G.R. No. 84392 February 7, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO NABUNAT Y ASAG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by NBI agents in Baguio City on February 3, 1982. Acting on information that Sergio Nabunat was engaged in marijuana trafficking, agents organized an entrapment. Agent Louie de Guzman posed as a buyer, while operative Esther Alforque acted as the intermediary. After initial contact, Nabunat insisted the buyer come to him. De Guzman, carrying marked money, met Nabunat. Upon being shown the money, Nabunat retrieved a blue paper bag containing a brown grocery bag. When De Guzman inspected the bag and confirmed it contained marijuana, Alforque signaled the arrest team. Nabunat was apprehended after a brief struggle. The confiscated substance, weighing 675 grams, was tested and confirmed to be marijuana.
At trial, Nabunat presented a different version, claiming he was framed. He testified that Alforque and companions visited him under the pretext of recruiting workers for a disco, left a bag with him, and later retrieved it. He alleged that when he approached their vehicle, he was forced at gunpoint to open the bag, which he claimed was planted. He further contended that the prosecution’s failure to present Alforque as a witness bolstered his frame-up theory, suggesting her testimony would have been adverse to the state’s case.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution presented proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant of violating Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), overcoming his defense of frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof. The testimonies of the apprehending NBI agents, particularly De Guzman and team leader Onofre Manalad, were credible and consistent in detailing the buy-bust operation and the actual sale and delivery of marijuana by Nabunat. Their positive identification of the appellant as the seller was unequivocal. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The Court emphasized that such a defense, like alibi, is inherently weak and easily fabricated. The appellant’s mere allegations, unsupported by proof linking the agents to any ill motive, could not prevail over the straightforward narrative of the law enforcers.
Regarding the non-presentation of witness Esther Alforque, the Court held that this did not weaken the prosecution’s case. The matter of which witnesses to present is within the prosecutor’s sound discretion. The testimony of Alforque would have been merely corroborative, as the essential fact of the sale was already conclusively established by the agents who directly witnessed and participated in the transaction. The defense itself could have summoned her if it believed her testimony was vital. The minor inconsistencies in the agents’ testimonies were deemed trivial and even indicative of truthful narration. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment imposing life imprisonment and a fine was upheld in its entirety.