PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WINNIE LABRA Y BAQUILAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Appellant Winnie Labra was charged for violation of Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972.

The information filed by the City Prosecutor of Iloilo alleged:

“x x x. That on or
about the 11th day of September, 1990 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, with deliberate intent and
without any justifiable motive, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally sell, deliver and distribute marijuana leaves a prohibited drug,
that one (1) pack of dried marijuana leaves and the amount of P60.00 (3 pcs.
P20.00 bills) were taken from his possession.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

City of Iloilo, Philippines, September 12, 1990.”^[1]

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the trial, the prosecution presented
the following witnesses: Police
Corporal Gregorio Gupiteo, Jr., Police Exhibits Custodian, Capt. Zenaida
Sinfuego, Forensic Chemist of Region VI PC-INCP Crime Laboratory, Camp Delgado,
Iloilo City, and PC Sgt. Danilo Gallego of the PC Task Force Iron Eagle, Recom
6, Iloilo City. The accused was the
lone witness for the defense.

The case for the prosecution, as found by the trial court, is as
follows:

“x x x on September 11, 1990, acting on a tip from a civilian
informant that the accused Winnie Labra was selling marijuana at Barangay
Hipodromo, Iloilo City, Sgt. Danilo Gallego and other members of his team
proceeded to the place to conduct a buy-bust operation. Before hand, they marked three twenty (20) –
peso bills bearing Serial Nos. GS 998878, BN 610113 and JH 899718 (Exhibits
“B”, “B-1”, and “B-2”) which they thereafter
delivered to their civilian informant, who was to act as the poseur buyer. At the locus criminis, they
posted themselves across the street and at other strategic places. The accused was then contacted by the poseur
buyer through somebody, and shortly thereafter Winnie Labra showed up, and,
after a brief exchange of words, Winnie Labra went back to the house where he
came from and emerged thereafter. The
poseur buyer handed him the three 20-peso bills, and in exchange, Winnie Labra
was about to hand the poseur buyer a pack of marijuana dried leaves (Exhibit
“A”), when, at this point Sgt. Danilo Gallego and his team closed in,
and after announcing themselves as PC soldiers, apprehended Winnie Labra and
brought him to PC Camp Delgado, Iloilo City. The raiding team took from him the three 20-peso bills and the pack
containing marijuana (Exh. “A”) as evidence. Sgt. Gallego and his companions then took
from the pack, Exhibit “A”, some samples (Exhibit “E”), had
the same examined by Forensic Chemist Zenaida Sinfuego at the PC Crime
Laboratory at Camp Delgado, which, after tests were to be marijuana (Exhibits
“D” and “D-1″).”^[2]

On the other hand, the defense version is as follows:

“x x x Winnie Labra claimed that he was framed-up by the
Philippine Constabulary operatives using a certain ‘Ka Nene’ as intermediary x
x x. He testified that he stayed up
late on his job at the Iloilo Fishing Port in the evening of September 10, 1990
and decided to sleep the following day. He was however awakened by his second cousin Alfredo Alamo at about 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon and told that somebody was looking for him. He peeped through his window and saw that it
was ‘Ka Nene’ whom he had previously known because the latter frequents the
house at Hipodromo street where he was staying. He saw ‘Ka Nene’ sitting on a bench at a store located about two
meters away from the house where he was residing. When he went out of his house and approached ‘Ka Nene’, the
latter asked him where was the house of a certain Jun Antoniano, a student of
the University of Iloilo. He then
pointed the house of Jun Antoniano to ‘Ka Nene’, after which, he sat down on
the bench by the store, being still sleepy. Suddenly, somebody held him by the back part of his shirt. The accused asked him what he had done but
the person who held him, and who refused to identify himself, simply exclaimed
‘Upod lang’ (Just come along). The
accused refused at first, but the stranger was armed and so, he decided to go
along. They were met on the way by a
big fellow and they thereafter forced him to ride on a tricycle and brought to
Camp Delgado, Iloilo City. No warrant
for his arrest was shown to him. When
he was frisked, nothing was found in his person. ‘Ka Nene’ suspiciously
vanished from the scene. He eventually
identified PC Sgt. Danilo Gallego to be the one who forcibly brought him to the
PC Headquarters at Camp Delgado. At the
Camp, he was investigated and asked who was this Jun Antoniano. Thereafter, he was brought to the PC Crime
Laboratory where he saw the marked money, Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘B-2’, and
the marijuana marked as Exhibit ‘A’. Captain Sinfuego received samples of the marijuana marked as Exhibit ‘E’
which she then tested. The accused claims
that it was only at the PC Crime Laboratory that he saw the marijuana and the
marked money for the first time. He
disclaims having been caught selling Exhibit ‘A’ to the informant and having
been found in possession of the three 20-peso bills, Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and
‘B-2’.

