Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    1010-Article 3 Section 12-People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372

    Uploaded by

    Lates Calcarifer
    The RTC found John Gabriel Gamboa guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for killing someone with a shotgun. Gamboa appealed, arguing that the paraffin test conducted on his hands without his lawyer present violated his right against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion, not physical examinations. Therefore, conducting the paraffin test without Gamboa's lawyer did not violate his constitutional rights. The paraffin test results showed Gamboa had recently fired a gun, supporting the prosecution's case.

    Copyright:

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

    1010-Article 3 Section 12-People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372

    Uploaded by

    Lates Calcarifer
    116 views1 page
    The RTC found John Gabriel Gamboa guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for killing someone with a shotgun. Gamboa appealed, arguing that the paraffin test conducted on his hands without his lawyer present violated his right against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion, not physical examinations. Therefore, conducting the paraffin test without Gamboa's lawyer did not violate his constitutional rights. The paraffin test results showed Gamboa had recently fired a gun, supporting the prosecution's case.

    Original Title

    1010-Article 3 Section 12-People v. Gamboa – 194 SCRA 372

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC found John Gabriel Gamboa guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for killing someone with a shotgun. Gamboa appealed, arguing that the paraffin test conducted on his hands without his lawyer present violated his right against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion, not physical examinations. Therefore, conducting the paraffin test without Gamboa's lawyer did not violate his constitutional rights. The paraffin test results showed Gamboa had recently fired a gun, supporting the prosecution's case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    116 views1 page

    1010-Article 3 Section 12-People v. Gamboa - 194 SCRA 372

    Uploaded by

    Lates Calcarifer
    The RTC found John Gabriel Gamboa guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for killing someone with a shotgun. Gamboa appealed, arguing that the paraffin test conducted on his hands without his lawyer present violated his right against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion, not physical examinations. Therefore, conducting the paraffin test without Gamboa's lawyer did not violate his constitutional rights. The paraffin test results showed Gamboa had recently fired a gun, supporting the prosecution's case.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    104866 January 31, 1994

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO


    CANCERAN Y GUMMARO, Accused-Appellant.

    PADILLA, J.:

    FACTS:
    A decision by the RTC of Cebu was rendered against John Gabriel Gamboa, finding
    him guilty of the crime of murder as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
    Code and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to
    indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P30,000.00, with costs against
    him.
    The fatal weapon, a shotgun, was ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
    The defendant-appellant appealed the judgment against him, contending that the
    paraffin test to which he was subjected to was not conducted in the presence of his
    lawyer consequently violating his right against self-incrimination or the right to remain
    silent and to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice.

    ISSUE:
    W/N the trial court erred in not rejecting the Paraffin test results as inadmissible
    evidence (Sec. 17 Art. III – the Self-Incrimination Clause)

    RULING:
    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. 9 Indeed, the paraffin
    test proved positively that he just recently fired a gun. Again, this kind of evidence
    buttresses the case of the prosecution.

    Maipoint: Paraffin test conducted without the presence of the accused’s lawyer
    does not violate the right against self- incrimination.

    You might also like