Rule 130 Section 1- Object as evidence G.R. No.

129284 March 17, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSALINO FLORES, accused-appellant.

Facts: Flores was charged of murder for the killing of Antonio Garcia with the use of a handgun. He entered a plea of not guilty proffering that he was attending the party of another person. The RTC convicted Flores of the crime charged. Hence this present appeal wherein accused asserts that there is no evidence that he shot the deceased considering that he tested negative in the paraffin test and that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the slugs were never presented in evidence. Issue: Whether or not the lack of object evidence warrants his acquittal? Held: No. The fact that accused-appellant tested negative in the paraffin test; that the prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is of no moment. It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed his hands thereafter. Since accused-appellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 days after the shooting, it is likely that he has already washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of nitrates in his hand. It has also been held that the non-presentation by the prosecution of the gun used and the slug recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to the case when there is positive identification of the assailant, as in the instant case. The victims daughter, Myla, positively identified accused as the perpetrator of the crime since she saw him pointing a gun at her father and when she shouted, "si Jianggo, si Jianggo," Flores ran away. Another witness, Roberto Santiago, saw the accused fleeing the scene of the crime while holding a gun. Although Myla and Roberto may not have seen the accused-appellant in the actual act of shooting the victim, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution point to him as the only person who may have been responsible for the commission of the crime to the exclusion of any other person. At the time Myla and Roberto saw accused-appellant they were at a distance reasonable to make an accurate identification. Myla was only an arm's length away, while Roberto was 10 to 11 meters away from accused-appellant. Further, Myla and Roberto are familiar with the accused-appellant as they live in the same place and accused-appellant is Myla's uncle.