g.

History of Fingerprint Obliteration

In order to conceal identity for reason of avoiding prosecution and facing

the force of the law, some prominent individuals have deliberately
attempted to destroy their skin ridges. They are the following:

i. John Herbet Dillinger (1902-1934). – was a famous

American criminal who attempted to erase his fingerprints with the
use of acid. He attracted national attention for a series of crimes he
committed in the Midwestern United States over a period of 13
months in 1933 and 1934.

Dillinger was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. He was enlisted

in the United States Navy in 1923, but deserted a few months later.
In July 1933, J. Hoover of the Bureau of Investigation (now FBI),
identified Dillinger as “enemy no. 1” in the United States. In 1934
Dillinger moved to Chicago, Illinois, and forced a plastic surgeon to
alter his face and fingerprints. However, he was betrayed by a
friend for a portion of $50,000 and he was shot by Federal Agents
as he exited the movie theater.

ii. Robert James Pitts (a.k.a. Roscoe Pitts). – gained the fame
as the “man without fingerprints” after knowing from an inmate of
a possible destruction of fingerprints. He contracted a doctor, and
that doctor removed the skin up to the generative layer and served
thin into incisions on each side of Pitts’ chest. Scar tissue was
developed. Almost a year later, he was picked up and police were
amazed to discover that he had no fingerprints. (Manlusoc, 2008).

iii. Dr. Edmond Locard & Witkowsji. – Performed painful

experiments on themselves by burning their fingertips with boiling
water and oil with hot metals to find out whether the process can
destroy the ridges of a finger.

2. History of Fingerprints

The development of fingerprint science predates the Christian era by many

centuries. Pre-historic Indian picture writing of hand with crudely marked ridge
patterns, fingerprints impressions on clay tablets recording business transactions
in ancient Babylon, and clay seals of ancient Chinese origin bearing thumb prints,
were found as evidence of early use of fingerprints as identification of persons
impressing the prints.

The formal study began as early as 1686 but has finally gained official use in 1858
by Sir William James Herschel, a British chief administrative officer in Hoogly
District of Bengal, India. Herschel used fingerprints in India to prevent
fraudulent collection of army pay accounts and for identity on other documents.

In 1880 two major developments were achieved that ushered to a more wholistic
acceptance of fingerprint use. Dr. Henry Faulds wrote to publication on the
Nature on the practical use of fingerprints for the identification of criminals. His
arguments was supported by his studies and successful experiments on
permanency of one’s fingerprint. After Fauld’s breakthrough. Sir Francis Galton,
a noted British anthropologist and scientist Charles Darwin’s cousin devised the
first scientific method of classifying fingerprint patterns.

It was in 1882 when the first authentic record of official use of fingerprints was
noted in the USA. In 1891, Juan Vucetich, an Argentinian Police, used a system of
fingerprint as criminal identification based on Sir Francis Galton’s studies.
Today, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s identification files are rapidly
approaching 200 million sets of fingerprints – the largest collection in the world.

a. Primitive Knowledge on Personal Identification

The following are the primitive knowledge on Personal Identification:

1. Egypt. – The earliest evidence of ridge detail on the hands and

feet of humans was seen in the 4,000 year old mummies of ancient
Egypt. The hands and feet of mummies have been examined on
numerous occasions and they confirmed the presence of ridge detail
on the mummies’ digits.

2. China. – It was a common practice for the Chinese to use ink

fingerprints on official documents, land scales, contracts, loans and
acknowledgements of debt. Finger seals for sealing documents to
prove its authenticity. Early in the 12th century, in the novel, “The
Story of the River Bank,” fingerprint found itself already in the
criminal procedure of China; and in the 16th century, a custom
prevailed in connection with the sale of children. Palm and sole
impressions were stamped of sale to prevent impersonation.

3. Japan. – A Japanese Historian, Kamagusu Minakata furthere

commented about blood stamping. Apparently, contracts were
accompanied by a written oath confirmed with a blood stamp. The
blood stamp was a print of the ring finger in blood drawn from that
digit.

4. France. – The most famous ancient stone carvings is found in

the L’lle de Gavrinis of the coast of France. Here a burial chamber,
or dolman, was discovered dating back to Neolithis times. Its inner
walls are covered with incised designs- systems of horse-shoe form,
more or less circular concentric figures, spiral, arching lines sinuous
and straight lines and other markings occurring in various
combinations. Many anthropologists interpret these lines as
representing finger or palm print patterns.

5. Nova Scotia. – An outline of a hand was scratched into slate

rock beside Kejiomkujil Lake by an aboriginal Indian. The carving is
an outline of a hand and fingers. Within the outline the flexion
creases of the palm and fingers are depicted. This carving has
 considerable historical significance. Although it does not
demonstrate knowledge of the individuality of friction ridges or
palmar flexion creases, it clearly illustrates an early awareness of
the presence of those formations.

6. Babylonia. - References by ancient historians have been found

describing how finger seals were used on legal contracts from 1855-
1913 B.C. This practice identified the author and protected against
forgery.

7. Palestine. – William Frederick Bade, Director of the Palestine

Institute of Archeology, conducted excavations at various sites in
Palestine and at one place found finger imprints on many pieces of
broken pottery. These “identifications” permitted the confuse debris
to dated accurately to the fourth century A.D. Commenting on his
case, Fingerprint magazine (1973) stated that “these impression
were obviously intentional and no doubt, represented the
workman’s individual trade mark.”

8. Holland and Ancient China. – Identification of individuals

was by means of branding, tattooing, mutilation and also
manifested by wearing of cloths of different designs.

9. Constantinople. - In treaty ratification, the sultan soaked his

hand in a sheep’s blood and impressed in on the document as his
seal.

b. Early Methods of Personal Identification

There were many ways in identifying a person during the primitive era
such as;
1. Tattoo Marks
2. Scar Marks
3. Mutilation Marks
4. Brand (caused by branding), and other means

These were also applied to animals. These means were also applied in
marking suspect’s foe the people to know that a person was a menace to
the community.

b. Origin and Development of Fingerprints

Fingerprints were used in China before the birth of Christianity and were
used symbolically by the Chinese. Some of the early practices of
Fingerprints were credited to the Chinese who were successful in applying
this method in their daily business and legal activities. They used it in the
preparation and preservation of legal documents. During those times, the
Chinese Law states that, “To divorce a wife, the husband must give a
document stating therein the reasons or grounds. The document should be
signed by the husband’s own handwriting, but in case he is unable to write,
he must sign with his fingerprints.”

