PARAFFIN TEST AS EVIDENCE Jacinto Bayron (Bayron). While so seated, he heard the On cross-examination, Dr.

heard the On cross-examination, Dr. Cam stated that the distance

appellant briefly converse with Bayron, requesting the between the muzzle of the gun and the entrance wounds
latter to be allowed to ride the jeep because his own jeep was two feet, more or less.20
SECOND DIVISION conked out.11 Soon after the appellant got into Bayron's
jeep, Gaudioso heard a gunshot. He looked back and The defense presented a different version of events.
[G.R. NO. 176527 : October 9, 2009] saw the appellant shoot Bayron twice in the head.12
Gaudioso immediately jumped off but later returned to Carlito testified that he was with the appellant at the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. assist in bringing Bayron to the hospital.13 It was then parking lot of the Ayala Business Park at past 5:00 p.m.
SAMSON VILLASAN y BANATI, Accused-Appellant. that he learned of Bayron's name. Thereafter, the police of June 1, 2000, when Bayron and another person
invited him to the police station for his statement approached the appellant. Bayron pointed to the
DECISION regarding the shooting.14 appellant and said: "Pre, pagtarong sa imong
pagkatawo, basig magkaaway ta" (Behave like a good
BRION, J.: On cross examination, Gaudioso recalled that there were man, otherwise we will become enemies). The appellant
three other passengers at that time inside the jeep. He replied, "pre tell me who was the person who told you
We review in this appeal the May 25, 2006 decision of immediately turned his head towards the passenger's about that"?21 Bayron's companion then accused the
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. side when he heard the first shot; two more shots appellant of being a traitor.22
00250.1 The appellate court affirmed the May 29, 2001 followed. He got scared and jumped off the jeep together
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, with the other passengers. He later 15
returned and found The jeepney dispatcher soon after called Bayron as it
2
Cebu City, that in turn found appellant Samson Villasan that the driver was already dead. was his jeep's turn to load passengers.23 Bayron and his
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime companion boarded the jeep; Bayron sat at the driver's
of murder and imposed on him the penalty of reclusion On re-direct, he reiterated that he was the only seat while his companion proceeded to the passengers'
perpetua. passenger at the jeep's front seat, and that the appellant seats at the rear. The appellant followed them into the
was seated at the jeep's rear seats. He maintained that jeep and sat behind Bayron. There were 5-7 passengers
ANTECEDENT FACTS the appellant shot Bayron.16 on board the jeep, one of them at the front seat beside
Bayron. Bayron then drove away, leaving the parking
24
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC Sergio, the victim's brother, testified that Bayron was a area. According to Carlito, 25
he learned of Bayron's death
3 jeep driver earning more or less P500.00 daily. He at 6:30 p.m. of that day.
with the crime of murder under the following Information:
further stated that the funeral and burial expenses for his
That on or about the 1st day of June, 2000, at about 6:30 brother amounted to P100,000.00. He also added that On cross examination, Carlito testified that he went to
in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and Bayron had 17a common-law wife and had a 1 - year-old Ayala on June 1, 2000 to meet the appellant to ask for
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said son with her. help on his application as a driver.26 He saw the
accused, armed with a .357 caliber Magnum revolver appellant and Bayron talking to each other when he
S&W (Homemade), with treachery and evident Dr. Cam, the Medico-Legal Officer of the National arrived, and overheard Bayron warning the appellant to
premeditation, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Cebu City, testified that he be careful. Bayron thereafter got into his jeep, followed
then and there attack, assault and shot one Jacinto T. conducted a post-mortem 18
examination on the victim's by the appellant who sat behind him (Bayron). While
Bayron, hitting him on his [sic] vital parts of his body, body on June 2, 2000, and made the following findings: inside the jeep, Bayron pointed his finger at the appellant
thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries, as a and continued to argue with the appellant as he drove
consequence of which said Jacinto T. Bayron died NECROPSY REPORT away.27 He heard gunshots 15 minutes after the jeep left
instantaneously. the parking area. Carlito later saw the appellant being
xxx apprehended by security guards.28
CONTRARY TO LAW.
GUNSHOT WOUNDS: The appellant stated that he was a driver plying the
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge upon Ayala-Colon route. At around 5:00-6:00 p.m. of June 1,
