JOEL LANSON HASSIM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Hassim

The Case

This is People versus Hassim, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Joel Lanson Hassim and Abdul Samad Lumawan Dimakuta for a drug transaction, and Hassim alone appealed his conviction. The trial court acquitted both accused of the sale charged in the Information but convicted Hassim of illegal possession of dangerous drugs on a theory of conspiracy, reasoning that he arrived with Dimakuta, who carried the shabu. The Supreme Court reversed. The case matters because it is the Court's clearest statement that conspiracy cannot be built on mere presence, companionship, or silence at the scene, and that where the prosecution fails to prove an overt act in furtherance of a common design, the accused must be acquitted even if his own defense is weak.

Procedural History

Hassim and Dimakuta were charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, of Infanta, Quezon, under an Information dated January 15, 2004, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Hassim pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on December 13, 2005. On September 27, 2012, the trial court rendered judgment finding Hassim guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of sale, but of illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, and sentenced him to imprisonment of fourteen years, eight months and one day as minimum to life imprisonment as maximum, with a fine of 500,000 pesos, plus accessory penalties and costs. Hassim appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising as errors the finding of illegal possession and the finding of conspiracy. The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction. The Supreme Court gave due course to the appeal, found merit in it, and reversed.

Facts

On September 16, 2003, at around noon, police officers were at Llever Beach Resort in Sitio Mahaba, Barangay Tignoan, Real, Quezon, to conduct an entrapment operation based on information from Atty. Romeo Llever that a sale of drugs would take place between him and two other persons. Llever acted as the poseur-buyer while the officers waited inside the resort. At around noon, Hassim and Dimakuta arrived with a brown envelope and were met by Llever, and the police soon approached them.

The police ordered Dimakuta, who was in possession of the brown envelope, to open it. Inside was a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be shabu. The officers informed both men of their rights and brought them to the police headquarters in Kiloloron, Real, Quezon. The crystalline substance was brought to the crime laboratory and tested positive for shabu, weighing 97.49 grams.

Hassim testified that he and Dimakuta, the husband of his cousin, were at the resort to attend Llever's birthday party, that he knew of no reason for the arrest, and that they were forced to sign a document whose contents he did not understand. The trial court disbelieved him, noting that his alibi in his counter-affidavit, that they went to swim, differed from his testimony that they were invited to a birthday party, and that he never protested when the envelope was opened nor showed anger toward Dimakuta. On those circumstances the trial court convicted him of illegal possession by conspiracy.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hassim was in possession of the dangerous drug, or is liable for illegal possession on the ground of conspiracy.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established by proof of an overt act or of concerted action before, during and after the crime.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as quoted in the judgment of the trial court, provides:

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.

This is the provision under which Hassim was convicted, and the appeal turns on whether its elements were proved against him.

The Court states the elements of the offense as follows:

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.

These elements fix the burden the prosecution had to discharge, and they were not met as to Hassim.

On conspiracy, the Court applies this definition:

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.

This is the standard against which the trial court's finding of conspiracy had to be measured, and it was not satisfied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence showed it was Dimakuta who possessed the illegal drugs. The prosecution witnesses themselves were one in saying so. SPO2 Ortiz testified that they frisked Dimakuta and found the shabu in his pocket, and that nothing was found on Hassim. SPO4 Isaga admitted that Dimakuta was the one carrying the shabu, that Hassim was not carrying any, and that Hassim was arrested only because he was with Dimakuta. SPO2 Ruzol and SPO2 Ortiz likewise testified that it was Dimakuta who carried the envelope. Isaga further testified that Hassim admitted only that he was a companion of Dimakuta, not that he carried shabu. The Court therefore held that the elements of illegal possession were not established against Hassim.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was not proved. It recalled that conspiracy must be shown as convincingly as the crime itself, and that while direct proof of agreement is unnecessary, proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime demonstrating unity of design and objective is required. The Court ruled that absent any other evidence, mere presence at the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy, and that the mere fact that the appellant arrived with the perpetrator does not necessarily establish conspiracy. 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. The Court warned that conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken lightly, but a legal concept that imputes culpability, and so must be established as clearly as any element of the crime, by positive and convincing evidence, since it is a convenient and simplistic device by which an accused may be ensnared. Because the prosecution failed to prove any overt act by Hassim or any concerted action showing unity of design, the Court held that he must be acquitted. It closed with the rule that moral certainty, not mere possibility, determines guilt, and that even when the evidence for the defense is weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution fails to prove guilt with the requisite quantum of proof.

Doctrine

First, illegal possession of a dangerous drug requires proof of three elements: possession of the prohibited item, absence of legal authority, and free and conscious awareness of the possession. Second, conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it, and it must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. Third, mere presence at the scene, mere companionship with the perpetrator, or arrival together with him does not establish conspiracy; the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity, or concerted action before, during and after the crime showing unity of design and objective. Fourth, where the prosecution fails to show that the accused knew the contents of the bag or envelope and conspired with his co-accused to possess the illegal item, there can be no conviction for illegal possession. Fifth, moral certainty, not mere possibility, determines guilt, and a weak defense does not relieve the prosecution of its burden.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and set aside, and Hassim was acquitted on reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released unless held for another lawful cause.

Remember This

Memorize the line: conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken lightly, and mere presence at the scene or arrival with the perpetrator does not make one a conspirator. Examiners use this case in criminal law and special penal law on the elements of illegal possession, on conspiracy by overt act, and on the rule that the weakness of the defense never supplies the missing proof of the prosecution.