1. Rajyahar Konai. – who imprinted his palm in a contract as a

sign of acknowledgement.

2. Emperor Te’in Shi. – was the first Chinese ruler who devised
a seal carved from white jade. Fingerprints during these times were
used for business transactions as signatures and as a sign of
acknowledgement of purchases. China was the first to introduce
fingerprints as medium of personal identification by pressing the
fingers on soft mud or clay.

3. Aztecs. – was one of the tribes in Mexico that had the tradition
of printing their palm in mud to be placed in their tombs.

4. Dr. Nehemiah Grew (1641 – 1712). – publish a report before

the Royal Society of London in which he described the ridges and
pores of human fingers, hands, toes and feet as the beginning of
early scientific research in 1684. He presented his observation on
the appearance of the ridges on the fingers and palm his thesis,
“Philosophical Transaction” (Tubid, 1996).

5. Govard Bidloo. – described the arrangement of skin ridges and

pores on thumbs through his thesis entitled “Anatomia
Humanis Corporis” (Anatomy of Human Corpse) in 1685.

6. Marcelo Malphigi (1628 – 1694). – was an Italian professor

who reported his observation on pores and ridges in 1856. He also
made scientific study of the layers on the skin. All this works were
anatomical, none attempted to classify fingerprints and discussed
the value of fingerprints for identification purposes. He then
became known as the “Grandfather of Fingerprints.” It was also him
who first used the terms “loops and spirals.” One of the layers of the
human skin was name after him, the “Malphigian Layer.”

7. Paul Von Hintze (1751). – was a German national who made

several writings about ridge formations in 175. He said that the
prime base of identification should be the anatomy of fingerprints
rather than by mere comparison or identification.

8. Thomas Bewick (1753 – 1828). – was an English wood

engraver, author and naturalist who became Engliand’s finest
engraver of fingerprints stamps. He made wooden engravings of
fingerprints and published their images in his books.

9. Albinus (1754). – was another German who made similar

study with those conducted by Hintze in 1764. His study was
focused on ridge formations and the characteristics of pores.
 10. Dr. J.C.A. Mayer (1788). – was a German writer who stated
in his book entitled “Anatomische Kupfertafein Nebst Dazu
Gehorigen” that the arrangements of skin ridges are never
duplicated in two individuals and that there are no two persons
having the same fingerprints.

11. Herman Welcker. – took prints of his right palm 41 years

apart in 1856 and 1897. The compared the two prints and concluded
that there were changes in the formation of ridges. He then
strengthened the principle of permanency of fingerprints.

12. Prof. Johannes Evangelist Purkinje (1787 – 1869). –

was a Czechoslovakian professor of the University of Breslau,
Germany who published a thesis entitled “Commentatio de examine
physiologico organi visus et systematis cutanei” (A commentary on
the physiological examination of the organs of visions and the
coetaneous system) which was officially published on December 22,
1823. In this thesis, he named 9 fingerprint patterns and laid down
classification rules. He was later known as “Father of
Dactyloscopy.”

The Purkinje’s Pattern are the following:

1. Transverse Curves (Plain Arch)

2. Central longihitudinal stria (Tented Arch)
3. Oblique stripe (Ulnar loop)
4. Oblique loop (Ulnar or Radial loop)
5. Almond (Whorl)
6. Spiral (Whorl)
7. Ellipse-elliptical whorl (Whorl)
8. Circle-circular whorl (whorl)
9. Double whorl (Twin loop)

13. The Londonderry Agreement (1691). – was a traditional

law which was created in 1691 in London which requires both
parties to impress their thumbs on a document that contains the
agreement and conditions. During this time, such practice was not
fully established and cleared if this had the purpose of establishing
identity or merely symbolic. Vinluan & Mendoza, 2006).

c. Development of Fingerprinting as a Method of Identification

The following personalities have contributed to the development of

Fingerprints as a Method of Identification, such as:

1. Sir William James Herschel (1833-1917). – he was

the Chief Administrator of Hoogly District Bengal, India,
who required the laborers who were mostly natives of India
to be fingerprinted/palmprinted in order to prevent
impersonation. In 1958, he started the practice of recording
the hands prints of the natives on contracts. This form the
basis of modern fingerprinting as we now employ it. In 1916,
he published his 41-page book entitled “The Origin of
Fingerprinting.”

2. Dr. Henry Faulds (1843-1930). – was a Surgeon-

Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo, Japan who
made series of writings about fingerprints in 1877. Much of
its concentration is the description of fingerprints to be used
in criminal detection. Some of his ideas have found their way
into practice today. One his articles is “On the skin furrows
of the hand.” He made this article after noticing finger marks
on specimens of prehistoric pottery. Dr. Faulds did not only
recognize the importance of fingerprints as a means of
identification, but devised a method of classification as well.

3. Edward Foster (1863-1956). – was a Canadian

Constable of the Dominion Police who attended the World’s
Fair to guard a display of gold. He attended Perrier’s
presentation at the convention and intrigued by the
possibilities that fingerprinting had to offer, he felt that a
fingerprinting bureau would be effective than an
anthropometry bureau.

Upon returning to Canada, he presented his new-found

knowledge and on July 21, 1908, an Order-in-Council was
passed sanctioning the use of fingerprint system and that the
provisions of “The Identification of Criminal Act” became
applicable in Canada.

4. Thomas Taylor (1877). – was a microscopist of the

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC who suggested
that crime can resolved with the latent prints from the crime
scene. The July 1877 issue of “The American Journal of
Microscopy and Popular Science” Contained the test that
formed part of the lecture by Taylor, as stated below:

“Hand marks under the microscope exhibited on a screen

view of the markings of the palms of the hands, and the tips
of the fingers, and called attention to the possibility of
identifying criminals, especially murders, by comparing the
marks of the hands left upon any objects with impressions in
wax taken from the hands of suspected persons. In cases of
Murders, the mark of bloody hands would present a very
favorable opportunity. This is a new system of palmistry.”

5. Isiah West Taber (1880). – was a photographer in San

Francisco who suggested that fingerprinting be adopted for
the registration of Chinese immigrant laborers in Northern
America.
6. Alphonse Bertillon (1882). – was a French
Criminologist and Clerk of Prefecture of Police in Paris,
France who initiated in 1879, “the Bertillon System,” also
known as “Anthropometry,” “Bertillonage,” “Anthropological
Signalment,” a method for identifying suspects. He was
known as the “Father of Personal Identification.” This
system was used in England for almost two decades before
fingerprint system was used. The system records
anthropometric measurement and personal characteristics,
such as color of the eyes, scares, and deformities.