arraignment.4 The prosecution presented the following 1) ENTRANCE: 1.0 x 1.3 cms., ovaloid edges, with 2000, he talked to "Lito" at the parking area of the Ayala
witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: Jose an area of tattooing around the wound, 8.0 x 10.0 Business Center. Lito was a friend of his son who had
Secula (Jose); Gaudioso Quilaton (Gaudioso); Sergio cms., contusion collar widest supero-laterally, been asking for his assistance in applying as a driver.29
Bayron (Sergio); and Dr. Rene Enriquez Cam (Dr. Cam). located at the right side of the face, below the right He read a newspaper after talking to Lito. Not long after,
The appellant, Carlito Moalong (Carlito), and Police eye, 3.5 cms. x x x Bayron and a certain Roel came and pointed their fingers
Senior Inspector Mutchit Salinas (P/Sr. Insp. Salinas) at him. Roel uttered, "Even if you are double your body
took the witness stand for the defense. 2) ENTRANCE: 0.9 x 1.0 cm., ovaloid, edges [sic], I am not afraid."30 The appellant suspected that
inverted, contusion collar widest infero-posteriorly, Roel was mad at him for an incident in 1999 when he
located at the right side of the head, just in front of reprimanded Roel for indiscriminately firing a gun.31
Jose, a security guard of PROBE Security Agency,
testified that he was outside his employer's branch office the right ear x x x
at the Ayala Business Center, Siquijor Road, Cebu City The appellant further narrated that Bayron went to the
at around 6:15 p.m. of June 1, 2000, when he heard 3) ENTRANCE: 0.6 x 0.8 cm. ovaloid, edges jeep's driver's seat after the dispatcher called him. Roel
three successive gunshots.5 He mounted his motorcycle inverted, contusion collar widest, supero-medially, followed Bayron but sat on the rear passenger seat. The
to go and investigate but before he could start it, he saw located at the right side of the head, occipital area, appellant also got into the jeep and sat across Roel
the appellant "walking fast" and carrying a gun. He 4.0 cms., above 13.0 cms., behind the right external because he was bothered by what was happening
ordered the appellant to stop and to drop his weapon. auditory meatus, x x x between Bayron and Roel.32 He asked Roel to get off the
The latter obeyed and dropped his gun. He then jeep so they could settle their differences, but Roel
approached the appellant, conducted a body search on POSTMORTEM FINDINGS instead drew a gun from his waist.33 The appellant and
him,6 and turned him over to his (Jose's) supervisor who, Roel wrestled for the gun which discharged while they
in turn, contacted the police. The police forthwith brought Hematoma, scalp, frontal area and right parietal. were grappling for its possession. Thereafter, Roel
the suspect to the police station. Jose recalled that he immediately alighted from the jeep. The appellant
executed an affidavit on the shooting incident before the followed but was unable to catch up with Roel.34
Hemorrhage, intracranial, intracerebral, subdural,
police.7 subarachnoidal, massive, generalized
On cross examination, the appellant recalled that he
On cross examination, Jose clarified that he did not see read a newspaper at the parking lot after conversing with
Internal Organs, congested
the actual shooting; he only saw the victim's lifeless body Lito. At that point, Bayron and Roel came; Roel pointed a
8
after the appellant had been arrested. On re-direct, Jose finger at him and blamed him for his (Roel's) arrest for
Stomach, empty
stated that before the appellant was brought to the police illegal possession of firearms.35 Bayron went to board his
station, the latter told him that he had shot a fellow CAUSE OF DEATH: GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE jeep when the dispatcher called him; Roel followed him
driver.9 inside the jeep. The appellant then also boarded the
HEAD jeep, sitting across Roel to "clear the matter" with him.36
When the jeep was already on its way, Roel suddenly
Gaudioso, a store assistant at Healthy Options, narrated Remarks: Two (2) bullets were drew a gun from his waist. The appellant held Roel's
that he boarded a jeep at the waiting shed at the Ayala recovered and submitted to Firearm
10 hand, but the gun went off while they were grappling for
Business Center at around 6:30 p.m. of June 1, 2000. Investigation Section for Ballistic its possession. He did not notice if anyone had been hit.
He occupied the jeep's front seat, beside the driver Examination. 19
The passengers, including Roel, ran out of the jeep.37 GAUDIOSO QUILATON: A: That person who shot the driver.
The appellant saw the gun on the ground and picked it
up. The appellant tried to follow Roel, but the latter was A: Yes, I can remember. Q: Did you actually see that person shot the
able to board another jeep. Thereafter, the security driver?cralawred
guards arrested appellant and then turned him over to Q: Please tell the Court where you were at that
the police.38 particular date and time. A: Yes.

