SPECIAL CRIME

INVESTIGATION WITH LEGAL

MEDICINE ULO A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Review on important and relevant topics Rules and Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Legal Requirements On custodial investigation
 Salient Features of R.A. 7438

 Article 3 Section 2 & 12 of Philippine Constitution Landmark Cases on Custodial Investigation

 Miranda vs. Arizona Case

 Escobido vs. Illinois

 Fry vs. U.S.

 Daubert Case

 Terry Doctrine

 Scene of Crime Operations of cases involving dead body infant and adult, human body parts, and fetus.

 Kinds of Crime Scene Sketching and kinds/Types of Crime Scene Photography Roles and Functions
Scene of the Crime Operatives
REVIEW ON IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT TOPICS RULES
AND LAWS IN FUNDAMENTAL OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
WHAT ARE THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF
POLICE WORK?
 The Protection of Life and Property
 Maintenance of Peace and Order
 Investigation
WHAT IS CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION?
 Criminal investigation is a multifaceted process aimed at
uncovering and gathering evidence related to a crime in
order to identify and apprehend suspects, determine the
circumstances surrounding the crime, and establish the
facts necessary for legal proceedings.
 It is a process of reconstruction of an event, which
incorporates logical process of deductive reasoning that
leads to conclusion based on specific facts.
 is the lawful, objective, logical search for people and things
useful in reconstructing the circumstances surrounding the
commission of a crime
 seeks all facts associated with a crime to determine the
truth relating to what happened and who is responsible.
THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS
Identify the Problem
Consider the Problem
 this step of may seem quite simple; however, stating is more than saying the that the
perpetrator of a crime needs to be identified.
 A criminal investigator must identify and take into consideration the entire problem.

Follow Legal Guidelines

 identifying, locating, and arresting the suspect through the use of illegal firearms can result in
justice not being serve.
 In order for judicial system to render justice, the investigation must be conducted strictly
within legal guidelines.
Apply Reasoning
 in order to form a hypothesis, an investigator must be able to apply some type of reasoning to
formulate an idea about how crime was committed. A subject’s involvement, or some aspect of
the crime.
Examine Motive, Opportunity, and Means
 Motive refers as that causes a person to act in a certain manner, while opportunity would
simply the occasion or chance to commit the crime in question.
 Means is generally the least important element to be considered, since means to commit a
crime can usually be available to a wide range of individuals.
Observe and Experiment
 Once the hypothesis is developed, the investigator has direction to help identify evidence to
support the investigation.
 The newly developed hypothesis can be tested by observing individuals and their actions to
see if they support the hypothesis.
Interpret Data
 The investigator must be careful to ensure that his/her personal bias does not unduly influence
the data.
 Investigators must evaluate all the evidence, statements, and personal observations in order to
reach a conclusion.
Draw conclusions
 The investigator must employ not only deductive reasoning, but more importantly inductive
reasoning to help reach final conclusions concerning the witness, evidence, and motivations in
the case.
LEGAL BASIS OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION
1987 Philippine Constitution, Art 3, Sec. 12 (1)
 any person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following
rights:
The right to remain silent
 A person under custodial investigation has the right to refuse answering any question. If he
indeed refuses, this may not be used against him.
The right to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
 If the person cannot afford services of counsel, he must be provided with one.

