PARAFFIN TESTS

PEOPLE VS. ABALOS December 22, 1999 Facts: A was convicted of murdering X, who was shot. He was convicted despite the negative result of the paraffin test conducted on him. He appealed. Issue: Whether the accused should be acquitted. Held: No. A witness was able to identify A as the shooter. Anent the paraffin test, it is true that it produced a negative result but such fact does not Ipso facto merit As acquittal. The absence of powder burns in a suspects hand is not conclusive proof that he has not fired a gun. In fact, the traces of nitrates can easily be removed by the simple act of washing ones hand.

POLICE BLOTTER ENTRIES

PEOPLE VS. SILVA December 29, 1999 Facts: A, B and C were charged with the murder of X. They were convicted because of the testimony of W, Xs mother, who allegedly saw them ganging up on X and shooting him. A, B and C are Ws neighbors. They now appeal claiming that Ws identification could not be the basis of conviction since she only revealed their identities three months from the incident as evidence by the police blotter entries wherein the felons were described as three unidentified malefactors. Issue: Whether A, B and C were properly convicted. Held: Yes. Police blotter entries should not be given undue significance or probative value for they are usually incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestions or inquires. Entries in a police blotter are merely prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein but they are not conclusive. Also, W has positively identified the three accused as perpetrators in a crime committed in broad daylight and within her full view.

PRESUMPTION OF SANITY
PEOPLE VS. RODOLFO VILLA, JR. April 27, 2000 Facts: Accused was charged with multiple murder. Before the defense could present its evidence, however, counsel de oficio manifested his inability to confer with the accused but moved that a psychiatric examination of the accused be made to determine his mental condition. The motion was granted. After more than a month of psychiatric evaluation, the attending physicians submitted tot he trial court a psychiatric evaluation report, which stated that accused was suffering from Insanity or Psychosis classified as Schizophrenia and that the accused is at that time incompetent to stand trial. When accuseds status had improved enough

for him to withstand the rigors of the trial, trial resumed, with the accused now raising insanity as a defense. The trial court convicted the accused of the crime charged. Issue: Whether the accuseds defense of insanity was properly pleaded. Held: No. It could be that accused was insane at the time he was examined at the center. But, in all probability, such insanity was contracted during the period of his detention pending trial. Hwe was without contact with friends and relatives most of the time. He was troubled by his conscience, the realization of the gravity of the offenses and the thought of a bleak future for him. The confluence of these circumstances may have conspired to disrupt his mental equilibrium. But, it must be stressed, that an inquiry into the mental state of accused-appellant should related to the period immediately before or an inquiry into the mental state of the accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is the subject of the inquiry, and his mental condition after that crucial period or during the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal liability. In fine, the Court needs more concrete evidence on the mental condition of the person alleged to be insane at the time of the perpetration of the crimes in order that the exempting circumstance of insanity may be appreciated in his favor. The accused miserably failed to discharge the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crimes freely, knowingly and intelligently.