P/Sr. Insp. Salinas testified that he conducted a paraffin A: When I went out of my work place, I boarded a Q: How far were you to that person who shot the
test on the appellant at the PNP Regional Crime jeep. driver?cralawred
Laboratory on June 2, 2000 to determine the presence of
gunpowder nitrates. The appellant tested negative for the Q: In what place did you board the jeep?cralawred A: Very near.
presence of gunpowder nitrates.39
A: At the waiting shed at the Ayala, where the Q: How near?cralawred
On cross examination, P/Sr. Insp. Salinas explained that jeepney stop is located.
the absence of gunpowder nitrates was not conclusive A: Two (2) "dangaw" only, which may be loosely
proof that person did not fire a gun. According to him, a Q: Where is this Ayala situated, in what translated as thumb and forefinger extended, is less
person could remove traces gunpowder nitrates by city?cralawred than, from the thumb to the forefinger, because he
washing his hands.40 was sitting at my back. [sic]
A: Cebu City.
The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of murder Q: Was the driver hit?cralawred
in its decision of May 29, 2001, as follows: Q: Were you the only one who boarded that
jeepney?cralawred A: Yes, he was hit.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and
circumstances, accused Samsom B. Villasan is found A: We were four (4), sir. Q: In what portion of his body was the driver
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder hit?cralawred
and is hereby imposed the penalty of RECLUSION Q: I see. In what particular seat of the jeepney were
PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties of the law; to you seated?cralawred A: On his head.
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jacinto Bayron in
the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
A: Front seat, sir. Q: Now, if that person, whom you said you saw shot
the driver, is in the courtroom now, can you point to
The accused is, however, credited in full during the him?cralawred
Q: While you were on board that jeepney, what
whole period of his detention provided that he will signify
happened?cralawred
in writing that he will abide by all the rules and
A: Yes, I can.
regulations of the penitentiary.
A: First, the driver had conversation.
Q: Please point to that person.
SO ORDERED.41
Q: With whom did that driver have
conversation?cralawred A: That man, third (3rd) from the left.
The appellant directly appealed to this Court in view of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the RTC imposed.
A: The one who shot. [sic] (Witness pointed to the person who stood up and
We referred the case to the Court of Appeals for
identified himself as Samson Villasan)
intermediate review pursuant to our ruling in People v.
Mateo.42 Q: So, what happened afterwards, while that man
and the jeepney driver were talking with each xxx
other?cralawred
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto in its May 25,
2006 Decision.43 Q: Now you told the Court Mr. Witness that you were
A: First, I heard there was a request that he would be the only one seated at the front of the jeepney,
boarding a jeepney because his jeep conked up. [sic] Right?cralawred
In his brief,44 the appellant argued that the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Who made that request?cralawred A: Yes.
THE COURT'S RULING
A: That one person who shot. [sic] Q: And three other passengers were at the back of
the jeepney?cralawred
We deny the appeal but modify the awarded indemnities.
Q: And what happened afterwards, after that request
was made by the person to the driver?cralawred A: Yes.
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
A: He was able to board. Q: And one of the three passengers at the back shot
An established rule in appellate review is that the trial
the driver?cralawred
court's factual findings, including its assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of Q: And then what happened next?cralawred
their testimonies, as well as the conclusions drawn from A: That's right, sir.
the factual findings, are accorded respect, if not A: Then I heard one (1) gunshot.
conclusive effect. These factual findings and conclusions Q: Is that person whom you saw shot the driver
assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA. Q: And what did you do when you heard that inside the courtroom now?cralawred
Despite the RTC and the CA's unanimity in the findings gunshot?cralawred
of fact, we nevertheless carefully scrutinized the records A: He is around.
of this case, as the penalty of reclusion perpetua A: I turned towards my back.
demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.45 Q: Can you point to him again?cralawred
Q: And what did you see, if any, when you turned
Gaudioso, in his July 25, 2000 testimony, positively your head?cralawred A: Yes.
identified the appellant as the person who shot Bayron
inside the latter's own jeepney on June 1, 2000; he never A: When I turned back, there were two (2) gunshots I Q: Please do.
wavered in pointing to the appellant as the assailant. To heard, two (2) gunshots. [sic]
directly quote from the records: A: That person.
Q: You only heard two (2) gunshots?cralawred
FISCAL VICTOR LABORTE: (Witness pointing to the person who stood up and
A: Three (3), sir: the first one, and then followed by identified himself as Samson Villasan).
Q: At about 6:30 in the evening of June 1, 2000, can two (2) gunshots.
you recall where you were?cralawred x x x x46 [Emphasis supplied]
Q: Who caused that gunshot?cralawred
Time and again, we have ruled that the credibility of substances which give the same positive reaction for opportunity to defend himself against such attack. In