The following measurements were taken:

i. Body. - Height standing, reach from fingertips to

fingertips, length of trunk and head, or height sitting;

ii. Head. - Length and width, length and width of

right ear;

iii. Limbs. - Length of the left foot, length of left

middle, finger, and length of left little finger, length of
left forearm.

These measurements were recorded on cards and classified

according to the length of the head.

7. Gilbert Thompson (1882). – was a Geologist at the

United States Geologic Survey Camp who used his
“thumbprints” beginning in 1882 to attest the genuine of the
camp orders issued by him to the expeditions conducted by
his men to New Mexico and to the different states of US.

8. Arthur Kollman (1883). – was a German

Anthropologist who published a book in 1883 about ridges
and pores but did not associate fingerprints with
identification of suspects. He was the first researcher to
address the formation of friction ridges in embryos and the
topographical physical stressors that may have been part of
their growth. He identified the presence and locations of the
volar pads on the human hand and foot (Depayso, 2009).

9. Dr. Hermann Klaatsch (1888). – was a German

national who examined the walking pads and eminences of
several pentadactylous of five-fingered mammals in 1888.
He was credited for being the first researcher to examine the
walking surface of other animals.

10 Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). – was a British

Anthropologist who was engaged in biological studies with
the aid of the works of Herschel. In 1892, Sir Galton wrote
his first book entitled “Fingerprints.” In 1893, the British
Government became interested in the works of Sir Galton.
Galton named three major groups of finger prints patterns,
namely “arches,” “whorls and loops.”

11. Juan Vucetich (1891-1892). – was an Argentine

Fingerprint Pioneer and a police officer of Argentina who
devised the “Vucetich System.” This system of fingerprint is
employed in most Spanish – speaking countries of Central
and South America. However, the Henry System dominates
the fingerprints practice of the world.

12. Vucetich and Galton (1892). – Juan Vucetich made

the first criminal fingerprint identification in 1892. He was
able to identify Francis Rojas, a woman who murdered her
two sons and cut her own throat in an attempt to put blame
on others. Her bloody print was left on a door post, proving
her identity as the murderer.

13. Samuel L. Clemens (1894). – also known as “Mark

Twain” was an American author and lecturer who enhanced
the position of fingerprints when he included their use in the
plot of a novel entitled “Pudd’n Head Wilson.” In the novel, a
bloody fingerprint is found in the murder weapon and
Pudd’n Head, the defense attorney, has the whole town
fingerprinted. Clemens lectured the court and jury on the
basic of fingerprinting, how fingerprints are immutable, and
those two fingerprint s will never be found to be the same.
He also commented on how identical twins can be
indistinguishable in appearance, at times even by their
parents, but their fingerprints will always be different.

14. David Hepburn (1895). – published a paper on the

similarity in appearance of the eminences or walking
surfaces of primates entitled, “The papillary ridges on the
hands and feet of monkeys and men.” He was connected with
the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

15. Sir Edward Richard Henry (1859-1831). – was a

police officer who became the successor of Sir Herschel who
was interested in Fingerprints. Studying the earlier works of
Herschel and Galton, Henry started on a classification
system of his own now called “Henry System.” In 1899, he
read a paper detailing his system before the British
Association of Science. In 1900 he published his book
entitled “Classification and Uses of Fingerprint.” The next
year, he became Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard
Police. In July 1901, the Henry System was introduced in
England and Wales which was officially adopted in the same
year.

16. Khan Bahadur Azizul Haque and Rai Hem

Chandra Bose (1897). – were to Indian fingerprint
experts who helped Henry in coming up with a workable
system of classification. The system became successful with
the assistance of another Mathematics professor at
Presidency College in Calculta, India. On June 12, 1897, the
Council of the Governor General of India approved a
committee report stating that fingerprints should be used for
classification of criminal records.

17. Dr. Henry P. De Forrest (1902). – installed

fingerprint system in the Civil Service Commission of the
United States and started fingerprinting all civil service
applicants in 1902. Dr. De Forrest was the Chief of the New
York Civil Service Commission.

18. Capt. James I. Parke (1903). – installed fingerprint

system in the New York States Prison (NYSP) in Albany, New
York. Fingerprints of prisoners were taken and classified and
the fingerprint system was officially adopted on June 5,
1903. Today, New York uses the American System, Which is
similar to the Henry System and represents the system
initiated by Captain James Parke.

19. Sgt. John Kenneth Perrier (1904). – was a member

of the Scotland Yard Police who was assigned to guard the
British Crown Jewels during the World Fair Exposition.
During this Fair Expo, he met Sir Edward Richard Henry
and became a student on fingerprint. After learning
fingerprints, he also became an instructor at the St. Louis
Police department (SLPD) in Missouri, USA (Depayso,
2009).

20. Maj. R. McCloughry (1904). – was the Warden of

the Federal Penitentiary of Leavenworth when the office of
the Attorney General of the U.S. granted permission to
establish a fingerprint bureau on November 2, 1904. It was
the first national government to adopt fingerprints (Depayso,
2009).

21. Inez Whipple (1871-1929). – published in 1904, a

paper entitled “The Vential surface of the mammalian
chiridium with special reference to the conditions found in
man.” His survey into mammalian palm and sole
configurations formed an important part of the modern
scientific knowledge on the subject and is considered as
landmark in the fields of genetics and ridgeology. The
development of the surfaces of the hands and feet of all
mammals are similar to some degree was learned from the
paper.

22. Dir. J. Edgar Hoover. – was the Director of FBI who

used fingerprints in positively identifying wanted persons in
the list of FBI. The FBI gained renowned for arresting
gangsters in the 1930’s and apprehending Axis spies during
World War II (1939-1945). After the war, Hoover turned his
attention to what he believed was the growing threat of
Communism. In his 1947 testimony before the House
Committee on Un-American Activities, a committee of the
House of Representatives, Hoover reveals his view that
communist are dangerous enemies of the country.

23. Frederick A. Bryle (1910). – published one of the

first American books on fingerprints that provides lessons on
identification and it uses. The book was published in Boston
by the Worcester Press, Inc., in 1910.

24. Dr. Edmond Locard (1912). – was known as the

“Father of Poroscopy.” He also examined pores in detail and
published a paper as a result of his studies in 1912. According
to Locard, the sweat pores vary in size, shape, position in
ridge, number of frequency, the average number of pores
that occur on a given length of ridge and average of number
of pores found within a given area. The amount of pores
found in one centimeter of ridge varies from 9-18. Sgt. David
R. Ashbaugh (1993) stated that the number of pores ranged
from 1611 on smaller fingers to 2658 on the larger
thumbprint. But according to Robert D. Oslen Sr. (1978)
papillary skin contains an average of 2700 pores per square
inch.

