People of the Philippines vs. Cornelio Cajumocan

A negative paraffin test result is not conclusive proof of innocence and cannot overcome a positive, categorical eyewitness identification; treachery qualifies a killing to Murder when the offender deliberately shoots a sleeping, unsuspecting victim, ensuring no opportunity to defend or retaliate.

Cornelio Cajumocan was employed as a security guard by AFSLAI Security Service and was assigned to the property of Gen. Rene Cruz in Tanay, Rizal. Apolinario Mirabueno was the victim; his brother Leo Mirabueno was the prosecution's eyewitness. The charge was Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes unlawful killing not parricide or infanticide when attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery.

At about 11:30 p.m. on September 30, 1999, Apolinario Mirabueno was asleep beside his fourteen-year-old brother Leo inside their house in Sitio Waray, Barangay Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal. Leo was roused from slumber by the rustling of dried leaves outside the house. He saw a solitary figure walk toward their house, pause outside their room, remove the fish net covering the window, and look inside. 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.

Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, Medico-Legal of the PNPC Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, conducted the physical examination of the victim's cadaver. He found an open gunshot wound located at the front part of the head, with the point of entry 3 to 4 c.m. above the left eyebrow and the point of exit at the back of the head. The gunshot wound was fatal, damaging both cerebral hemispheres of the brain. According to his report, the victim's death resulted instantaneously, and the cause of death was intracranial hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound of the head.

Virginia Mirabueno, the victim's mother, testified that she incurred expenses due to the death of her son: funeral service, P15,000.00; expenses for the wake, P5,000.00; and burial lot, P2,500.00. She further testified that she mortgaged her house and lot in order to pay for the funeral expenses. She could not present receipts since some of the expenses for the wake came from neighbors and relatives in the form of "abuloy." She also alleged that her son was engaged in the business of buying and selling goods, earning P150.00 per day.

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. Carpo testified that appellant was one of the agency's security guards and had been assigned at the Monterey Farm in 1999, then transferred to Tanay, Rizal to the property of Gen. Rene Cruz, where he was assigned a long firearm, specifically a 12-gauge shotgun. In the evening of September 30, 1999, Carpo made a roving inspection of the detachment in Sitio Bathala, Barangay Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, located inside the compound of Gen. Rene Cruz where appellant was one of the security guards detailed. The head of the security guards stationed in the Cruz property informed Carpo that appellant was picked up by Tanay police authorities because he was a suspect in a killing incident. Carpo made inquiries and found out that appellant's tour of duty was from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., and concluded that he never left the place as shown by a photocopy of the Detail Order signed by the head of the security guards stationed in the Cruz property. They told him that the place where the shooting incident took place was about one kilometer away. Carpo inspected the logbook and saw the signature of appellant.

For his part, appellant testified that prior to 7 p.m. on September 30, 1999, he arrived at his assignment in the Cruz property, located in Sitio Bathala, Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal. He went to their outpost, signed the logbook, and stayed up to 8:30 p.m. He then went to the bodega where construction equipment and materials were kept and, upon seeing that they were secure, returned to the outpost and watched television. He asked permission from the head of the security guards to sleep. At 7 a.m., he signed the logbook to end his tour of duty. 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.

The trial court gave credence and full probative value to the testimony of Leo Mirabueno, the victim's brother, and found that appellant shot the victim while the latter was asleep. It rejected appellant's denial and alibi and did not treat the negative paraffin test as sufficient to overcome the eyewitness account.

• Eyewitness Credibility: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in extending full reliance and credence to prosecution eyewitness Leo Mirabueno, who was biased and predisposed by reason of relationship, being a brother of the deceased victim.
• Paraffin Test: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in disbelieving and giving scant consideration to the official negative findings of the paraffin gunpowder examination on his person.
• Treachery: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in appreciating treachery and considering it as a qualifying circumstance, there being no direct and positive evidence to prove it.
• Denial and Alibi: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to extend credence to his claim of denial and alibi.
• Guilt, Penalty, and Damages: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Murder, imposing reclusion perpetua, and awarding a total of P100,000.00 as actual damages.

• Paraffin Test: Whether the negative findings of the paraffin test conducted on appellant are conclusive proof of his innocence.
• Treachery: Whether treachery can be appreciated in the instant case to qualify the crime to Murder.
• Guilt, Credibility, and Alibi: Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, considering the credibility of the lone eyewitness and appellant's denial and alibi.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of actual damages were proper.

• Paraffin Test: No. A negative paraffin test is not conclusive proof of innocence; it cannot overcome positive identification by a credible eyewitness.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing to Murder because appellant shot the sleeping, unsuspecting victim, who had no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and consciously adopted that means.
• Guilt, Credibility, and Alibi: Yes. Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248; the lone eyewitness's positive identification was credible despite relationship, and denial and alibi failed because it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene.
• Penalty and Damages: Reclusion perpetua was proper and civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was affirmed; the award of actual damages was deleted for lack of factual basis.