x x x the accused explained that ‘Ka Nene’, a resident of the
District of La Paz, Iloilo City, often comes to the house where he is residing
because “Ka Nene’ is a friend of the daughter of the houseowner; that when
‘Ka Nene’ visits the place, he talks to everybody in the house as he is
acquainted with virtually all of them; that ‘Ka Nene’ is personally known to
his second cousin Alfredo Alamo, the one who woke him up.”^[3]

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision
dated 28 December 1990, the dispositive portion of which states:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court finds the
accused WINNIE LABRA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as mended (sic), otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos, to suffer the
accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs. x x x.

SO ORDERED.”^[4]

Winnie Labra appeals his conviction, praying for a reversal of
the judgment, for alleged failure of the prosecution to prove the appellant’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant assigns the following errors allegedly committed by
the trial court:

“I.       x x x IN
CONCLUDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER, AN
INDISPENSABLE WITNESS.

II.       x x x IN GIVING FULL
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND TOTALLY DISREGARDING THAT OF
THE DEFENSE.”^[5]

Once more, the Court is asked to resolve a question involving a
balance between the constitutional presumption of innocence and the duty of
ferreting out those who transgress the law and in the process assist in stamping
out this ruthless network of “users” and “pushers” of
prohibited drugs.^[6]

The constitutional presumption of innocence can only be overcome
by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

After a careful examination of the proceedings in the trial
court, we are convinced that the presumption of innocence has been sufficiently
overcome by the prosecution’s evidence. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction against the
accused-appellant.

The present case is to be distinguished from cases where the
failure to present the poseur-buyer proved fatal to the prosecution. In People vs. Olaes^[7]
we stated that:

“x x x this case exemplifies the instance where the
non-presentation of the supposed poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution’s
case. The records show that the alleged
sales transaction took place inside the house of appellant. In other words, the transaction was
supposedly witnessed only by the poseur-buyer, Manuelito Bernardo. Only he has personal knowledge of such
transaction x x x.”

Likewise, in People vs. Ramos^[8] we
held that:

“x x x. The testimony
of the poseur-buyer is rendered compelling by the fact that the police officers
were situated three blocks away from where the alleged sale took place. They did not see the actual sale of
marijuana. x x x.”

It is clear from the two (2) cited cases that the rule that the
non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution is not
absolute. Thus in People vs. Napat-a^[9]
the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer did not destroy the case for the
prosecution, for the sale and actual delivery of marijuana by appellant were
witnessed by police officers who testified at the trial.

In the case at bar, Sgt. Gallego in his testimony^[10]
stated that he personally witnessed the sale of marijuana by the accused from a
distance of ten (10) meters, in an open area at around 2:30 p.m. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely
impute such a serious crime against accused-appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty as well as the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses should prevail over the
self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been “framed”.^[11]
The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to
convict. Sgt. Danilo Gallego’s
testimony was clearly sufficient since he in fact witnessed the sale of
marijuana. Accused-appellant failed to
establish ill motive on the part of Gallego and neither was he able to
satisfactorily show that he was “framed.”

The defense of being “framed” is quite easily fabri­cated
and in the presence of clear and positive evidence for the prosecution should
not give rise to an acquittal, unless such defense is clearly established by
evidence other than the sole testimony of the accused. The prosecution, having shown through clear,
positive and convincing evidence that accused had sold marijuana, the burden
then shifted to the accused to rebut this by showing clear and positive
evidence of being “framed”. Labra’s sole testimony, uncorroborated by the testimony of other
witnesses who, according to his version, could support the allegation that he
was “framed”, cannot overcome the prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 11

^[2]
Rollo, p. 12

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 12-14

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 17-18

^[5]
Rollo, p. 28

^[6]
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 85176, October 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 148

^[7]
G.R. No. 76547, July 30, 1990, 188 SCRA 91, 95

^[8]
G.R. Nos. 85401-02, June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 184, 192

^[9]
G.R. No. 84951, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 403

^[10]
TSN, November 29, 1990, pp. 14-23

^[11]
People vs. DeKingco, G.R. No. 87685, September 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 512