In 1918, Dr. Locard wrote that if 12 points were the same

between two fingerprints, it would suffice as a positive
identification. Locard’s 12 points seems to have been based
on an unscientific improvement over the eleven
anthropometric measurements (arm length, height, etc.)
used to identify criminals before the adoption of fingerprints.

25. Insp. Harry H. Caldwell. – of the Oakland, California

Police Department’s Bureau of Identification wrote
numerous letters to “Criminal Identification Operators” on
august 1915. Asking them to meet in Oakland for the purpose
of forming an organization to further the aims of the
Identification Profession. In October 1915, a group of 22
identification personnel met and initiated the “International
Association for Criminal Identification (IACI). In 1918, the
organization was renamed International Association for
Identification (IAI) due to the volume of non-criminal
identification work performed by members. Sir Francis
Galton’s right index finger appears in the IAI logo. The IAI’s
official publication is the Journal of Forensic Identification.

26. Frederick Kuhne (1916). – published his book

entitled “The Fingerprint Instructor” which became one of
the first authoritative books on fingerprint which circulated
in the United States in 1916.

27. Harry J. Myers II (1925). – installed a fingerprint

system at the Jewish Maternity Hospital (JMH) in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA in 1925. The said hospital
identified newborn infants through laser-fingerprinting them
in order to avoid mix-up with other infants.

28. Salil Kumar Chatterjee (1963). – was a fingerprint

scientist from Calculta, India who devised a system found on
the unique and infinite configurations of the papillary ridges
in 1963. His published work was a result of his study of the
edge of the ridges and its various shapes.

29. Prof. Harris Wilder. – was American scientist who

discovered that ridges first emerge in the fetus as bumps
with a pore appearing randomly somewhere on its structure.
These pore pads fuse together to form ridges. Each pore pod
is a unique feature island of individuality. Because of this
unique feature of the ridges, they acquire also a unique
characteristics of their own.

30. The Fingerprint Society (1974). –started with four

employees of the Hertfordshire United Kingdom Fingerprint
Bureau. They contacted fingerprint experts throughout the
UK and began organization of the Country’s first professional
fingerprint association, the National Society of Fingerprint
Officers. The organization initially consisted of only UK
experts, but quickly expanded to international scope and was
renamed “the Fingerprint Society in 1977.”

32. Fingerprint and Identification Magazine (1919).

– was a monthly published magazine in United States that is
devoted exclusively for fingerprint science that started in
1919.

33. Institute of Applied Science. – was one of the

pioneer school in Illinois, USA., to teach personal
identification through fingerprint science. It started on June
16, 1916.
 34. The Belper Committee (1900). – due to the
mistaken identities and wrongful convictions, this committee
was created in 1900 and was set up by Lord Belper to look
into the problems of personal identification for police
purposes. This committee decided that it will be the Henry
System that was used in identifying suspects. Sir Edward
Henry was appointed by the Committee as assistant
commissioner in the London Metropolitan Police and ask to
start a Fingerprint Bureau (Vinluan & Mendoza, 2006).

35. Murder in the Tea Garden of Eden (India). – this

is a case of a man who was found dead with his throat cut in
the Tea Garden of Eden near the workplace of Sir Edward
Richard Henry in 1897. The ex-servant of the deceased was
the suspect but the police found no evidence against him.
Police Officer Edward Richard Henry eventually found a
book with two bloodstain prints that match with the
fingerprints of the ex-servant which led to his conviction
(Vinluan & Mendoza, 2006).

i. Development of Fingerprint in the Philippines

The use of fingerprints in the Philippines started in the year 1900. It

was through the Americans that the Science of Fingerprints was
introduced in the Philippines.

1. Garry Jones. – who taught the science of fingerprints in

the Philippines sometime in the year 1900.

2. Geneso Reyes. – was the first Filipino fingerprint

technician employed by the Philippine Constabulary (now
Philippine National Police).

3. Isabela Bernales. – was the first Filipina Fingerprint

Technician (Manlusoc, 2008).

4. Lt. Asa N. Darby. – During the American occupation of

the Philippines prior to the declaration of Philippine
Independence in 1946, a modern and complete fingerprint
files was established in Division under the management of
Lt. Darby.

5. Capt. Thomas Dugan and Flaviano C. Guerrero. –

of the New York Police Department (NYPD) and Flaviano C.
Guerrero, a Filipino member of the FBI provided for the
establishment of fingerprint usage in the NBI in the
Philippines (Montojo, 2006).
 6. Generoso La Torre. – was the first Chief of the
Identification Section (CIS) of the Bureau of Prisons from
1905 to 1920.

7. Lt. George M. Wolfe. – was the first Director of the

Bureau of Prison from 1909 to 1910. He taught the
fingerprint system to Mr. La Torre.

a. Related Laws

1. Republic Act No. 409. - established the Criminal

Records and Identification Division (CRID) at the
Manila Police Department (MPD) in the 1900. During
World War II, the MPD records were destroyed. The
Division was reestablished in 1945 by the U.S. Army
and Henry System adopted.

2. Commonwealth Act No. 181. – the NBI

presently uses the Henry System with modification.
The C.A No. 181, dated November 13, 1936 provided
for the establishment of the Division of Investigation
(D.I.) which authorized the use of the Fingerprint
Identification System.

3. Republic act No. 157 and Executive Order

No. 94. – abolished the Division of Investigation (DI)
on June 19, 1947 and at the same time created the
Bureau of Investigation (BI). Subsequently, the BI was
renamed National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
pursuant to “Executive Order No. 94, Section 63,
dated October 4, 1947.

4. Reorganization Act No. 1407. –was the law

that created the Bureau of Prisons (now Bureau of
Corrections or BuCor). On 01 November 1905. At that
time, the “Bertillon System” of identification was in
use. In 1910, the Bureau of Prisons started using
fingerprint system as a means of identification for
inmates.

