Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    PP V Fieldad

    Uploaded by

    Michael Ang Sauza
    The court held that the right against self-incrimination was not violated by the paraffin test conducted on the appellant Charlie Fieldad. A forensic chemist testified that the paraffin test on Fieldad's hands was positive for gunpowder nitrates. While Fieldad's counsel argued the test was done without legal counsel, the court found that paraffin tests do not violate the right against self-incrimination as they examine the body rather than compel testimonial evidence. The positive paraffin test combined with eyewitness identification provided sufficient evidence to confirm Fieldad's active participation in the murder conspiracy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP V Fieldad

    Uploaded by

    Michael Ang Sauza
    83 views1 page
    The court held that the right against self-incrimination was not violated by the paraffin test conducted on the appellant Charlie Fieldad. A forensic chemist testified that the paraffin test on Fieldad's hands was positive for gunpowder nitrates. While Fieldad's counsel argued the test was done without legal counsel, the court found that paraffin tests do not violate the right against self-incrimination as they examine the body rather than compel testimonial evidence. The positive paraffin test combined with eyewitness identification provided sufficient evidence to confirm Fieldad's active participation in the murder conspiracy.

    Original Title

    PP v Fieldad.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court held that the right against self-incrimination was not violated by the paraffin test conducted on the appellant Charlie Fieldad. A forensic chemist testified that the paraffin test on Fieldad's hands was positive for gunpowder nitrates. While Fieldad's counsel argued the test was done without legal counsel, the court found that paraffin tests do not violate the right against self-incrimination as they examine the body rather than compel testimonial evidence. The positive paraffin test combined with eyewitness identification provided sufficient evidence to confirm Fieldad's active participation in the murder conspiracy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    PP V Fieldad

    Uploaded by

    Michael Ang Sauza
    The court held that the right against self-incrimination was not violated by the paraffin test conducted on the appellant Charlie Fieldad. A forensic chemist testified that the paraffin test on Fieldad's hands was positive for gunpowder nitrates. While Fieldad's counsel argued the test was done without legal counsel, the court found that paraffin tests do not violate the right against self-incrimination as they examine the body rather than compel testimonial evidence. The positive paraffin test combined with eyewitness identification provided sufficient evidence to confirm Fieldad's active participation in the murder conspiracy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GR No.

    196005 October 1, 2014

    People of the Philippines vs Charlie Fieldad, Ryan Cornista and Edgar Pimentel

    Facts:

    Appellants Charlie Fieldad, Ryan Comista and Edgar Pimentel were charged in conspiracy with
    others for the murder of two jail guards and for camapping. After they were arrested, the
    appellant went for paraffin test. A foerensic chemist testified that the paraffin test done on the
    Fieldad’s hand was positive for the presence of gun powder nitrates.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the right against self-incrimination is violated by taking of the paraffin test of
    the accused

    Held:

    Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence Moreover, the positive identification of Fieldad by Badua
    is corroborated by circumstantial evidence. A careful examination of the record reveals that the
    following evidence establish Fieldad’s active participation in the conspiracy to kill the jail guards.

    Forensic chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid testified that the paraffin test done on Fieldad’s
    hands was positive for the presence of gun powder nitrates,33 as contained in her report. In
    addition, Fieldad failed to controvert the paraffin evidence. We note that Fieldad’s counsel
    manifested during trial that the paraffin casting was performed without the assistance of counsel,
    contrary to the right of the accused. However, all the exhibits offered by the prosecution,
    including the paraffin casts and test results, were admitted To be sure, the taking of paraffin casts
    does not violate the right of the accused against self-incrimination.

    As to the paraffin test to which the appellant was subjected to, he raises the question, that it was
    not conducted in the presence of his lawyer. This right is afforded to any person under
    investigation for the commission of an offense whose confession or admission may not be taken
    unless he is informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
    counsel of his own choice. His right against self-incrimination is not violated by the taking of the
    paraffin test of his hands. This constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and
    not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in this case. Indeed, the paraffin
    test proved positively that he just recently fired a gun.

    You might also like