witnesses is a matter best left to the determination of the nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, essence, it means that the offended party was not given
trial court as this tribunal had the actual opportunity to fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such an opportunity to make a defense.
observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their as peas, beans, and alfalfa.
demeanor, conduct, and attitude. The trial court's No Evident Premeditation
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is binding on A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or
this Court, except when that tribunal overlooked facts nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are The Information alleged that the crime was committed
and circumstances of weight and influence that can alter present in the products of combustion of tobacco." In with evident premeditation. We do not find any
the result.47 numerous rulings, we have also recognized several evidentiary support for this allegation.
factors which may bring about the absence of
We carefully scrutinized the records of this case and gunpowder nitrates on the hands of a gunman, viz: when Evident premeditation, like other qualifying
found no reason to disbelieve Gaudioso's straightforward the assailant washes his hands after firing the gun, circumstances, must be established by clear and positive
narration of the events surrounding Bayron's death. Nor wears gloves at the time of the shooting, or if the evidence showing that planning and preparation took
did we see anything on record indicating any improper direction of a strong wind is against the gunman at the place prior to the killing. For evident premeditation to be
motive that could have led Gaudioso to falsely testify time of firing. x x x x [Emphasis ours] appreciated, the prosecution must show the following: (1)
against the appellant. In fact, the appellant never the time the accused determined to commit the crime; (2)
imputed any ill motive on Gaudioso. To reiterate, In sum, the positive, clear and categorical testimonies of an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to this
Gaudioso and the appellant were in the same jeep the prosecution witnesses deserve full merit in both determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
during the shooting incident; there was light inside the probative weight and credibility over the negative results the resolve to kill and its execution that would have
jeep. More importantly, Gaudioso saw the actual of the paraffin test conducted on the appellant. allowed the killer to reflect on the consequences of his
shooting because he was "very near" the appellant when act.54 Significantly, the prosecution did not even attempt
the latter shot Bayron. To Gaudioso, what he witnessed The Crime Committed to prove the presence of these elements. In People v.
must have been a shocking and startling event he would Sison,55 we held that evident premeditation should not be
not forget in a long, long time. Under these Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime appreciated where there is neither evidence of planning
circumstances, we entertain no doubt on the positive of murder as follows: or preparation to kill nor of the time when the plot was
identification of the appellant as the assailant. conceived.
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
The Appellant's Defenses Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and The Proper Penalty
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if
The appellant sought to exculpate himself by claiming committed with any of the following attendant The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized
that the shooting of Bayron was accidental; and that he circumstances: under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (as
(appellant) was not sure who pulled the trigger because amended by Republic Act No. 7659) with reclusion
the gun went off when he and Roel were grappling for its 1. With treachery, x x x perpetua to death.
possession.
In convicting the appellant of murder, the courts a quo While evident premeditation was alleged in the
We do not find the appellant's claim of accidental appreciated treachery. This circumstance exists when Information, this circumstance was not adequately
shooting believable as it contradicts the available the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, proven. Hence, in the absence of mitigating and
physical evidence provided by Dr. Cam that the victim employing means, method or forms which tend directly aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
suffered three gunshot wounds on the face and head. Dr. and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the felony, the courts a quo correctly sentenced the appellant
Cam's Necropsy Report corroborated by the Autopsy offender, arising from the defense that the offended party to reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of
Report of the Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes showing that might make. This definition sets out what must be shown the Revised Penal Code.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
the victim suffered a total of three gunshot wounds, by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely:
supported the testimony of Gaudioso that the appellant (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the Civil Liability
shot the victim thrice. Jose notably also testified that he person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or
heard three successive gunshots. These pieces of retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption The grant of civil indemnity as a consequence of the