3. Legal Aspects of Fingerprints

a. In Foreign Country

i. People vs. Jennings, 252 III. 534, 96 NE 1077 (1911). -

Pass upon the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. Fingerprint
evidence was admitted as a means of identification. It was also held
that persons experienced in the matter of fingerprint identification
may give their opinions as to whether the fingerprints found at the
scene of the crime correspond with those of the accused. The court’s
conclusion were based on a comparison of the photographs of such
prints with the impressions made by the accused, there being no
questions as to the accuracy or authenticity of the photographs. It
was stated that the weight to be given to the testimony of experts in
the fingerprint identification as a question for the jury.

ii. New Jersey State vs. Cerciello. - Which fingerprint evidence

was permitted to be introduced. The defendant argued that it was
an error to allow the testimony by experts explaining the
comparison of fingerprints obtained from the defendant voluntarily
with those fingerprints found upon a hatchet near the body of the
deceased when the body was discovered. The New Jersey Court of
Errors and Appeals held, “in principle, its admission as legal
evidence is based upon the theory that the evolution in practical
affairs of fife, whereby the progressive and scientific tenderness of
the age are manifested in every other department of human
endeavor, cannot be ignored in legal procedure. But, that the law it
its effort to enforce justice by demonstrating a fact in issue, will
allow evidence of those scientific processes which are the work of
educated and skillful men in their various departments, and apply
them to the demonstrations of fact, leaving the weight and effect to
be given to the effort and its results entirely to the consideration of
the jury”.
iii. In the case of State Vs. Conners, 87 N.T.L. 419, 94
Atl.812 (1915)]. - It was held competent to show by a photograph
the fingerprints upon the balcony post of a house entered, without
producing that post in court, and to show by expert testimony that
the fingerprints found on the post were similar to the fingerprints of
the defendant.

iv. Lamble v. State, 96 N.T.L. 231; 114 ATL. (N.J) 346

(1921). - Which involved the discovery of fingerprints on the door
of an automobile, the court was of the opinion that it was not
necessary to produce the door as evidence. The court stated that a
photograph of the fingerprints noted on the door should be
sufficient along with the identification of the fingerprints by an
expert to show these of the defendant. The court referred to the
previous decided case of States v. Conners.

v. Commonwealth v. Albright, [101 Pa. Sup. C.L.317

(1931)]. - A fingerprint expert testified that the fingerprint on a
piece of glass, established to be from a pane in a door that had been
broken to effect entrance to the house was the same as the
impression of the defendant’s left index finger and he explained in
detail the points of identity which led him to that judgment. In the
Albright case, the court stated, “it is well settled that the papillary
lines and marks on the fingers of every man, woman and child
 possess an individual character different from those of any other
person and that the chances that the fingerprints of two different
persons may be identified are infinitesimally remote.

vi. People v. Corral [224 cal. 2d 300 (1964)]. - It is

completely settled law that fingerprints are the strongest evidence
of the identity of a person”. This Doctrine was reasserted in another
California case, People v. Riser [47 cal. 2d. 566 (1956)] in which the
court stated, “Fingerprint evidence is the strongest evidence of
identity and is ordinarily sufficient alone to identify the defendant”.

vii. Schmerber v. California, 384 us, 757,767(1966). - The

introduction into evidence of fingerprint impressions taken without
consent of the defendant was not an infringement of the
constitutional privileged against self-incrimination. The high court
held that it is constitutional to obtain real or physical evidence even
if the suspect is compelled to give blood in a hospital environment,
submit to fingerprinting, photographing or measurement, write or
speak for identification, appears in court, stand or walk, assume a
stance or make a particular gesture, put on cloth that fits him, or
exhibit his body as evidence when it is material. The Schmerber
case points out the fact that the privilege against self-incrimination
is related primarily to “TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION”.

b. In the Philippines

i. Bilangawa v. Amador (Court of Appeals No.37320-b). - A

fingerprint expert and constabulary sergeant testified and
successfully defended fingerprint evidence based on eight identical
ridge points.

ii. People of the Philippines vs. Medina, 59, Phil. 330,

December 23, 1933. - Were the first conviction based on
fingerprint and led to the judicial decision in the Philippine
jurisprudence.

4. Automated Fingerprint Identification System

b. What is AFIS all about?

The Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) is the process of

automatically matching one or many unknown fingerprints against a
database of known and unknown prints. Automated fingerprint
identification systems are primarily used law enforcement agencies for
criminal identification initiatives, the most important of which include
identifying a person suspected of committing a crime of linking a suspect
to other unsolved crimes.

Automated fingerprint verification is a closely related technique used in

applications such as attendance and access control systems. On a technical
level, verification systems verify a claimed identity, whereas identification
system determine identity based solely on fingerprints.

i. Functions of AFIS

The following are the functions of AFIS, such as:

a. Conducts latent and ten-print registration and/or

inquiries with AFIS workstation thereby facilitating rapid,
accurate and comprehensive searching and matching with
fingerprints in the database.

b. Assists the Fingerprint Identification Division in the

establishment of identity of unknown/questioned ten-prints
and latent fingerprints collected from the crime scene.

c. Maintains latent print central database and central

repository of fingerprints of persons with previous arrest,
criminal records and/or conviction of a certain offense.

d. Conducts lecture and training to the PNP and other

governmental entities regarding the operation and
management of the AFIS.

e. Conducts studies and researches for the improvement and

expansion of the AFIS.

ii. Fingerprint Matching

Among all the biometric techniques, fingerprint-based

identification is the oldest method which has been successfully used
in numerous applications. Everyone is known to have unique,
immutable fingerprints. A fingerprint is made of a series of ridges
and furrows on the surface of the finger. The uniqueness of a
fingerprint can be determined by the pattern of ridges and furrows
as well as the minutiae points. Minutiae points are local ridge
characteristics that occur at either a ridge bifurcation or at a ridge
ending.

Fingerprint matching techniques can be placed into two categories:

minutiae-based and correlation based. Minutiae-based techniques
first find minutiae points and then map their relative placement on
the finger. However, there are some difficulties when using this
approach. It is difficult to extract the minutiae points accurately
when the fingerprint is of low quality. Also this method does not
take into account the global pattern of ridges and furrows.

The correlation-based method is able to overcome some of the

difficulties of the minutiae-based approach. However, it has some
of its own shortcoming. The correlation-based techniques require
the precise location of a registration point and are affected by image
translation and rotation.

iii. Fingerprint Classification

Large volume of fingerprints are collected and stored every day in a

wide range of applications including forensics, access control, and
driver’s license registration. An automatic recognition of people
based on fingerprints requires that the input fingerprint be match
with a large number of fingerprints in a database (FBI database
contains approximately 70 million fingerprints). To reduce the
search time and computational complexity, it is desirable to classify
these fingerprints in an accurate and consistent manner so that the
input fingerprint is required to be matched only with a subset of the
fingerprints in the database.