The right to be informed of such rights

 In affording this right to a person under custodial investigation, it is not sufficient that the
investigating officer reads out the rights, or merely repeats what is stated in the constitutional
provision.
 The officer is duty-bound to also explain the effects of these rights and ensure the person’s
understanding thereof, in a language known to and understood by him.
Republic Act 7438 An act defining certain rights of person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation as well as the duties of the arresting, detaining and investigating
officers, and providing penalties for violations thereof.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties
of Public Officers.
 Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel.
 (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests,
detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a
language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation.
If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
 (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumb marked if the person arrested or detained
does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his
counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or
dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be
null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
 (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
 (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.
 (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's
"immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister,
grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
 (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of
his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
 (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's
"immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister,
grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
 As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of
law.
LANDMARK CASES ON
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Mapp v. Ohio (U.S.A., 1961)
 It stated that evidence that is illegally obtained by the state may not be used against a
defendant in court. Until Mapp, only the federal government was barred from using illegally
obtained evidence. So, when local police entered Dolly Mapp's home without a search warrant
and arrested her for possessing obscene books, her conviction initially stood. The Court
overturned her conviction, however, and extended the Constitutional rule to apply to the states
and their subdivisions.
People v. Holgado (Phils., 1950: Right to Counsel).
 The Case mentioned that when an accused unaided by counsel qualifiedly admits his guilt to
an ambiguous or vague information, it is not prudent for the trial court to render a serious
judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense without absolutely any evidence to
determine and clarify the true facts of the case
NOTE: People v. Holgado (Phils., 1950: Right to Counsel). He pleaded guilty (without a
counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. Ocampo, which no evidence was
presented to indict the latter.
Gideon vs. Wainwright (U.S.A., 1963)
 The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment (USA Constitution), which guarantees
criminal defendants the assistance of counsel, requires state governments to provide attorneys
for indigent (poor) criminal defendants. Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to
counsel.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
 was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled
that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated
when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause
to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be
armed and presently dangerous."
NOTE: Between midnight and 8:00 a.m. on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor
Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. An unknown person broke a door, smashed a cigarette
machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register. Later that day, a witness
reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning,
leaving with a wine bottle, Coca-Cola, and change in his pockets. Based on this accusation
alone, the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering with intent to
commit petty larceny.
 Gideon appeared in court alone, as he was too poor to afford to hire a defense lawyer. The
following conversation took place between Gideon and the judge:
 The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this
case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to
represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I
will have to deny your request to appoint counsel to defend you in this case.
 GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by counsel.
 The trial court declined to appoint counsel for Gideon. As a result, he was forced to act as his
own counsel and conduct his own defense in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. At
the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Gideon to
serve five years in the state prison. (note)
Mirada v. Arizona Case
 “Miranda rights”, were adopted by Philippine jurisprudence and later on included in the
drafting of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, following the 1966 decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436).
 Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was
identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two
hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions
were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was
sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count.
 On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not
violated in obtaining the confession. Here, the defendants made confessions or admissions
without any evidence of them being apprised of their constitutional rights during the
interrogation process. The US Supreme Court held that no statements stemming from
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers may be used by the prosecution, unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the constitutional rights of a
person under custodial interrogation.
Escobedo v. Illinois
 Petitioner was convicted for murder. He appealed alleging that, while being interrogated in
police custody, he asked to speak with his lawyer, but the request was denied. The appellate
court affirmed the conviction and held that petitioner's confession was admissible even though
it was obtained after he had requested and been denied the assistance of counsel. Petitioner
sought review.
 The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction because petitioner was denied the
assistance of counsel. The court noted that suspect who was being interrogated by police while
in custody, who had not been warned of his right to remain silent, and who had requested and
been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, had been denied the assistance of
counsel in violation of U.S. Const. amend. VI, and any statement elicited under such
circumstances could not be used against him at a criminal trial.
Frye v. US
 Frye (Appellant) was convicted of second-degree murder, after the lower court disallowed
Appellant from introducing testimonial evidence relating to the results of a deception test
Appellant had taken following the crime. Appellant appeals his conviction here.
 The court reasoned that although the deception test at issue here has a scientific basis, “[j]ust
when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and
demonstrable stages is difficult to define . . . [and] the thing from which the deduction is made
must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in
which it belongs [to be admissible].”
 In other words, the court held that without an established place in science, the test was still in
the blurred realm between experimental science and demonstrated science, and therefore
inadmissible here. In the court’s words, as the deception test was not “sufficiently established,”
the testimony related to it is inadmissible, and the lower court was correct to have excluded it.
Morales vs. Juan Ponce Enrile (Phils., 1983: Miranda Warning).
 The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in this case and made a clear remark that the
Miranda Warning as it is generally called have to be made so that a confession can be
admitted.
Daubert Case
 The Frye rule was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Daubert case. [Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .] This was a case brought by two children
born with birth defects that they claimed were caused by an anti- nausea drug, Bendectin.
 The only such drug approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) for pregnant
women, it had been given to more than 17,500,000 women before being taken off the market.
NOTE: Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with serious birth defects. They and their
parents sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company, in a
California District Court, claiming that the drug Bendectin had caused the birth defects.
 Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that thousands of children were born with birth defects to mothers
who had taken Bendectin and this proved that Bendectin caused birth defects.
 Although extensive studies had not shown Bendectin to have any teratogenic effects, plaintiffs
had “experts” who disagreed with these studies, based on their own unpublished and
unreviewed work. Using these experts, plaintiffs had filed many cases against the
manufacturer, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
 The Daubert case turned on whether Bendectin, a anti- nausea drug for pregnant women,
caused non-specific birth defects. As with all cases involving non-specific birth defects, the
key scientific issue is sorting the defects allegedly caused by the teratogen from the high (1-
6%, depending on severity) background level of birth defects. All of the formal scientific
studies had shown no correlation between Bendectin intake by a pregnant woman and birth
defects in her child.
 The plaintiffs had an expert who was qualified by training and experience - the main standard
pre- Daubert - but whose methods of analysis of the data were not accepted by other scientists
and had not been subjected to peer review in the literature.
 The trial court excluded the evidence, holding that the federal rules required the judge to act as
a "gatekeeper" to prevent the jury from hearing unreliable evidence or evidence whose value
was outweighed by its prejudicial nature. Prejudice jury was especially important in the
Daubert case because of the emotional appeal of a birth injured baby plaintiff.
 The judge knew that if there was any evidence to support the plaintiff's case, it would be very
difficult for the jury to find against the plaintiff. This created a special duty to assure that the
plaintiff's evidence was scientifically valid.
 Plaintiffs had not been successful in any of the Bendectin lawsuits at the time of the Daubert
case, but the costs of defense were so high that Merrell Dow had taken the drug off the market.
 It was assumed by plaintiffs that they would eventually get a substantial settlement from
Merrell Dow, either because they would finally win one of the cases, or just to end the defense
costs.
 In the Daubert case, the trial judge determined that plaintiff’s experts were not credible
because their evidence did not meet the Frye test requirements of general acceptability. Such a
finding is critical to the defense because it stops the lawsuit before the costs are too high, plus
it eliminates any chance of a sympathy verdict from the jury.
 The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the revised federal rules of evidence abolished the Frye
rule and allowed the presentation of evidence that was not generally accepted by the medical
or scientific community. The appeals court upheld the trial judge’s decision and the plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
GATHERING OF EVIDENCE
 Crime Scene- a venue or place
where the alleged crime/ incident/
event has been committed.
 Crime scene investigation- It is the
conduct of processes, more
particularly, the recognition,
search, collection, handling,
preservation and documentation
of physical evidence to include the
identification and interview of
witnesses and the arrest of
suspect/s at the crime scene.
 SOCO (Scene of the Crime Operation)
•Republic Act6975 as Amended by Republic Act 8551 (PNP
Law). The former law placed the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory as an Operational Support Unit.