evidence are clearly inconsistent with the appellant's of this means of execution.50 The essence of this crime of murder requires no proof other than the fact of
claim that the victim's shooting was accidental and that qualifying circumstance is in the elements of suddenness death as a result of the crime and proof of the appellant's
only one shot was fired. and surprise, and the lack of expectation that the attack responsibility therefor. While the RTC and the CA
would take place, thus depriving the victim of any real commonly awarded P50,000.00 as death indemnity to
The nature, number and location of the victim's gunshot opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the the murder victim's heirs, prevailing jurisprudence
wounds also belie the appellant's claim of accidental commission of the crime without risk to the offender.51 dictates an award of P75,000.00.56 Hence, we modify the
shooting. The three wounds, all sustained in the head award of civil indemnity to this extent, to be paid by the
and the face from shots coming from the rear, are clearly The evidence in this case showed that the appellant appellant to the victim's heirs.
indicative of a determined effort to end the victim's life. briefly talked with Bayron as the latter sat on the jeep's
driver's seat preparatory to driving off. Thereafter, the Moral damages are likewise mandatory in cases of
The appellant nonetheless claims that his identity as the appellant entered the jeep through its rear entrance, and murder and homicide. We award P50,000.00 as moral
assailant was not proven with certainty as no trace of sat behind Bayron. Not long after Bayron started his damages to the victim's heirs in accordance with
gunpowder nitrates was found in his hand. jeep, the appellant shot him three times, hitting him in the prevailing rules.57
head and at the side of the face. This manner and mode
We do not find the appellant's claim persuasive. of attack by the appellant, to our mind, indicate The heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to exemplary
treachery. The appellant's attack came without warning, damages since the qualifying circumstance of treachery
While the appellant tested negative for gunpowder and was swift and sudden. The appellant attacked was firmly established. When a crime is committed with
nitrates, Forensic Chemist Salinas testified that a paraffin Bayron from behind; the unsuspecting victim had no an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or
test is not conclusive proof that one has not fired a gun. expectation of the coming attack and was totally generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages
This view is fully in accord with past findings and defenseless against it. From these facts, the appellant is justified under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code.58
observations of this Court that paraffin tests, in general, clearly and purposely DENIED the victim of any real ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
are inconclusive; the negative findings in paraffin tests chance to defend himself and secured the commission of
do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge the crime without risk to himself.52 The lower courts were correct in not awarding actual
a firearm.48 Our ruling in People v. Teehankee, Jr.49 on damages to the victim's heirs because they failed to
this point is particularly instructive: In People v. Vallespin,53 we explained: present any supporting evidence for their claim. To be
entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the
Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected actual amount of loss with reasonable certainty, based
has "' proved extremely unreliable in use. The only thing attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by
that it can definitely establish is the presence or absence depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, the injured party. In the absence of proof, jurisprudence
of nitrates or nitrites on the hand. It cannot be thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the dictates an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages
established from this test alone that the source of the aggressor and without the slightest provocation on the for the victim's heirs on the reasonable assumption that
nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The part of the victim. It can exist even if the attack is frontal, when death occurs, the family of the victim incurred
person may have handled one or more of a number of if it is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no expenses for the wake and the funeral.59
We cannot award indemnity for loss of earning capacity
to the victim's heirs because no documentary evidence
was presented to substantiate this claim. As a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate a claim for this type of damages. While
there are exceptions to the rule, these exceptions do not
apply; although self-employed, Bayron did not earn less
than the current minimum wage under current labor
laws.60

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we hereby

AFFIRM the May 25, 2006 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 00250 with the
following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) the awarded civil indemnity is

INCREASED to P75,000.00;

(2) the appellant is ORDERED to PAY

the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as
moral damages;

(3) the appellant is ORDERED to PAY

the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and

(4) the appellant is ORDERED to PAY

the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as
temperate damages.

SO ORDERED.