A Legal Discussion and Google

Many of the conversations I have with my father are about legal issues.  He takes a position — usually provocative one — and eggs me on to disagree.  I invariably fall for the bait.  We argue, raise our voices, make relevant (but maybe erroneous) citations of law and jurisprudence, invent non-existent scientific data or studies, bluf and oftentimes, agree to disagree.  Believe me, it may sound unpleasant but neither of us leaves with hard feelings.  Discussions of law are never personal, it’s one way to waste time.

Today was slightly different because we happened to talk when I was on-line.  He said Dr. Fortun, a forensic expert, said that it is only in the Philippines where paraffin tests are admissible and that since the ’60’s these had been discredited in the US. 

I didn’t disagree.  Instead of offering a truly uneducated, equally provocative and contrary opinion, I Google’d.  And surprisingly I hit pay dirt. 

In the case of People v. Cajucom, our Supreme Court (citing earlier cases), reiterated their holding that paraffin tests are inconclusive as evidence.  The Court, through Justice Ynares-Santiago, said:

Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder.

x x x                    x x x                  x x x

Paraffin tests, it must be emphasized, merely corroborate direct evidence that may be presented by the prosecution.

In the case at bar, the positive, clear and categorical testimony of the lone eyewitness to the crime deserves full merit in both probative weight and credibility over the negative results of the paraffin test conducted on the appellant. Verily, establishing the identity of the malefactor through the testimony of the witness is the heart and cause of the prosecution. All other matters, such as the paraffin test, are of lesser consequence where there is positive identification by the lone eyewitness, Leo Mirabueno, of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Hence, a paraffin test cannot be considered as conclusive proof of appellant’s innocence.

Well, for once we agreed within ten seconds from the start of a conversation.   He stood up and squinted through his eyeglasses to read the ruling from my screen.  No sparks — just unsatisfying fizzles of a conversation that was never to be.

So now I know, Google is good for father-son relationships.  I’m putting all my kids on it. You should, too.