You are on page 1of 3

G.R. No.


May 28, 2004

At 11:30 p.m. of September 30, 1999, while the deceased, Apolinario Mirabueno, was
asleep beside his fourteen year old brother Leo inside their house in Sitio Waray,
Barangay Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, the latter was roused from his slumber by the
rustling of dried leaves outside the house. He saw a solitary figure walk toward their
house, paused outside their room, and removed the fish net covering the window and
looked inside the house. From the light of the fluorescent lamp inside the house, Leo
recognized the man as appellant Cornelio Cajumocan, who drew a gun and shot
Apolinario in the head, and thereafter ran away. Leo cried out to his older sister,
Margarita and they brought Apolinario to a hospital in Morong, but he was declared
dead on arrival.
Appellant was charged with Murder before the RTC of Morong, Rizal.
During the arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de parte pleaded "not guilty" to
the charge.
Ernesto Carpo, an inspector/investigator of AFSLAI Security Service where appellant
was employed as a security guard was presented by the defense as its first witness.
While still at the compound, police officers from Tanay, Rizal came and invited him to
the police station. During the investigation, he denied any participation in the killing of
Apolinario. The following day, on October 1, 1999, he was brought to Camp Crame to
undergo paraffin testing. The paraffin test showed him negative for powder burns.
On January 7, 2002, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of
Whether the negative findings of the paraffin test conducted on the appellant is
conclusive proof of his innocence.
Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific
experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use.
It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the
test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the

merely corroborate direct evidence that may be presented by the prosecution. Rudy Buduhan. are of lesser consequence where there is positive identification by the lone eyewitness. an Information was filed against Robert Buduhan. . Quirino. All other matters. Finding accusedappellants Robert Buduhan y Bullan and Rudy Buduhan y Bullan guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide with respect to the deceased Larry Erese. of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. such as the paraffin test. for the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. the positive. Verily. Leo Mirabueno. 178196 AUGUST 6.discharge of a firearm.R No. clear and categorical testimony of the lone eyewitness to the crime deserves full merit in both probative weight and credibility over the negative results of the paraffin test conducted on the appellant. since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder. In the case at bar. Manalo. Boyet Ginyang and 3 John Does before the RTC of Maddela. it must be emphasized. a paraffin test cannot be considered as conclusive proof of appellant’s innocence. we stressed: xxx even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding. IN RE TO: G. 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RUDY BUDUHAN y BULLAN and ROBERT BUDUHAN y BULLAN FACTS: On 26 August 1998. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun. it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test Paraffin tests. In the case of People v. Boy Guinhicna. establishing the identity of the malefactor through the testimony of the witness is the heart and cause of the prosecution. and of the crime of homicide with respect to the deceased Romualde Almeron. Hence.

the forensic chemist pointed out that the paraffin test is merely a corroborative evidence. namely: the wearing of gloves by the subject. the positive and negative results of the paraffin test can also be influenced by certain factors affecting the conditions surrounding the use of the firearm. ISSUE: Whether the negative result of the paraffin test conducted by the forensic chemist was disregarded. the length of the barrel of the firearm or the open or closed trigger guard of the firearm. climate conditions. As previously mentioned. RULING: Appellants cannot rely on the negative findings of Police Inspector Chua-Camarao on the paraffin tests conducted in order to exculpate themselves. wind velocity. perspiration of the hands. humidity. Nonetheless. humidity. C-25-98 which yielded a negative result for all the four accused.The findings and conclusion on the paraffin test that Police Inspector Chua-Camarao conducted were contained in Physical Science Report No. neither proving nor disproving that a person did indeed fire a gun. . the length of the barrel of the firearm or the open or closed trigger guard of the firearm. such as the wearing of gloves by the subject. wind velocity. wind direction. and they are not conclusive with respect to the issue of whether or not the subjects did indeed fire a gun. perspiration of the hands. The said witness herself promptly stated that paraffin test results are merely corroborative of the major evidence offered by any party. climate conditions. The positive or negative results of the test can be influenced by certain factors. wind direction.