• Paraffin Test: A negative paraffin test does not conclusively prove innocence. Paraffin tests have been rendered inconclusive; scientific experts concur that the test is extremely unreliable. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, but cannot determine whether the source was the discharge of a firearm. Nitrates are found in substances other than gunpowder, and one may fire a gun yet test negative, as when the hands are washed before the test. The test merely corroborates direct evidence. Here, the positive, clear, and categorical testimony of the lone eyewitness, Leo Mirabueno, identifying appellant as the perpetrator deserved full probative weight and credibility over the negative paraffin result. Positive identification is the heart of the prosecution.
• Treachery: Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of crimes against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Its essence is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation. Two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. The victim was asleep when appellant shot him. The unexpected attack rendered him unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of its suddenness and severity. The nature of the wounds and the eyewitness testimony established that the victim was not in a position to defend himself and that appellant consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack, armed and stealthily performing the criminal act at an unexpected time while the victim was asleep in his dwelling. Treachery therefore qualified the killing to Murder.
• Guilt, Credibility, and Alibi: The positive identification of appellant at the scene by Leo Mirabueno was given due weight and credence. Relationship by consanguinity between witness and victim does not per se impair credibility; it may even strengthen credibility because it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual perpetrator. People vs. Realin and People vs. Javier were cited. Appellant's bare denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of Leo. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the two places and the facility of access. Sitio Bathala, where appellant was on duty, and Sitio Waray, where the crime was committed, were approximately one kilometer apart and within walking distance; appellant could have accessed the scene in minutes. Thus, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. The trial court's findings on credibility are accorded finality absent overlooked facts; none appeared. Murder under Article 248 requires: (1) a person is killed; (2) the appellant killed him; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. All elements were proven.
• Penalty and Damages: Murder is penalized by reclusion perpetua to death. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code; hence reclusion perpetua was correct. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide, and was upheld. The P50,000.00 actual damages for hospitalization, medical, and funeral expenses cannot be sustained because they were unsubstantiated by receipts.

• Paraffin Test Reliability — A negative paraffin test is not conclusive proof of innocence. The test can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; it cannot determine whether the source was the discharge of a firearm. Nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder, and a person may fire a gun yet test negative, as when the hands are washed before the test. The test merely corroborates direct evidence. In this case, the negative result did not overcome the positive, clear, and categorical eyewitness identification of appellant.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Its essence is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part. Two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. The Court applied this doctrine because appellant shot the victim while asleep, rendering the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself.
• Credibility of a Related Witness — Relationship by consanguinity between the witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the former. In certain cases, relationship may even strengthen credibility because it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual perpetrator. The Court applied this to Leo Mirabueno, the victim's brother, whose positive identification was given full credence.
• Alibi — For alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. The Court found that Sitio Bathala and Sitio Waray were approximately one kilometer apart and within walking distance, so it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis.
• Finality of Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Findings of fact and assessment of credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed the witnesses' behavior on the stand. These findings are accorded finality unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. No such circumstance was found.
• Elements of Murder — Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code requires: (1) a person is killed; (2) the appellant killed him; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. All elements were proven in this case.
• Civil Indemnity and Actual Damages — Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. Actual damages, however, must be substantiated by receipts. The Court upheld the P50,000.00 civil indemnity but deleted the P50,000.00 actual damages for lack of factual basis.

• "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 discharge of a firearm." — This passage states the Court's ratio on the limited probative value of paraffin tests and explains why a negative result cannot conclusively prove innocence.
• "Two conditions must concur for treachery to be present: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and; (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution." — This passage provides the canonical requisites of treachery, which the Court applied to the shooting of a sleeping victim.
• "Relationship by consanguinity between the witness and the victim does not per se impair the credibility of the former. In certain cases relationship may even strengthen credibility for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual perpetrator." — This passage defines the rule on the credibility of a related witness and supports the Court's reliance on the victim's brother as eyewitness.
• "Well-settled is the rule that for alibi to prosper, appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime." — This passage states the controlling alibi doctrine, which the Court applied in rejecting appellant's defense because the two locations were within walking distance.

• People vs. Manalo, G.R. Nos. 96123-24, 8 March 1993, 219 SCRA 656, 663 — Stressed that even a negative paraffin test does not definitely conclude that a person had not fired a gun, as one may fire a gun and still be negative for nitrates, such as when the hands are washed before the test.
• People vs. Abriol, et al., G.R. No. 123137, 17 October 2001, 367 SCRA 327, 342 — Reiterated that a paraffin test cannot establish that the source of nitrate was the discharge of firearms; the presence of nitrates is only an indication of a possibility, and appellants were not convicted on the sole basis of the paraffin test.
• People vs. de Guzman, G.R. No. 116730, 16 November 1995, 250 SCRA 118, 128 — Cited for the rule that paraffin tests have been rendered inconclusive and unreliable.
• People vs. Realin, G.R. No. 126051, 21 January 1999, 301 SCRA 495, 510 — Held that the earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served if the witness abandons conscience and prudence to blame an innocent person; supports the credibility of a related witness.
• People vs. Javier, G.R. No. 130489, 19 February 2002, 377 SCRA 300, 307-308 — Held that nothing disqualifies a person from testifying in a criminal case involving a relative if the former was at the scene and witnessed the criminal act.
• People vs. Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, 30 September 2003 — Cited for the requirements of alibi and physical impossibility, and for the finality of trial court findings absent overlooked facts.
• People vs. Pabillo, G.R. No. 122103, 4 November 2003, citing People vs. Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, 21 May 1998, 290 SCRA 451, 461 — Cited for the two conditions of treachery.
• People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 140762, 10 September 2003 — Cited for the rule that civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Murder as unlawful killing not parricide or infanticide committed with any qualifying circumstance under the same article. Applied: the killing of Apolinario Mirabueno was qualified to Murder by treachery.
• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of crimes against persons which tend directly and specially to insure execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Applied: appellant shot the victim while asleep, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed. Applied: reclusion perpetua was imposed instead of death.

Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), on official leave.