Fingerprint classification is a technique to assign a fingerprint into

one of the several pre-specified types already established in the
literature which can provide an indexing mechanism. Fingerprint
classification can be viewed as a course level matching of the
fingerprint. An input fingerprint is first matched at a coarse level to
one of the pre-specified types and then, at a finer level, it is
compared to the subset of the database containing that type of
fingerprints only. AFIS have developed an algorithm to classify
fingerprints into five classes, namely, whorl, right loop, left loop,
arch, and tented arch. The algorithm separates the number of
ridges present in four directions (0 degree, 45 degree, 90 degree,
and 135 degree) by filtering the central part of a fingerprint with a
bank of Gabor filters.

iv. Steps in Examination

The following are the steps in fingerprint examinations:

a. All request for laboratory examination are always

accompanied by official request emanating from the
investigative agencies/units.

b. All request for technical assistance of fingerprint

personnel to conduct SOCO, FLW, lectures/seminars and
consultancy service pertaining to identification should pass
and officially received by offices concerned for necessary
information/notation and appropriate action.

c. Evidence being submitted at the crime laboratory must be

properly endorsed by the investigating agency and address to
Director, Crime Laboratory, Attention: Chief, Fingerprint
Identification Division.
 d. All fingerprint evidence must be properly evaluated and
recorded.

v. Fees and Charges

Fiscal Directive Number 2005-08 –“Revised Charges for Forensic

Examination conducted by the Crime Laboratory” created and
approved by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG), states that the fees and charges for Fingerprint
Identification for Clearance Purposes (Abroad) is Two-Hundred
Pesos (Php.200.00).

Other services being rendered at the said division which do not fall
within the Fiscal Directives are without charge.

Fingerpri
nt Number Number Examinatio Processin
Processin of of n g
g Period Latent Standar Needed Time
Prints d Prints
Kind/Type
of
Evidence
1. 8 15 Photographi 4 days
Developed ng Latent
and Lifted Prints
Prints
2. 9 - 20 16 - 30 Photographi 5 – 6 days
Developed ng Latent
and Lifted Prints
Prints
3. 21 - 40 31 - 50 Photographi 8 – 10 days
Developed ng Latent
and Lifted Prints
Prints
4. Various For 10 - 20 Superglue & 5 – 7 days
Kind of Developi Ninhydrin
Physical ng Latent Processing
Evidence Prints Photographi
Collected ng
from the
Crime
Scene
5. Evidence For For For 8 – 10 days
Vehicles/Ca Developi Developi Developing
rs ng of ng of of Latent
Latent Latent Prints
Prints Prints
 In cases where there are no standard prints, fingerprint reports will
be made within one week upon receipt of the case. However, one
may be extended if the investigator/requesting party and FPID
came-up into an agreement on the submission or taking of standard
prints. In the case of non-compliance, the investigator/requesting
party may still submit standard prints for supplementary reports in
which they will be copy furnished.

The processing, completion and release of the Fingerprint

Examination Reports could be made earlier or beyond the above
specified period of time, depending on the quantity and condition of
the fingerprint evidence collected and submitted to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination.

B. The Ridge Formation

1. Introduction

A single fingerprint pattern consists of several ridge characteristics. These ridge

formations are very useful in the classification of fingerprints and in naming or
interpreting the fingerprint. Some of the ridge formations are as follows:

a. Type Lines or skeleton of pattern. – Are the two outermost ridges

which start parallel, divergence, and surround or tend to surround the
pattern area. Type lines are the basic boundaries of most fingerprint
patterns. They are formed by ridges which run parallel, starting from the
lower corner or corners of the pattern and flowing inward and upward
toward the edge of the pattern are where they diverge or separate, then
surround or tend to surround the pattern area. Everything that is required
to interpret a pattern will be found inside these type lines (Yamauchi,
2007).

b. Pattern Area. – Refers to the area of a loop or whorl which contains

the core(s), delta(s) and ridges which lie within the area surrounded by the
type lines. It is the area inside the type line and the only part of a
fingerprint which is of importance with regard to interpretation and
classification. It is present in all patterns, but in many arches and tented
arches, it is impossible to define. This is not important, however, as the
only patterns in which there is need to define the pattern area for
classification are loops and whorl (Tubid, 1996).

In order to interpret a pattern, nothing is considered that lies outside the

type lines. However, ridges outside the pattern area may be used to
compare two fingerprints to determine whether or not they were both
made by the same finger. This is the part of the fingerprint which lies
within the area surrounded by the type lines. It is also the area considered
by expert for the ultimate purpose of personal identification.
c. Focal Point. – Are located within the pattern area of loops and whorls
and are enclosed. The focal point is used to classify them. They are called
delta and core.

i. Delta. – Is the point on the first ridge formation found at or

directly in front of and nearest the center of the divergence of the
type lines (Depayso, 2008). The word “Delta” is an old Greek word,
and is the fourth letter of the Greek alphabet. It corresponds to the
letter “D” in our alphabet (Yubid, 1996).

The original English meaning of the word refers to a deposit of

earth at the mouth of a river. As river flows downstream, it
gradually wears away it banks, carrying the soil away with it. When
the river runs into a lake or ocean, its current rapidly decreases and
the soil it is carrying sinks to the bottom.

The similarity between deltas in rivers and deltas in fingerprint

patterns is quite close. In fingerprints, the ridges forming the type
lines divergence, just as to do the banks of a river when a delta is
reached. When a river reaches a delta, the two banks separate to
flow around it. Like the banks of a river, the type lines of a
fingerprint run parallel and suddenly diverge when they reach a
delta. The ridge formation at or nearest the center of the divergence
of the type lines is the delta.

A delta may come in the form of:

1. a dot;
2. a bifurcation;
3. a short ridge;
4. a converging ridge;
5. a meeting of two ridges; and
6. an ending ridge.

Area/point of divergence – is the area where delta can be

found inside the two diverging ridges.

ii. Core. – Is the approximate center or heart of a fingerprint

pattern. When the core is referred as the center or heart of a
pattern, it does not mean that it is the exact central point of the
fingerprint impression because there are numerous ridge details
outside the type lines which are not considered in pattern
interpretation. Therefore, the core may be located somewhere in the
center, or as near the center as possible, of the pattern area.

Core location is primarily concerned in loops but there are

instances that the cores have to be determined in whorl type
pattern. Cores in loops are formed in variety of ways, but they are
always found either on or within the innermost looping or recurving
ridge (Depayso, 2008).
2. Ridge Characteristics

The following are the different ridge characteristics, such as:

a. Diverging Ridges. – are two ridges running side by side and suddenly
separating, one ridge going one way and the other ridge going the other
way. These are two ridges running parallel and diverge in an opposite
direction.

b. Recurving/Looping Ridges. – are ridges that curve back in the

direction from which it started.

c. Sufficient Recurve. – is the curve at the top or closed end of a

recurving ridge. It is also a part of recurving ridge between the shoulders
of a loop, free from any appendages abutting upon the outside of the
recurving. It has the innermost and outermost sufficient recurves.

d. Shoulder of a loop. – are the point where the sufficient recurves start
to curve or form.

e. Rod/Bar. – is a single ending ridge located inside the innermost

sufficient recurve in a loop pattern.

f. Furrows. – are the depression or canals between the ridges which

maybe compared with the low area.

g. Bifurcating Ridge. – is a single ridge which splits into two forming a

“Y shape” structure. The point where the ridge separate is called
“Bifurcation.”

h. Trifurcating Ridge. – is a single friction ridge that divides into three

friction ridges. This is sometimes called “Fork.”

i. Spur/Hook Ridge. – is a bifurcation with one short ridge branching

off a longer ridge.

j. Opposed Bifurcation. – are two bifurcations located at both ends of a

single ridge.

k. Converging Ridges. – is a point where two or more ridges meet

coming from different locations in the pattern. It is also a ridge formation
whose closed end is angular and serves as a point of convergence, usually
pointed and abrupt.

l. Appendage/Abutment. – is a short ridge that spoils the sufficiency of

a recurve located at the top or summit of a recurve usually at right angle
(Manlusoc, 2008).
m. Spike Ridge. – is also known as “rod or bar” that appears inside the
innermost sufficient recurve (Fingerprinting Training Manual). According
to Prof. M.C. Penala, Fingerprint Examiner III, the core is located on the
spike or rod in the center of the innermost sufficient recurve, provided that
spike or rod rises as high as the shoulders.

n. Fragmenting Ridge. – is a ridge of extremely short in length not

more than 3 millimeters.

o. Short Ridge. – is a ridge that is insufficient or limited in length other

than the fragment.

p. Series of Short Ridge. – is a group of short ridges found inside a

pattern area. These ridges could appear also as broken short ridges
between well-formed ridges.

q. Dot Ridge. – is any dot or point that can be observed inside a

fingerprint pattern.

r. Series of dot ridges or row of dots. – are the group of dots as

printed inside a pattern area.

s. Ridge Ending. – is an abrupt end of any ridge formation.

t. Island, Lake or Eyelet. – is a formation of ridge that forms a lake-like

smaller in size than the enclosure.

u. Enclosure. – is a bifurcation which does not remain open but in the

legs of the bifurcation, after running a longside for a short distance, come
together to form a single ridge once more.

v. Envelop. – is a single recurving ridge enclosing one or more bars,

short or dot ridge.

w. Staple. – is a single recurveing ridge on the center of the pattern area.

It can be located along the looping ridges.

x. Ridge Crossing or Crisscrossing of Ridge. – is a point where two

ridge units intersect.

y. Bridge/Crossover Ridge. – is a ridge that connects at least two

ridges. It must cross and connect two ridges.

z. Puckering Ridge. – is a kind of ridge that appears curly, irregular in

appearance and growth ceases at several ends. It usually appears between
two well-formed ridges.

aa. Incipient/nascent Ridges. – are ridges that were never counted

because they are only the result of dirt, blurred impressions, dirty
 fingerprints paraphernalia and other factors, the short narrow and badly
formed ridges found between two well-formed ridges (Montojo, 2006).

bb. Dissociated Ridges. – are usual ridge structure which does not have
a well-defined pattern, the ridges are extremely short, they appear like
series of patches caused by disturbance during developmental process at
early fetal life of an individual.

cc. Creases. – are thin, usually straight narrow white lines running
transversely, or formed side to side, across the print, causing the
puckering of the ridges. They are caused mainly by minor surface damaged
work and tear or advanced of age.

3. Causes of Ridge Destruction

The following are the causes of ridge destructions, such as:

a. Person doing manual work. – fingerprint of persons who handle lime,

cement, plaster or persons whose hands are continually wet.

b. Diseases (most probably severe skin disease).

c. Warts (kulugo in tagalog).

d. Creases – caused by a folding of the skin.

e. Impressions appear as white lines crossing the ridges.

f. Scar – result of a cut.

g. Severe skin burns.

C. Fingerprint Patterns and Identification

A person who is familiar with fingerprints will find it easy to name and identify the
patterns for purposes of classification. But those who do not have an idea of fingerprint
pattern will need some explanation in order to see a clear picture of it.

To an ordinary person, a fingerprint seems to be a puzzle to decipher a pattern when it is

presented to him. But to those who possess the basic knowledge of pattern
interpretation will not waste so much time in designating a name for every pattern. With
this familiarity of the friction ridge design, we have come to know that there are only
three general groups of fingerprint patterns. Each of this group or family may have the
same characteristics or resemblance. These resemblances of patterns may be further
decided into sub-groups or types.

1. Categories of Fingerprints
 a. Loops. – In a loop pattern, the ridges enter from either side, re-curve
and pass out or tend to pass out the same side they entered. Loops are
composed of 60% frequency.

Under loop pattern frequency there are two types, such as:

i. Radial Loop. – is composed of 6% frequency of the whole

population of Loops.

ii. Ulnar Loop. – is composed of 94% frequency of the whole

population of Loops.

b. Whorls. – In a whorl pattern, the ridges are usually circular. Whorls

are composed of 35% frequency.

Under whorl pattern frequency there are four types, such as:

i. Plain Whorl. – is composed of 71% frequency of the whole

population of whorls.

ii. Central Pocket Loop Whorl. – is composed of 13% frequency

of the whole population of whorls.

iii. Double Loop Whorl. – is composed of 13% frequency of the

whole population of whorls.

iv. Accidental Whorl. – is composed of 3% frequency of the

whole population of whorls.

c. Arches. – In an arch pattern the ridges enter from one side, make a
rise in the center and exit generally on the opposite side. Arches are
composed of 5% frequency.

Under arch pattern frequency there are two types, such as:

i. Plain Arch. – is composed of 60% frequency of the whole

population of arches.

ii. Tented Arch. – is composed of 40%frequency of the whole

population of arches.

2. Types of Fingerprints Pattern

a. Loop. – A loop is that type of fingerprint pattern in which one or more

of the ridges entered on either side of the impression, recurve, touch or
pass an imaginary line drawn from the delta to the core, and terminates or
tends to terminate on or toward the same side of the impression from
where such ridge or ridges entered (Manlusoc, 2008).

