Bataan Heroes College

Bataan Heroes
College
Balanga City, Bataan

Specialized Crime Investigation

1 with Legal Medicine

KAMILLE S. BALUYOT
Criminology Department

1|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

This module or any portion thereof may not be reproduced, copied, transmitted or distributed in any manner
whatsoever without the express written permission of the College or the Author.

For Permission: Contact Bataan Heroes College, Roman Super Hi-way, Balanga City, Bataan, Philippines
 2|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Course Information
Course Title : Specialized Crime Investigation 1 with Legal Medicine
Program : Criminology
Course Code : CDI 2
Credit Units : 3.0
Pre-requisite/s : CDI 1

Instructor Information
Name : Kamille S. Baluyot
Contact Information
a. Number : 0997-220-3575 / 0946-950-3839
b. Facebook Page : kamille_baluyot26@yhaoo.com
c. Email : kamillebaluyot02@heroes1979.edu.ph

Course Purpose and Description

The course covers the special study of modern technique in the investigation of crimes
involving crimes against persons, property, chastity, and other related offenses.

Likewise, it focuses with the application of medical science in crime investigation with
emphasis on Human Anatomy and Physiology, the medico-legal aspects of physical injuries,
death crimes, abortion, infanticide, paternity and filiations, impotency, sterility and poisoning.

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of the course, the student should be able to:

1. Explain the salient and related provisions under the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7438.
2. Discuss the origin and cite cases related to the safeguards of person/s under custodial
investigation.
 3|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

3. Determine the approach in the conduct of investigation particularly in specific crimes. 4.

Apply and explain cases and the method utilized in their investigation. 5. Identify and apply
the principles of the necessary criminalistics in the investigation of a specific crime.
6. Demonstrate the methods of criminalistics employed in the investigation of a specific
crime.
7. Differentiate crimes which are of similar nature and identify the physical evidence as
means of proving the commission of such crime in court.
8. Discuss the requirements for the application for orders for the arrest and search and seizure
operations.
9. Explain the importance of proper preservation of physical evidence on a specific crime and
chain of custody.
10. Determine the different report on the cases involved at the scene.

Course Schedule
Weeks Module No. Module Intended
Learning
Outcomes

1st 1 Rules and Laws in Fundamental of 1,2

Criminal Investigation
• Article 3. Bill of Right under 1987
Philippine Constitution
• R.A. 7438
• Miranda Warning
• Amendment of Rights
• Evolution of Custodial Rights

2nd 2 Scene of Crime Operation 3,4

(SOCO) • Mission
• General Objectives

4|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College
• Classification of Cases for Crime
Lab Assistant
• Powers and Function of the SOCO
• SOCO Personnel
• Composition of SOCO team and
their work
• Concept of National Bureau
Investigation

3rd 3 Crime Scene Response 5,6

Procedure • Duties of the
First Responder
• Duties of the Investigator-on-case
• General SOCO Procedure
• Duties of the territorial Police Unit
• Policy Guidelines on Processing of
Person Present at the Crime Scene

4th 4 Wounds 5,6

• Open Wounds and the
Classification
• Closed Wounds and the
Classification
• Fracture Wounds and the
Classification
• Gunshot wounds Characteristic •
Classification and Degree of Burns •
Types and Classification of Poison,
Human Body symptoms of
Poisons and drowning

5th 5 Kinds of Death and Common signs of 5,6

Death
I. Kinds

5|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College
a. Somatic Death
b. Molecular Death
c. Suspended Animation
II. Common Signs
a. Cooling of the Body/Algor Mortis
b. Insensibility of Body and Loss of
Powers to Move
c. Cessation of Heart Action and
Circulation
d. Changes in the Eye
e. Changes in the Skin
f. Non-Reaction of the Skin to Heart

6th 6 Visible Changes in the Body After 5,6

Death I. Changes in the Muscle Stages
1. Primary Flaccidity
2. Post -Mortem Rigidity or
Cadaveric Spasm
a. Heat Stiffening
b. Cold Stiffening
c. Cadaveric Spasm or
Instantaneous Rigor
d. Importance of
Cadaveric Spasm
3. State of Secondary
Flaccidity or Secondary
Relaxation
II. Changes in Blood
1. Coagulation of the Blood
2. Post- Mortem
Lividity/Livor Mortis/Post
Mortem Hypostatic

6|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College
7th 7 Stages of Post- Mortem 5,6
Lividity a. Hypostatic Lividity
b. Diffusion Lividity
c. Difference of Ante and Post
Mortem Clot
d. Distinction Between Contusion of
Post Mortem Lividity

• Putrefaction of the Body

I. Changes in Putrefaction
a. Changes in the Color of
the Tissues
b. Evolution of the Gasses
in the Tissue
• Modification of Putrefaction
I. Basic concepts
a. Mummification
b. Saponification
c. Maceration

II. Estimating the Time of Death

a. Presence of the Rigor
Mortis
b. Presence of Post
Mortem Lividity
c. Onset Decomposition
d. Stage of Decomposition
e. Entomology of the
Cadaver

