SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF

IDENTIFICATION
A. Fingerprinting
B. Dental identication
C. Handwriting
D. Identification of skeleton
E. Determination of sex
F. Determination of Age
G. Identification of Blood
H. Identification of Hair and Fibers
SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF
IDENTIFICATION
A. Fingerprinting
B. Dental identication
C. Handwriting
D. Identification of skeleton
E. Determination of sex
F. Determination of Age
G. Identification of Blood
H. Identification of Hair and Fibers
vSCIENTIFIC METHODS OF
IDENTIFICATION
A. Fingerprinting
B. Dental identication
C. Handwriting
D. Identification of skeleton
E. Determination of sex
F. Determination of Age
G. Identification of Blood
H. Identification of Hair and Fibers
SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF
IDENTIFICATION
A. Fingerprinting
B. Dental identication
C. Handwriting
D. Identification of skeleton
E. Determination of sex
F. Determination of Age
G. Identification of Blood
H. Identification of Hair and Fibers
JOSE PAOLO F. PASTRANA
LEGAL MEDICINE

1. The important distinguishing presumptive character to look for determining the sex of the corpse are
the following;

In general the female hips are broader in relation to shoulders, smaller build and there is a
breasts developed and the skull is smaller and lighter while compare to male structure skull is longer,
heavier and of thick bones, the adam’s apple are prominent, the hair present on chest and face
moustaches, beard, etc.

The conclusive evidence in determining the sex of such dead person are the following:

first is the social test the way the victim corporate his/her dress, short, shoes, hairstyle provide
an instant answer to the case.

Second to determine is the genitals of the victims, the presence of penis indicates a that the
victim is male in such absence and presence of a vaginal opening indicates a female sex.

Third is the gonadal test, the presence of testes in male and ovary in female. In which it involves
exploration of the gonad to see the feature which prove the visibility of ovarian or testicular.

And the Chromosomal test, which involves nucleus of the cells in woman’s cell there was small
stained nucleus which you cannot find in male cell.
2.

No. The contention of Jay is not correct

In one case, the Supreme Court was emphatic when it ruled that the opinion of
handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function being to place
before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. This principle holds true
especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the
currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of
handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned
signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.

Here, Catriona sued Jay for alleging that the signature of her mother in the deed of sale is not
genuine because she is familiar with her own mother’s handwriting and style. The fact of forgery can
only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and
genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.
In this case, Catriona can be a witness provided that she will provide the necessary evidence to
compare the authenticity of the allege forged documents, and therefore, Jay’s contention is not
correct.
3. As a lawyer I will dwell on the issue on the prospectivity in criminal law as a defense.

The law provides that prospectivity in criminal law can only punish an act committed after its
effectivity. It cannot penalize an act that was not punishable at the time of its commission. It
cannot be given retroactive effect unless favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
delinquent.
In this case, the crime was committed in 2011 and the law was passed on 2012 therefore as a
defense I will invoke on the prospectivity principle in criminal law.
4. No. documentary evidence cannot be offered as autoptic evidence.

Under the rules on evidence, a document is an instrument on which is recorded by means of letters,
figures, or marks intended to be used for the purpose of recording that matter which may be
evidentially used. The term applies to writings, to words printed, lithographed or photographed; to
seals. However, in autoptic evidence a witness is a person who perceives meaning to say through his five
senses and perceiving can make known his perception to others. That is the minimum requirement for a
witness, that you are personally present and so some at least of your five senses, what was taken place
at the scene of the crime. Hence, the requirement is that you must be an eye witness, or an ear witness
or whatever senses was trigger by the event happening before you.

Therefore, the documentary evidence cannot be offered as autoptic evidence.

5 . As a lawyer I will dwell on the accuracy of the polygraph test, t hough called lie detectors, the
reality is that a polygraph machine does not have any capacity for detecting the truth or
falsity of a statement. Rather, it measures a person's biological processes to determine if
they are experiencing a physiological event, such as an increase in blood pressure or heart
rate. These conditions are considered to be indicators that someone may be lying, as the
increased stress of telling a falsehood creates a subtle, but measurable change in one's
vital readings. However, they do not rise to the level of reliability required for scientific
evidence in a courtroom and polygraph test results are usually inadmissible as
evidence. Because the results of a polygraph test can mean many things and are so
unreliable in detecting actual lies.
6. The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to
remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the
right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being
questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he
so desires.

In the Philippines, the right to counsel espoused in the Miranda doctrine was based on the leading
case of People v. Galit
7.

In Confession, it was acknowledges the guilt of a person that he is the one who committed the
offense. As such, Confession is the most reasonable evidence for prosecuting a case because no person
would probably admit his guilt that he was the one who committed the offense if it was not really true at
all.
   While admission is a mere acknowledgment of an accused that he may be in the crime scene but
not the one who committed the offense. He may not accept the liability for such crime and may invoke
defenses to sway the fault to others. But such admission may be used as evidence against him during the
trial of the case.
8. No. The doctor did not violate any law.
The law provides that a physician in case of emergency shall administer the first aid treatment because
he has a knowledge and skills in the field.
Here, upon the condition of Vicky, as a physician he has the obligation to administer atleast the first aid
treatment.
Therefore, the doctor did not violate any law.
9.
No. John Dillinger was not successful in effacing the fingerprint of the victim.

Under the principles on legal medicine, the finger may be wounded or burned, but once it heals the
patter will eventually show again however, if the injury is deep it will develop a scars and it will not deter
identification. On the contrary, the scar will make a much deeper impression of the pattern.

Therefore, the fingerprints are an indelible signature which a person carries from the cradle to the
grave.
10.

A principle that, when the court

has once laid
down a principle of law or
interpretation as applied to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to
and apply to all future
cases where the facts are substantially
the same.
A principle that, when the court
has once laid
down a principle of law or
interpretation as applied to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to
and apply to all future
cases where the facts are substantially
the same.
The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a
country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That
decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.
The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been
examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.

The doctrine of stare decisis is one of policy grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and
stability of judicial decisions, thus:

Time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial
practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it
will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the
same.
11.
As a judge in the criminal cases pertaining to rape cases, I will convict Hubert.

Under the law, DNA is can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when
biological evidence exists. In cases where a suspect is identified, a sample of that
person's DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this
comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime.

Here, the semen taken from the vaginal orifice of the victim and the saliva of Hubert is a proof
that infact he committed the crime.
12. In Vino Veritas is an old maxim that states In wine there is truth.
This is relevance to legal medicine because examining the consciousness of the victim may vary in the
admissibility of the evidence. A person who is under too much intoxication of alcohol is susceptible for
suggestibility while awareness is in question.
Therefore, confession made by a person during excitatory state is not admissible in a judicial proceeding
because of the following reasons.
1. It lacks the general scientific acceptance of the reliability of hypnosis per se in ascertaining the truth
from falsity;
2. The fear that the trier of fact will give uncritical and absolute reliability to a scientific device without
consideration of its flaw in ascertaining veracity.
3. The possibility that the hypnotized subject will deliberately fabricate;
4. The prospect that the state of heightened suggestibility in which the hypnotized subject is suspended
will produce distortion of the fact rather than the truth; and
5. The state of the mind, skill and professionalism of the examiner are too subjective to permit
admissibility of the expert testimony.