MANILA - A forensic analyst believes slain teen Carl Arnaiz was not killed along C-3 Road last August 18 as claimed by both police and taxi driver Tomas Bagcal.

Speaking to ANC, Dr. Erwin Erfe of the Public Attorney's Office said there are too many conflicting details in the 3 affidavits submitted by Bagcal.

One discrepancy that stood out in the PAO investigation is the place where Arnaiz was allegedly killed.

"We went there after examining kasi may tumagos sa kaniyang apat na bala sa likod. 4 gunshot wounds na tumama sa dibdib at lumabas dito (sa kaniyang likod). Hinanap namin yun. Kung talagang crime scene ay doon, makikita mo yung slug doon; even 100 years na, makikita mo doon," he said.

The forensic investigators also inspected the vegetation and the soil in the area and found there was no disturbance. They also examined the topsoil and found no bullet tracks.

"Tinanggal naming yung topsoil, sinala namin lahat ng soil doon. Wala kaming nakita. Wala rin kami nakitang bullet marks sa pader. Paanong nagkaroon ng shootout? Lahat dapat ay makikita mo ito doon sa crime scene," said Erfe.

"It led us to the conclusion that this is a staged crime scene. It’s a fake crime scene at mukhang si Carl ay pinatay sa ibang lugar, hindi doon, doon sa sinasabi ng driver na ito," he said.

• READ: Different details: NCRPO explains conflicting affidavits in Carl Arnaiz case

This, Erfe said, casts doubts even on Bagcal's most recent statement that he hid behind an electricity post and turned around only to see that Arnaiz has been killed.

"Witness nila itong driver, sabi niya nakita daw niya dun sa area na yun. Mukhang hindi doon nangyari. Malabong mangyari doon because wala kaming makitang evidence that will support yung kaniyang story, kahit itong last na story niya na nakita niyang nakatago siya, hindi pa rin. It will not fit the physical evidence, malayo," he said.

• READ: Taxi driver in Carl Arnaiz case says there was no shootout

• READ: Different details: NCRPO explains conflicting affidavits in Carl Arnaiz case

Erfe also questioned Bagcal's claims that he was intimidated by Arnaiz during the robbery.

Bagcal earlier claimed Arnaiz robbed him at gunpoint but that he was able to chase the teenager after the latter's gun failed to fire.

He later said the teen was mauled by tricycle drivers and a barangay watchman before he was turned over to the police. Arnaiz later turned up dead after he allegedly fought back police.

• READ: Taxi driver Bagcal insists holdupper was Carl Arnaiz

"Sa examination namin ng body ni Carl, payat lang at maliit si Carl. Ito, masyadong malaki ito para maaaring matakot sa kaniya. Hindi plausible yung kaniyang story," Erfe told ANC's Headstart.

"Ang problema kasi, ang story niya na sinasabi, dalawang statements saka itong story niya, lahat yun conflicting," he said of Bagcal's statements.

Erfe said their forensic analysis of Arnaiz showed he had four gunshot wounds, which were "most likely" inflicted by only one gun. All 4 were from the front, except for the one in his tricep.

The forensic analyst said Arnaiz was most likely shot at close range.

"Dun sa scenario na nabuo namin sa criminal event reconstruction, mukhang malapitan yung putukan dito at walang shootout na nangyari," he said.