7|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College
f. Stage of Digestion of
Food in the Stomach
g. Presence of Live Fleas
in Frowning Cases
h. Amount of Urine in the
Bladder
i. State of Clothing
j. Chomical changes in
the Cerebra-Spinal
Fluid
k. Post Mortem Clothing
l. Presence or Absence of
Soft Tissues in Skeletal
Remains
m. Condition of the Bone

8th 8 Special Approaches and Techniques in 7,8,9

the Investigation of Special Cases
Involving Persons, Property & Chastity
1. Crimes against Persons
a. Parricide
b. Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted
Under Exceptional Circumstances c.
Murder
d. Homicide
e. Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray
f. Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray
g. Serious, Less Serious, Slight Physical
injuries, and Mutilation
h. Rape
2. Crimes against Property

8|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College
 a. Robbery
b. Theft
c. Estafa
3. Crimes against Chastity
a. Adultery and Concubinage b.
Acts of Lasciviousness
c. Seduction
d. Abduction
4. Violence Against Women and their
Children

9th 9 Report Writing 10

Affidavit - Affidavit of Arrest,
Deposition, Complaint Affidavit,
Affidavit of Witness/es.
Report Writing – Initial, Incident, Spot,
Progress, Follow-up, Final or
Investigation Report, Accomplishment
Report, Post Operation Report,
Synopsis. ABC in report

Text Book and Reference Books

De Leon, Hector S., Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, REX Book Store, 2011

Garcia, Rodolf M., The Art of Criminal Investigation & Detection, Central Book Supply Inc.,
2004

Guevara, Ricardo M., ABC’s of Criminal Investigation, Central Book Supply, Inc., 2008

Guevara, Ricardo M., Specialized Crime Investigation Second Edition, Wiseman’s Books
Trading, Inc. 2014

Legal Medicine, Bataan Heroes College, 2010

9|Page
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Republic of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7438: “An Act Defining Certain Rights of
Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial…”, Congress of the Philippines, April 27,
1992. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7438_1992.html
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/brown-v-mississippi/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/escobedo-v-illinois-2/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio#:~:text=Ohio%2C%20392%20U.S.
%201%20(1968 ,and%20involved%20in%20a%20crime.

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/causation-in-fact/daubert-v
merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-4/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-fisher/lay-opinions-and
expert-testimony/frye-v-u-s/

10 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Module 1: Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation

Module Description

This module presents the relevant laws regarding to the investigation of a crime and the
rights of a person under custodial investigation as stated in R.A. 7438 and in the Article 3 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution. Further, this module comprehensively discusses the evolution of
custodial rights as provided by the different cases that marked the history of the amendment of
rights.

Objectives:
After studying this module, you should be able to:

1. Explain the duties and obligation of an officer and the rights of a person under
custodial investigation;
2. Identify the different rights of a person as stated on R.A. 7438 and Article 3 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution; and
3. Discuss the evolution of custodial rights and the cases that marked the history of the
amendment.

Subheadings

1.1 Article 3. Bill of Right under 1987 Philippine Constitution

1.2 R.A. 7438

1.3 Evolution of Custodial Rights

• Miranda Warning
• Amendment of Rights

11 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

1.1 Article 3 – Bill of Rights under 1987 Philippine Constitution The

Bill of Rights is the declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and privileges
and is designed to protect violations against individuals and a limitation upon the power
 of the state.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.

12 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just

compensation. Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be

passed.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

13 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustifiable.

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Section 18. (1) No

person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

14 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall
be dealt with by law.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act
is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

1.2 RA 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”

Custodial Investigation

▪ The investigation of a person who has been arrested or detained, or “invited” by law
enforcement authorities to answer questions in connection with the crime he is
suspected to have committed.
▪ The custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.

15 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of

Public Officers.

a. 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 Miranda rights.

Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides that any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following rights 1. 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.

2. 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
➢ In People v. Rapeza (G.R. No. 169431), the Supreme Court held that the purpose
of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the
police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads suspects to make self-
incriminating statements. In order to comply with the constitutional mandate,
there should be meaningful communication to, and understanding of rights by the
suspect, as opposed to a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital thereof.
➢ Not only does a person under custodial investigation have the right to counsel, but
the provision states that said counsel must be an independent and competent one,
preferably of his own choice.

3. 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

16 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

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.
c. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumb marked. 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.

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.

e. 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 his counsel.

Effects of, and Sanctions for, Violation of these Rights

Article III, Section 12(3) of the Constitution states that any confession or admission in
violation of the above rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. This is called the exclusionary
rule. A confession or admission should be given voluntarily, free from any suspicious
circumstances tending to cast doubt upon the inte grity thereof. Otherwise, the same cannot be
used as evidence in any proceeding against the source of confession or admission.

17 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

1.3 Evolution of Custodial Rights

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Facts of the Case

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects,
prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and
against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto
Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his
rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly
confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda, who had not
finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel present. At trial, the
prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was convicted of both rape and
kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona Supreme
Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The court
disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which reviewed the case in 1966.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the
prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the
police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self incrimination.
The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment,
which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth
Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.

Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court
devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and
interrogated. These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "the right to remain silent," and
continue with the statement that "anything said can and will be used against [the defendant] in a
court of law." The police are further compelled to inform the suspect of his or her right to an
attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant's attorney who can accompany

18 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

him during interrogations. Because none of these rights was afforded to Ernesto Miranda and his
"confession" was thus unconstitutionally admitted at trial, his conviction was reversed. Miranda
was later retried and convicted without the admission of his confession.

Brown v Mississippi (1936)

 Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that
ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be
entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts of the Case

Raymond Stuart, a white planter, was murdered in Kemper County, Mississippi on March
30, 1934. Arthur Ellington, Ed Brown, and Henry Shields, three black tenant farmers, were
arrested for his murder. At the trial, the prosecution's principal evidence was the defendants'
confessions to police officers. During the trial, however, prosecution witnesses freely admitted
that the defendants confessed only after being subjected to brutal whippings by the officers:

"... defendants were made to strip and they were laid over chairs and their backs were cut to
pieces with a leather strap with buckles on it, and they were likewise made by the said deputy
definitely to understand that the whipping would be continued unless and until they confessed,
and not only confessed, but confessed in every matter of detail as demanded by those present;
and in this manner the defendants confessed the crime, and, as the whippings progressed and
were repeated, they changed or adjusted their confession in all particulars of detail so as to
conform to the demands of their torturers. When the confessions had been obtained in the exact
form and contents as desired by the mob, they left with the parting admonition and warning that,
if the defendants changed their story at any time in any respect from that last stated, the
perpetrators of the outrage would administer the same or equally effective treatment."

One defendant had also been subjected to being strung up by his neck from a tree in
addition to the whippings. The confessions were nevertheless admitted into evidence, and were
the only evidence used in the subsequent one-day trial. The defendants were convicted by a jury
and sentenced to be hanged. The convictions were affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court on
appeal.

19 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Escobedo v Illinois (1964)

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case
holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth
Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court had held in Gideon v. Wainwright that
indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.

Facts of the Case

 Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law, Manuel Valtierra, was shot and killed on the night of
January 19, 1960. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant early the next morning and
interrogated. However, Escobedo made no statement to the police and was released that
afternoon.

Subsequently, Benedict DiGerlando, who was in custody and considered another suspect,
told the police that indeed Escobedo fired the fatal shots because the victim had mistreated
Escobedo's sister. On January 30, again, the police arrested Escobedo and his sister, Grace. While
transporting them to the police station, the police explained that DiGerlando had implicated
Escobedo and urged him and Grace to confess. Escobedo again declined. Escobedo asked to
speak to his attorney, but the police refused, explaining that although he was not formally
charged yet, he was in custody and could not leave. His attorney went to the police station and
repeatedly asked to see his client but was repeatedly refused access.

Police and prosecutors proceeded to interrogate Escobedo for fourteen-and-a-half hours

and repeatedly refused his request to speak with his attorney. While being interrogated, Escobedo
made statements indicating his knowledge of the crime. After conviction for murder, Escobedo
appealed on the basis of being denied the right to counsel.

Terry v Ohio (1968)

Facts of the Case
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 it is not unconstitutional for American police to "stop
and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the
decision held that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when a police officer stops a suspect on the

20 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

street and questions him or her even without probable cause to arrest, so long as the police officer
has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a
crime. The Court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the
person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is
"armed and presently dangerous". This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and
articulable facts", and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
 This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and
frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions
of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops. The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision
revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its
limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and
seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like
prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Facts of the Case
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a United States Supreme Court case
that recognized what kind of scientific testimony would be admissible in federal court following
the passage of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court ruled that expert witnesses must provide
scientifically valid reasoning that applies to the facts of the case for their testimony to be
admissible in court. This case arose when the parents of two children with serious birth defects
sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the birth defects developed because of an anti-
nausea medication marketed by the company. The parents of the afflicted children cited eight
experts who contested the results of previous studies that had concluded that the medication did
not pose a risk of birth defects.

21 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

Frye Case
The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a test used in United States
courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based
on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in
the relevant scientific community.

Facts of the Case

 This standard comes from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a case
discussing the admissibility of systolic blood pressure deception test as evidence. The Court in
Frye held that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently
established and accepted.

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and
demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of
the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert
testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, 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.

Principles for Frye Test

To meet the Frye standard, scientific evidence presented to the court must be interpreted
by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific
community. This applies to procedures, principles or techniques that may be presented in the
proceedings of a court case.

22 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot
Bataan Heroes College

References
De Leon, Hector S., Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, REX Book Store, 2011

Republic of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7438: “An Act Defining Certain Rights of
Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial…”, Congress of the Philippines, April 27,
1992. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7438_1992.html
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/brown-v-mississippi/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/escobedo-v-illinois-2/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to
weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio#:~:text=Ohio%2C%20392%20U.S.
%201%20(1968 ,and%20involved%20in%20a%20crime.

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/causation-in-fact/daubert-v
merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-4/

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-fisher/lay-opinions-and
expert-testimony/frye-v-u-s/

23 | P a g e
Rules & Laws in Fundamental of Criminal Investigation
Kamille S. Baluyot