witnesses, Cristina Soledad was talking with thedeceased, and his common law husband ofRene Impas, the petitioner with Celdran kickedopen the door and shot the victim hitting thelatter on his shoulder. The accused, then shotanother hitting the latter into his abdomen thatmade him fall face down on bed thatimmediately caused his death. Soledad, shoutedfor help and then, one of the tenants, Rico Acreresponded. Upon seeing the victim on bed withdifficulty on breathing, he shouted for help andthen their neighbor, Gascon came together withAcre to lift the victim and loaded him in the car ofpolice Maj. Impas, the father of the victim. Thevictim, was then subjected to paraffin testwithout the presence of a counsel, and heinvoked his right to self-incrimination. Whetheror not the paraffin testing conducted isviolative of the Constitutional Right of theaccused and is equivalent to self-incriminationAnswer: No. What is protected by the constitution is thecompulsory exaction of testimonies from the accusedthat may be used against himself and not the bodyevidence which may be used as evidence if material.People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372 (paraffin test)Accused-appellant Romeo Canceran wascharged with murder. Two of his friends whowere present at the commission of the offense,Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez, shortlythereafter, went to the police headquarters toreport the incident. Based on the statementsgiven by them, the PC Investigating Teamproceeded to the residence of accused-appellant's employer, to invite Romeo Canceranfor questioning about the incident. Bautista andMelindez alleged that it was Romeo Canceranwho shot the victim. On the other hand, RomeoCanceran alleged that Bautista accidentally shotthe victim while playing with a revolver. At theinstance of the PC investigators, Canceran andBautista voluntarily submitted themselves to aparaffin test to determine who had fired a gunwithout the presence of any counsel. Whetheror not the paraffin tests conducted withoutthe presence of counsel is a violation of histhe right against self-incriminationAnswer: The issue of violation of the accused-appellant's right to an attorney can be readily settled byreading the original records of this case. During hisarraignment, the accused-appellant was duly assisted bya counsel de oficio. The Order of the trial court directedthe Citizens Legal Assistance Office to thereafterrepresent the accused Romeo Canceran. Clearly, noviolation of the right to counsel was committed. Theparaffin tests conducted without the presence of counseldid not violate the right against self-incrimination nor theright to counsel. Moreover, the 2 witnesses for theprosecution, Bautista and Melindez, were able toadequately establish that it was the accused-appellantRomeo Canceran who shot and killed Pribert Doroja.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
criminal law, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Trial court, Tan Teng