•The Crime Laboratory established the so-called Scene of the

Crime Operation (SOCO) which is field operation.

•This is now an innovation because the SOCO now gathers all

evidence at the crime scene and takes custody of them,
marking and tagging them which otherwise the duty of the
criminal investigator before.

Golden rule at crime scene investigation (MAC Rule)

•Never touch, move, or alter any object at the crime scene
unless it has been photographed, measured, and sketched
from any conceivable angle.
Procedures: Upon receipt of the crime incident.

Desk Officer
•Record the date and time the report/complaint was made, the identity of the person
who made the report, place of the incident and a synopsis of the incident.
•Inform his superior officer or the duty officer regarding the report.

First Responder
•Cordon off the crime scene with whatever available materials like ropes, straws,
human barricade, police line, etc.;
•Evacuate injured persons to the nearest hospital;
•Prepare to take the “dying declaration” of severely injured person, if any;
•Prevent entry/exit of persons within the cordoned area; and
•Prepare to brief the investigator of the situation upon their arrival.
 ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES

•If there are many investigators assigned to form a team, the following
arrangement is recommended to insure maximum effectiveness:

Officer-in-charge/Team Leader- one who directs the search, assigns duties, and assumes
responsibility for the effectiveness of the search.
Assistant- he must implement the orders of the OIC.
Photographer- photographs the crime scene and individual pieces of evidence.
Sketcher- makes a rough sketch of the scene given and later a finished sketch.
Master Note-taker- writes down in short hand and the observations and descriptions
during the search.
Measurer- he makes overall measurements of the scene.
Evidence man- one who gather, collect and preserve the evidence
 Initiation of Preliminary Survey (Team Leader of
CSI or SOCO)
•Makes a general assessment of the scene;
•Takes a cautious walk- through of the crime
scene;
•Takes down extensive note to document
important factors;
•Establishes the evidence most likely to be
encountered;
•Defines the extent of the search area;
•Determines the personnel and equipment
needed and makes specific assignments; and from
his assessments, he develops a general theory of
the crime scene.
Preparation of Narrative Report
•The Team leader uses the systematic approach in
making a narrative report.

Documentation of the Crime Scene

•The photographer begins taking photographs as soon
as possible.
•The evidence collectors do not touch or moved any
evidence once it is located until it has been identified,
measured and recorded.
DOCUMENTATION OF THE
CRIME SCENE
 Photographing the crime scene

- The main objective crime scene photography is to create an accurate objective

visual record of the crime scene before any item is moved as possible physical
evidence.

