You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

---vs--Rodolfo Manalo
Rule 130 Section 1 Object Evidence
FACTS:
1. Two informations for murder was filed against accused-appellant for killing Bonilla and
Diomampo with a .45-caliber pistol. Manalo pleaded not guilty when arraigned.
2. RTC convicted him of two counts of murder.
3. Hence, this petition. Accused posed the error in the trial court giving credence in
prosecution witness Lacbay when it has been belied by another prosecution witness Dr.
Perez.
4. The prosecutions version is as follows:
a. Prosecution witness Lacbay, a motorcycle sales agent, visited Bonilla and
Diomampo at their house, talking about a motorcycle they intended to buy. After
a few drinks, they rode to a place near the place of the accused.
b. Upon arrival, they were all invited by the accused to his house for a drink. When
they were about to reach the interior, Manalo suddenly shot Diomampo once on
the head and then Bonilla once on the temple, causing both to fall to the floor dead.
Thereafter, Manalo shot Diomampo again.
c. Lacbay was shocked and was unable to move. He was told by Manalo that he shot
them because Diomampo impregnated his daughter. Manalo then asked Lacbay
to dig, but Lacbay refused. Afterwards, he left when Manalo looked for a shovel.
d. The bodies of Diomampo and Bonilla were recovered from a shallow grave under
Manalos banggerahan. It was subjected for autopsy under Dr. Perez, who
found gunshot wounds at the victims heads, the proximate cause of death.
5. On the other hand, defense maintains:
a. That he is not responsible for the killing. He asserts that on that day, after attending
mass at INC, he saw two unknown men in front of his house who requested they
stay there for a while as they were waiting for someone.
b. When Lacbay and the victims arrived, Manalo narrates that it was the unknown
men who killed the victim. He said that after they killed the victim, they demanded
that Manalo go find a spade to bury them. They then threatened Manalo not to
squeal or else he and his family will be in danger.
c. Manalo also said that it could not be proven that he fired a gun as he tested
negative for a paraffin test.
d. Further, Manalo alleges that there is discrepancy in the autopsy and testimony of
Lacbay. Lacbay said that Manalo shot them from about 3m away, but the autopsy
revealed that the shot was up close.
ISSUE: W/N the paraffin test is relevant evidence
HELD: No.

Anent the issue of discrepancy between the testimony of Lacbay and that of the finding, it cannot
be expected of a witness to recall in detail the events that occurred especially when he was in
shock. Further, the discrepancy of 3m to up close is not a significant one.
The absence of a physical evidence that the accused fired a gun would neither prove the innocence
of the accused as well. The contention of Manalo that it cannot be proven that he fired the gun
because he tested negative in the paraffin test is immaterial since the Court has recognized the
possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand after having washed the same.
The accused was positively identified by Lacbay who was not shown to have any ill motive
against the accused. The accused himself does not know of a reason why Lacbay would testify
against him. Further, the accused has executed an extrajudicial statement that he admitted to the
killing because one of the victims tried to abuse his daughter. He controverted this admission on
direct testimony, raising the story of two unidentified men whom nobody saw except him.
WHEREFORE, finding of guilt is AFFIRMED.