Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(1) Whether the negative findings of the paraffin test conducted on the appellant is conclusive proof of his
innocence
In People v. Abriol, et al., G.R. No. 123137, 17 October 2001, 367 SCRA 327,
342. we reiterated the rule on the admissibility of this kind of evidence:
In the case at bar, the positive, 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. Verily, establishing the identity of the malefactor through the
testimony of the witness is the heart and cause of the prosecution.18 All other
matters, such as the paraffin test, are of lesser consequence where there is
positive identification by the lone eyewitness, Leo Mirabueno, of appellant as
the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, a paraffin test cannot be considered as
conclusive proof of appellants innocence.
Time and again this Court had reiterated that even negative findings of the paraffin
test do not conclusively show that a person did not fire a gun, Revita v. People, G.R.
No. 177564, October 31, 2008, 570 SCRA 356, 370.] and that a paraffin test has been
held to be highly unreliable. This is so since there are many ways, either deliberately
or accidentally, that the residue of gunpowder nitrates in the hands of a person who
fired a handgun can be removed. This point was aptly explained and clarified by
defense witness P/Supt. Babor, a Forensic Chemist and the Regional Chief of the PNP
Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas in San Fernando, Pampanga. She explained in open
court the various factors affecting the non-adhesion, disappearance or removal of the
residue of gunpowder nitrates on the hands of a person who fires a gun, like the wind
direction and velocity when the handgun was fired, the type of firearm used, the
humidity or moisture present in the ammunition, and when the person wears gloves to
preclude adhesion of the gunpowder nitrates.1[22] Also, she explained that opening
the pores of the skin will make the nitrates slough off or disappear and this could be
done by subjecting the hands to heat, like steam from boiling water, or sufficiently
washing the hands with warm water. Finally, gunpowder nitrates are also dissolved by
diphenylamine.
Petitioners reliance on the negative results of the paraffin test conducted on him the day
after the fateful event must fail. Our ruling in People v. Manalo,2[19] is apropos:
[E]ven if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, 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. The Court has
even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the
instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol.
Indeed, 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. 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. 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.3[20] Conversely, the absence of gunpowder
nitrates on petitioners hands, the day after the incident, does not conclusively establish that he did
not fire a gun; neither are the negative results yielded by the paraffin test an insurmountable proof
of his innocence.