Major Types of Pictorial Views:

General View or Long-Range

•Photograph of the over-all scene.
•Distance: From the doorway to the
room and other corners of the room.
Mid-Range View
• Distance: Eight or ten feet from the victim.
Close-up View
• very physical evidence must be photographed in
close-up view and for different angles.
Guidelines on photographing the crime scene

•Photographs of a crime scene should be taken as soon as possible, before

note taking, sketching or a search for evidence begins.
•The pictures should illustrate the original, uncontaminated condition of
the crime scene.
•Photographs should be taken of the crime scene only, without spectators
or police personnel.
•To adequately present the crime scene initially, the photographs must
form an organized sequence and show all relevant locations and objects.
•The crime scene photographs must progress from general to specific.
Crime Scene Sketches

•A graphical representation of the

crime scene.
•is an invaluable aid in recording
investigative data.
•It is a permanent record that provides
supplemental information that is not
easily accomplished with the exclusive
use of crime scene photographs and
notes.
• A rough sketch is prepared indicating
the actual measurement of things
with scale and proportion observed
and oriented to the North Pole.
Elements of Sketch

•Measurement
•Compass direction
•Essential items
•Scale and proportion
•Legend
•Title
 General Type of Sketch

Rough Sketch
•made at the crime scene, no
scale, proportion ignored and
everything is approximate
Finished Sketch
•for courtroom presentation,
scale and proportion are strictly
observed.
 Specific Kinds of Sketches:

Sketch of Locality
•give picture of the scene,
the crime and its environs,
including neighboring
buildings, roads, etc.
Sketch of the Ground
•picture of the scene of the
crime with its nearest
physical surrounding.
Sketch in Details
•the immediate scene only.
Exploded/ cross projection
•gives the clear impression of the scene in cases where
blood stains or bullet holes are found.
Types of Measurements:

Rectangular coordinates
method
•a sketching method that
involves measuring the
distance of an object from
two fixed lines at right angles
to each other.
Triangulation method
•a sketching method that requires measuring the distance
of an object along a straight line from two widely
separated fixed reference points.
Baseline method
• a sketching method that
makes measurements along
from a single reference line,
called a baseline, which can
be established by using a
length of string, chalk line, or
some other convenient
means.
Compass point method
•a sketching method that
requires a protractor or some
method of measuring angles
between two lines.

•One point is selected as the

origin and a line extending
from the origin becomes an
axis from which the angles can
be measured.
Cross projection method
•a sketching method in which
the ceiling appears to open up
like a lid of a hinged box, with
the four walls opening
outward.

•Measurements are then

indicated from a point on the
floor to the wall.
Methods of Search:

Strip or Line Search Method

•the searchers will proceed at the same pace along the path parallel to one side of the rectangle.
Double Strip or Grid Method
•is a combination of the strip search and is useful for large crime scene.
Spiral or Circular Method
•the searchers will follow each other in the path of a spiral, beginning in the outside and spiraling towards
the center or vice versa in a clockwise or counter clock-wise direction.
Quadrant of Zone Method
•the area to be searched is divided into four quadrants and each searcher is assigned to one quadrant.
Wheel, Radial or Spoke Method
•is applicable for area which is considered to be approximately circular or oval.
•The area is then divided into six quadrants in a pie-like fashion.
Three Basic Premises to be Considered when Searching:

•The best search options are often the most difficult and
time consuming.
•During the conduct of your preliminary search, keep in
mind the LOCARDS PRINCIPLE (Every contact leaves a
trace).
•You cannot over document the physical evidence.
•There is only one chance to perform the job properly.
Collection of Evidences
Notes Taking
•Note taking must be a constant activity throughout the
processing of the crime scene.
Notes must include:
•Detailed written description of the Crime Scene with locations of
recovered physical evidence;
•The time when the physical evidence was discovered;
•The person who discovered and collected the physical evidence;
•The time when evidence was packaged and marked; and
•The disposition of the item when it was collected.
Collection of Physical Evidence
Physical Evidence
•these are the articles and materials which are found in connection with the investigation and which aid in
establishing the identity of the perpetrator or the circumstances under which the crime was committed or
which, in general assist in the prosecution of criminal.
•It embraces any object, living or inanimate, solid, liquid, or gas state
Removal of Evidence
•The investigator places his initials, the date and the time of discovery on each item of evidence and the
time discovery on each item of evidence for proper identification. Items that could not be marked should be
placed in a suitable container and sealed.
Tagging of Evidence
•Any physical evidence obtained must tagged before its submission to the evidence custodian.
Evaluation of Evidence
•Each item of evidence must be evaluated in relation to all the evidence, individually and collectively.
Preservation of Evidence
•It is the investigator’s responsibility to ensure that every precaution is exercised to preserve physical
evidence in the state in which it was recovered until it is released to the evidence custodian.