The following are the two basic types of loops, such as:
 1. Radial Loop (R). - It is a fingerprint pattern that has a
downward slope or slanting of the ridges towards the direction of
the thumb either to the right or left hand. About 60 – 70% of all
types of fingerprint patterns are loops. This means that about six
out of every ten patterns are loop patterns.

2. Ulnar Loop (U). – It is a fingerprint pattern where the

direction of the ridges flows towards the little finger side of either
right or left hand. The term Ulnar came from the Greek term “Ulna”
which means “Little Finger Bone” (Manlusoc, 2008.).

After having an idea of how a loop pattern is formed, let us look at the
more technical aspect of the formation of a loop pattern. An impression
must possess the following elements to be considered a loop, such as:

1. It must have a delta;

2. It must have a core;
3. It must have a recurving ridge that passes between the core and
delta; and
4. It must have ridge count of at least one.

i. Other Types of Loop

The following are the other types of loops, such as:

a. Plain Loops. – The ridges in this pattern make a

backward turn arranging themselves in the form of a hairpin
or staple.

b. Converging Loops. – The ridges of this pattern

converge sharply to give the pattern a possible whorl like
appearance.

c. Nutant Loops or Lazy loop or Drooping loop. – The

ridges of this pattern conform to the explanation of the plain
loop but in addition, the loop is bent over and drops usually
towards the delta. This usually occurs in the opposite hand
as the slant, especially in the index fingers.

b. Whorl. – It forms a circular or spiral patterns, like tiny whirlpools.

There are four groups of whorls: plain (concentric circles), central pocket
loop (a loop with a whorl at the end), double loop (two loops that create an
S-like pattern) and accidental loop (irregular shaped).

c. Arch. – The arch as a fingerprint pattern shows a smooth rise in the

center and a gentle upward curve. The rise or upward curve has a striking
resemblance to an ocean wave, a billowing of ridges with a gentle
curvature at the center (Collins, 2006).
 i. Types of Arches

The following are the types of arches, such as:

a. Plain Arch (A). – It is a pattern in which the ridges

enter on one side of the pattern then flow toward the other
side, with a rise at the center. Plain arch is the most simple of
all fingerprint patterns. In fact, there is almost an absence of
any pattern rather than the presence of one, because
actually, they do not form real patterns at all. They are called
patterns not because they form themselves into any specific
designs, but because they are “types” of fingerprints and
because they have to have a name to be used in the
interpretation and classification (Gilbert, 1998).

b. Tented Arch (T). – It is a fingerprint pattern where

majority of the ridges form an arch and one or more ridges at
the center shape a tent in outline giving an angle of 90
degrees or less or one with an upward thrust having an angle
of 45 degrees or more, or a pattern similar to a loop but
lacking one or two of its essential elements (Vinluan &
Mendoza, 2006).

In tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the
impression and flow or tend to flow our side of the
impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side,
as in plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the
center do not (Tubid, 1996).

Characteristics of Tented Arch:

1. One or more ridges in the center from an up thrust;

2. One or more ridges in the center form a definite

angle; and

3. The type approaching the loop pattern, possessing

two or three essential characteristics of a loop, but
lacking one or two characteristics.

3. Other Types of Whorls

a. Plain Whorl (W). – The fingerprint pattern consisting of two deltas

and in which at least one ridge make a turn through one complete circuit
of 360 degrees. An imaginary line drawn between the two deltas must
touch or cross at least one of the circulating whorl ridges within the
pattern area. The pattern is called “elongated or oval plain whorl” if the
ridges inside form elongated or oval shaped appearance. They are called
“spiral or circular plain whorl” when the circulating ridges form circular
 ridges that spiral around the pattern or any formation as variant of circle.
In medical studies, it is called the “shell pattern.”

A plain whorl has the following requisites, such as:

1. It must have a complete circuit;

2. It must have at least two deltas; and

3. At least one circulating ridges is touched or crossed by an

imaginary line traversing the two deltas.

b. Central Pocket Loop Whorl (C). – A fingerprint pattern which

possesses two deltas, with one more ridges forming a complete circuit
which may be oval, spiral, circular, or any variant of a circle. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation defines central pocket loop whorl as a pattern
which “consists of one or more recurving ridges, or an obstruction at right
angles to the inner line of flow with two deltas between which an
imaginary line would cut or touch no recurving ridge with the inner
pattern area (Scott, 1978).

This pattern is sometimes called a “composite pattern,” which means that

it is made up of two patterns in one, a whorl inside a loop (Montojo,
2006).

The Central Pocket Loop Whorl has the following requisites, such as:

1. There must be at least one recurving ridge that rises at right

angle;

2. It must have two deltas; and

3. There must be no recurving ridge within the pattern area touch

or crossed by an imaginary line drawn between the two deltas.

c. Double Loop Whorl (D). – Is a fingerprint pattern which is called

“composite,” consisting of two separate and distinct loop formations, two
sets of shoulders and two deltas. The loops necessarily do not have to be of
the same length and size. The loop of a double loop whorl need not possess
the requirements of a loop. It is enough that the elements mentioned
earlier are found in such a pattern (Fingerprint Training Manual, p.33).

i. Types of Core Formation in Double Loop Whorl

The following are the types of core formation in a double loop

whorl, such as:

1. The “S” type pattern. – is a double loop formation

where ridges form two loops and form an “S” appearance
between the two loops.
 2. Interlocking type pattern. – is a double loop pattern
formed opposite from each other and interlocking its ridges.

3. Twined loop type pattern. – is a double loop pattern

that possess two well defined loops where ridges embraced
each other. This pattern does not require that the two loops
must be of the same size or length.

The Double Loop Whorl has the following requisites, such as:

1. There must be two separate loop formation;

2. There must be two separate and distinct sets of shoulders;

and

3. There must be two or more core and deltas.

d. Accidental Whorl (X). – Is a composite fingerprint pattern

consisting of a combination of two different types of patterns such as “loop
and a whorl,” or any combination of two different loops and whorl type
patterns. However, it cannot be a combination of a plain arch with any
other patterns. Unlike the other types of patterns; an accidental whorl can
have two or more deltas (Yamauchi, 2009).

The Accidental Whorl has the following requisites, such as:

1. Combination of two different types of patterns such as a loop and

a whorl; a loop and a tented arch; a whorl and a tented arch, except
the plain arch.

2. There must be two or more cores and deltas.