witnesses Cristina Soledad was talking with the deceased and his common law

Witnesses cristina soledad was talking with the

This preview shows page 4 - 5 out of 8 pages.

witnesses, Cristina Soledad was talking with the deceased, and his common law husband of Rene Impas, the petitioner with Celdran kicked open the door and shot the victim hitting the latter on his shoulder. The accused, then shot another hitting the latter into his abdomen that made him fall face down on bed that immediately caused his death. Soledad, shouted for help and then, one of the tenants, Rico Acre responded. Upon seeing the victim on bed with difficulty on breathing, he shouted for help and then their neighbor, Gascon came together with Acre to lift the victim and loaded him in the car of police Maj. Impas, the father of the victim. The victim, was then subjected to paraffin test without the presence of a counsel, and he invoked his right to self-incrimination. Whether or not the paraffin testing conducted is violative of the Constitutional Right of the accused and is equivalent to self- incrimination Answer : No. What is protected by the constitution is the compulsory exaction of testimonies from the accused that may be used against himself and not the body evidence which may be used as evidence if material. People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372 (paraffin test) Accused-appellant Romeo Canceran was charged with murder. Two of his friends who were present at the commission of the offense, Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez, shortly thereafter, went to the police headquarters to report the incident. Based on the statements given by them, the PC Investigating Team proceeded to the residence of accused- appellant's employer, to invite Romeo Canceran for questioning about the incident. Bautista and Melindez alleged that it was Romeo Canceran who shot the victim. On the other hand, Romeo Canceran alleged that Bautista accidentally shot the victim while playing with a revolver. At the instance of the PC investigators, Canceran and Bautista voluntarily submitted themselves to a paraffin test to determine who had fired a gun without the presence of any counsel. Whether or not the paraffin tests conducted without the presence of counsel is a violation of his the right against self-incrimination Answer : The issue of violation of the accused- appellant's right to an attorney can be readily settled by reading the original records of this case. During his arraignment, the accused-appellant was duly assisted by a counsel de oficio. The Order of the trial court directed the Citizens Legal Assistance Office to thereafter represent the accused Romeo Canceran. Clearly, no violation of the right to counsel was committed. The paraffin tests conducted without the presence of counsel did not violate the right against self-incrimination nor the right to counsel. Moreover, the 2 witnesses for the prosecution, Bautista and Melindez, were able to adequately establish that it was the accused-appellant Romeo Canceran who shot and killed Pribert Doroja.
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • criminal law, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Trial court, Tan Teng

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture