Fingerprints are considred to be a vital part of evidence as no crime

can be committed without using hands which is a prime body part of

the person. Each and every person has different fingerprints and this
uniqueness of fingerprints helps to identify the criminal at a crime
scene.

Fingerprints are the essential tool that is used to determine or to

reveal an individual’s identity. Fingerprints are considred to be a vital
part of evidence as no crime can be committed without using hands
which is a prime body part of the person.

Each and every person has different fingerprints and this uniqueness
of fingerprints helps to identify the criminal at a crime scene. Also, it
helps the investigators to link one crime scene to another involving
the same person and to track a criminal’s record of existing arrests
and convictions. It provides various evidence in countless cases of
crime. Every criminal is used to concealing the evidence which is
within their reach. But the fingerprints cannot be removed easily and
because of that, it plays a vital role in solving a crime.
Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December
1877 – 4 May 1966)[1] was a French criminologist,
the pioneer in forensic science who became known as
the "Sherlock Holmes of France". He formulated the
basic principle of forensic science: "Every contact by
a criminal leaves behind a trace". This became known
as Locard's exchange principle.
On May 1, 1903, an African-American man named Will West entered the United States
Penitentiary at Leavenworth. Like any other new prisoner, West was subjected to the
standard admission procedure: prison clerks took photographs, a physical description,
and eleven anthropometric measurements.

Using West’s measurements and description, identification clerks matched him to the
record of William West, who had a previous conviction for murder. Not surprisingly, in
the clerks’ view, West denied that he was this man.

The discovery of Will West’s past conviction must have seemed routine to the
Leavenworth clerks: once again, the world-famous Bertillon system of identification had
prevented a criminal from escaping his past. Once again, science had exposed a
criminal’s lies and evasions.

This incident suddenly deviated from the usual, however, when the clerks discovered to
their amazement that this same William West was already incarcerated at Leavenworth!

According to authors Harris Hawthorne Wilder and Bert Wentworth (1918): “From the
Bertillon measurements thus obtained, [the record keeper] went to the file, and returned
with the card the measurements called for, properly filled out…and bearing the name,
“William West.” This card was shown to the prisoner, who grinned in amazement, and
said,

“That’s my picture, but I don’t know where you got it, for I know I have never been here
before.” The record clerk turned the card over, and read the particulars there given,
including the statements that this man was already a prisoner at the same institution,
having been committed to a life sentence on September 9, 1901, for the crime of
murder.
The second West was summoned, and he looked startlingly like the first one.
Subsequently, the fingerprints of Will West and William West were compared. The
patterns bore no resemblance.

The fallibility of three systems of personal identification (photographs, Bertillon

measurements, and names) was demonstrated by this one case. The value of
fingerprints as means of identification was established.

The warden, R. W. McClaughry, according to the legend, declared, “This is the death of
Bertillonage!” and discontinued anthropometry as Leavenworth “the very next day.”

After the Will West-William West case, most police departments began using
photographs, Bertillon measurements, and fingerprints on their mugshot files.
Eventually, the Bertillon system was discarded.

The William and Will West story is somewhat sensationalized and omits prison record
information, uncovered by later researchers, indicating that William and Will West both
corresponded with the same family members and thus were probably related.

Prison records also cite that Leavenworth inmate George Bean reported that he knew
William and Will West in their home territory before prison and that they were twin
brothers.

Their exact relationship is still unknown. What is factual is that the two West men were
not unusual; many people have similar anthropometric measurements.

It is generally accepted that identical twins will have the same or almost the same
anthropometric measurements, yet easily differentiated fingerprints. The superiority of
fingerprints over anthropometry is thus clear.
Regardless of how crucial the incident was to the adoption of fingerprinting, the men’s
prison records—including their almost identical mug shots, matching Bertillon
measurements, and mismatched fingerprints—survive to authenticate an amazing
coincidence.

Will West, the newer of the two Leavenworth inmates, served his manslaughter
sentence and left no trail after his release, thus disappearing from history.

William West, the lifer, spent time in solitary confinement for fighting and creating
disturbances during his early years behind bars. He was released on parole in 1919, but
not before making a dash for freedom.
People v. Jennings became the first official case to integrate
fingerprints as plausible evidence in America after prints found at the
crime scene correctly identified Thomas Jennings as the murderer of
Clarence Hiller. However, the strict sentencing of Jennings reveals
the continued racial bias despite the increased accuracy from
fingerprinting.

"On the night of September 19, 1910, Clarence B.

Hiller...encountered an intruder [in his home] and a struggle ensued.
Both fell to the foot of the stairway and Mr. Hiller was shot twice. He
died moments later. Mrs. Hiller screamed and the intruder fled...
[Luckily,] the [outside veranda] had recently been painted and it was
here that the imprint of four fingers of someone's left hand was found
imbedded in the fresh paint...At about 2:38 a.m. Thomas Jennings
was spotted by police and was questioned as to what he was doing
out so late...They searched him and discovered he was carrying a
loaded revolver...Later, the police found out that Jennings had just
been released on parole in August 1910 after serving a sentence for
burglary. His fingerprint card was on file and was compared to the
prints lifted at the Hiller household. Four fingerprint experts at
Jennings' trial declared the fingerprints from the crime scene were a
conclusive match to Jennings own prints. Based on this evidence,
Jennings was convicted of murder on February 1, 1911. It was shortly
after this event that fingerprint science spread to all the major
American cities across the nation."
-Mark A. Acree, People v. Jennings: A Significant Case In American
Fingerprint History (1998)

"We are disposed to hold from the evidence of the four witnesses
who testified, and from the writings we have referred to on this
subject, that there is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint
identification, and that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial
cognizance of it … "
-People vs. Jennings, 252 III. 534, 96 N.E. 1077 (1911)
G.R. No. L-38434 December 23, 1933
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARCIANO MEDINA y DIOKNO (alias MARIANO MEDINA, alias ALEJANDRO
DOLA), defendant-appellant.
Agripino Ruiz made an impression as the first expert witness whose expert opinion
receives merit in Philippine judicial history. This could be considered a landmark case
where fingerprint evidence serves as basis in the conviction of Marciano Medina. The
merit of the case was shown in the succeeding reports from the original transcript of the
court:
A photograph showing an enlargement of the finger print found on the box was marked
at the trial Exhibit A. Further enlargements of it are shown in Exhibits A-1 and A-2.
Exhibit B is an enlargement of a photograph of the impression of the middle finger of
defendant's right hand, taken while he was a prisoner in Bilibid.
When asked which were the ten points of agreement between the two impressions in
question, the finger print expert replied that there were three classes of characteristics,
namely: the endings of the ridges, the bifurcation of the ridges, and the core. The ten
points of identity, which were marked on the photographs, are as follows:
1. Upward end of a ridge,
2. Core,
3. Both ends of a short ridge,
4. Both ends of a short ridge,
5. Downward end of a ridge,
6. Upward end of a ridge,
7. Bifurcation,
8. Upward end of a ridge,
9. Upward end of a ridge,
10. Bifurcation.

G.R. No. L-38434 December 23, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MARCIANO MEDINA y DIOKNO ( alias MARIANO
MEDINA, alias ALEJANDRO DOLA), Defendant-Appellant.

Juan R. Chuidian for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

VICKERS, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of Judge Anacleto Diaz in the Court
of First Instance of Manila, finding the defendant guilty of robbery in
an inhabited house and of being a habitual delinquent, and sentencing
him to suffer a principal penalty of ten years and one day of prision
mayor and additional penalty of ten years of prision mayor because of
being four times a recidivist, to indemnify James C. Rockwell in the
sum of P320, and to pay the
costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant's attorney makes the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in finding and concluding that the

finger prints which were found impressed on the small
silver box of the complainant James C. Rockwell were
identical to the fingerprints of the
accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

2. The trial court erred in findings and concluding that it

was the accused-appellant who took away the said small
silver box from the room of Mrs. Rockwell and the
 valuables worth P320 belonging to James C.
Rockwell.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

3. The trial court erred in finding and concluding that the

accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery as
defined in article 299, No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code for
which the trial court sentenced the accused to
imprisonment of ten years and one day plus an additional
imprisonment of ten years of prision mayor as recidivist
and to indemnify the said James C. Rockwell in the amount
of P320 and to pay the cost of the action.

The defendant was tried on a plea of not guilty to the following

information:

The undersigned accuses Marciano Medina y

Diokno alias Mariano Medina alias Alejandro Dola of the
crime of robbery in an inhabited house, committed as
follows:chanrobles virtual law library

That on or about the 12th day of February, 1932, during

the nighttime which was purposely sought, in the
municipality of Pasay, Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands,
within two and one-half miles from the limits of the City of
Manila, Philippine Islands and within the jurisdiction of this
court, the said Marciano Medina y Diokno alias Mariano
Medina alias Alejandro Dola did then and there willfully ,
unlawfully, and feloniously, and with intent of gain, break
into and enter through the window by tearing the wire
screen thereof, an opening not intended for entrance or
egress, of house No. 1155 F.B. Harrison Street, in said
municipality of Pasay, the dwelling house of James C.
Rockwell, and, once inside said premises, take steal, and
carry away without the consent of the owner thereof the
following personal property, to wit:

One (1) watch "Howard", gold, with an outside

P200.00
monogram containing the initials "JCR" valued at
One(1) "Green" wrist watch with a leather strap,
120.00
valued at
Total
320.00

belongings to James C. Rockwell, to the damage and

prejudice of the said owner thereof in the afore-mentioned
sum of P320, Philippine
currency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

That, at that time of the commission of this offense, the

said accused Marciano Medina y Diokno alias Mariano
Medina alias Alejandro Dola has already been convicted
three (3) times of the crime of theft by virtue of final
 judgments rendered by competent courts and is, therefore,
a habitual delinquent, his last date of conviction being on
October 23, 1924 and his date of release being on October
26, 1927.

At the trial the defendant admitted that Mr. Rockwell's house was
robbed on the night of February 12, 1932, as alleged in the
information, but denied that he was the author of the crime; admitted
that a silver box, which had been taken from the room of Mrs.
Rockwell on the night of the robbery, was found in the garden the next
morning, and that when it was examined in the Intelligence Division of
the Constabulary it showed a finger print on the top. The defendant
further admitted the competency of the witness, Agripino Ruiz, as a
finger print expert; and the lastly the defendant admitted that he had
been convicted three times of theft, his last conviction being on
October 23, 1924 and his release on October 26,
1927.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It appears from the evidence that while Agripino Ruiz, a Constabulary

agent and finger print expert, was investigating the robbery in
question he went to see the accused, who was under arrest for
breaking into the house of Capt. Davidson in Parañaque. Ruiz took the
finger prints of the accused, and found when he compared them with
his records that the accused had served three terms in Bilibid prison
theft. Ruiz then compared a photograph of the impression of the
middle finger of defendant's right hand with a photograph of the finger
print on the top of the silver box stolen from the bedroom of Mrs.
Rockwell, and found that they coincided in ten points. He concluded
that the two impressions were from the same person, and that the
finger print on the box was that of the
defendant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The defense of the accused was an alibi. He asserted that on the night
of the robbery in question he was at home with a sore foot. This
contention of the defendant rests on his uncorroborated
testimony.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is now well settled that evidence as to the correspondence of finger

prints is admissible for the purpose of proving identity (Moon vs.
State, Arizona Supreme Court, June 7, 1921, 198 Pac., 288; 16 A.L.R.,
362, and the authorities there cited). The history of the finger print
system of identification is stated in one of the leading cases, People vs.
Sallow (165 N.Y. Supp., 915, 918), as follows:

Scientific authority declares that finger prints are reliable

as a means of identification. (10 Ency. Brit. [11th ed.],
376.) The first recorded finger prints were used as a
manual seal, to give a personal mark of authenticity to
documents. Such prints are found in the Assyrian clay
tablets in the British Museum. Finger prints were first used
to record the identity of individuals officially by Sir William
Herschel, in Bengal, to check forgeries by natives in India
in 1858. (C. Ainsworth Mitchell, in "Science and the
Criminal" 1911, p. 51.) Finger print records have been
 constantly used as a basis of information for the courts
since Sir Francis Galton proved that the papillay ridges
which cover the inner surface of the hands and the soles of
the feet form patterns, the main details of which remain
the same from the sixth month of the embryonic period
until decomposition sets in after death, and Sir Edward
Henry, the head of the Metropolitan Police Force of
London, formulated a practical system of classification,
subsequently simplified by an Argentine named Vucetich.
The system has been in general use in the criminal courts
in England since 1891. It is claimed that by means of
finger prints the metropolitan police force of London during
the 13 years from 1901 to 1914 have made over 103,000
identifications, and the Magistrates' Court of New York City
during the 4 years from 1911 to 1915 have made 31,000
identifications, without error. (Report of Alfred H. Hart,
Supervisor, Fingerprint Bureau, Ann. Rep., N.Y. City
Magistrates' Courts, 1915.) Their value has been
recognized by banks and other corporations, passport
bureaus of foreign governments, and civil service
commissions as a certain protection against
impersonation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

It was held in 1909 by the Lord Chief Justice of England

that the court may accept the evidence of finger prints,
though it be the sole ground of identification. (Castleton's
Case, 3 Crim. App. C., 74.)

In the case at bar the principal contentions of appellant's attorney are

that the identification was incomplete and unreliable because the
imprint of only one finger was found on the box, and that was blurred,
and could not served as a basis of comparison. There is a little merit in
this argument. Although a portion of the impression on the box was
somewhat blurred, it did not seriously interfere with the comparison of
the two finger prints. It would of course have been more satisfactory
for the purpose of comparison if there had been an impression of all
the fingers of the thief on the box, but we are not justified in rejecting
the evidence of record merely because it might be more
complete.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Referring to the care necessary in photographing accidental imprints,

Wentworth and Wilder in their work, "Personal Identification" (1932),
say that these imprints at best will be poor; that one will never find an
accidental imprint that is absolutely perfect; that it is seldom, indeed,
that a very good one is found
(p.260).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only important question is whether or not the evidence identifies

the accused beyond a reasonable doubt as the person whose finger
print appears on the box, because the box was taken from the
bedroom of Mrs. Rockwell on the night of the robbery, and the finger
print thereon, if that of the accused, could have been made only on
the occasion when the robbery was
committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It might be here stated that the finger prints of the persons living in
Mr. Rockwell's house were taken, but that they did not correspond to
the impression in question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

A photograph showing an enlargement of the finger print found on the

box was marked at the trial Exhibit A. Further enlargements of it are
shown in Exhibits A-1 and
A-2. Exhibit B is an enlargement of a photograph of the impression of
the middle finger of defendant's right hand, taken while he was a
prisoner in Bilibid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

When asked which were the ten points of agreement between the two
impressions in question, the finger print expert replied that there were
three classes of characteristics, namely: the endings of the ridges, the
bifurcation of the ridges, and the core. The ten points of identity,
which were marked on the photographs, are as follows:

1. Upward end of a ridge,

2. Core,
3. Both ends of a short ridge,
4. Both ends of a short ridge,
5. Downward end of a ridge,
6. Upward end of a ridge,
7. Bifurcation,
8. Upward end of a ridge,
9. Upward end of a ridge,
10. Bifurcation.

The witness stated that in his opinion eight characteristics are

sufficient to identify a person. According to Frederick Kuhn of the
Bureau of Criminal Identification, Police Department of the City of New
York, in the "Finger Print Instructor", p.12, "characteristics" are the
peculiarities of the ridges, such as abrupt endings, bifurcations, the
formation of what is termed an island, short ridge lines, ridge dots,
some peculiarity as to the information of the delta or core; in fact any
peculiarity out of the ordinary may be considered a characteristic
point, and serve as a positive means of
identification.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Galton details, the ends, forks, islands and so on, are so
numerous and so variable that even in a small area a duplication is
impossible; so far as we know all the infinite possibilities in the
formation of the ridges are widely open in each individual case, so that
it is quite safe to say that no two people in the world can have, even
over a small area, the same set of details, similarly related to the
individual units; the only possible confusion might result from an area
so small and so featureless as to show nothing but complete and
parallel ridges, and without details, and could never occur in
connection with the formation of a pattern, where the ridges are called
upon to make eccentric turns, and to fill up spaces of irregular shape
(Wentworth & Wilder, p. 126).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

Explaining the ten points of identity, the expert witness in the case at
bar testified that he found four endings of ascending ridges in Exhibit B
that corresponded exactly to those of Exhibit A; that as to the number
and location with respect to the core, which he marked 2 in both
photographs, he found that they agreed; that he found in Exhibit B
two bifurcations or forks that corresponded exactly to those in Exhibit
A as to number and location; that he found in Exhibit B a short ridge,
the two ends of which he marked 3 and 4, that was identical with the
corresponding short ridge in Exhibit A, which he also marked 3 and
4.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The attorney for the appellant calls attention to the fact that there was
the impression of another finger on the that was not identified. That is
true, but as it was the impression of only a small part of the ball of a
finger and was blurred, the expert did not make any particular study of
it. It may have been made by the person who picked up the box in the
garden. In any event it does not alter the fact that a finger print
identical with that of the defendant in ten homologous points of
comparison was found on the
box.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Although there is some differences of opinion among the authorities as

to what constitutes proof of identity, the older writers regarding twelve
points as necessary to prove certain identity; and more than that for
absolute identification, the more recent writers think that six or eight
homologous points of comparison leave no room for reasonable doubt.
"In the end it is the microscopic identity of the ridge characteristics
(Galton's minutiae) that settles the question." (Personal Identification,
p. 263.)chanrobles virtual law library

In the present case the qualifications of the expert witness were

admitted. He stated under oath that in his opinion the finger print in
question is that of the defendant, and gave the reasons for his
conclusion, which seem to us to be reasonable and to be sustained by
the best authorities available. No reason has been adduced that would
justify us in rejecting his findings and conclusion. We wish to add,
however, that the prosecuting attorney ought to have addressed
further questions to the expert witness to show how he arrived at his
findings, that is, his method of examination and comparison, his
measurements, and other pertinent facts. Another competent and
experienced specialist might well have been called to verify the
findings of the Constabulary
expert.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only evidence for the defendant was his uncorroborated testimony
that on the night in question he was at home in San Luis, Batangas. In
weighing the testimony of the defendant it is proper to take into
account the fact that he has already been convicted three times of
theft.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Robbery in an inhabited house is punished by prision mayor in its
medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the
value of the property taken exceeds P250, if the malefactor entered
the house by breaking a window, as in the present case, but when the
offender does not carry arms, as in this case, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be imposed (article 299 of the Revised Penal Code). The
penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional in its medium
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or from two years, four
months, and one day of prision correccional to eight years of prision
mayor. In the present case in fixing the principal penalty, we must
take into account the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and
nocturnity. The principal penalty imposed on the accused is therefore
reduced to six years and a one day of prision
mayor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The additional penalty of ten years imposed by the lower court is the
maximum of the maximum for a fourth conviction. We think that under
the circumstances of this case the minimum authorized by law would
be sufficient, and the additional penalty of the appellant is accordingly
reduced to six years and one
day.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Modified as hereinabove stated, the decision appealed from is

affirmed, with the costs against the
appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Avanceña, C.J., Street., Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.

METHODS OF FINGERPRINTING

Dusting
Powders are the most basic and easiest forms of lifting latent prints.
Black powders are used on a large range of surfaces. Fluorescent
powder are used on dark surfaces. Magnetic powder cannot be used
on metal surfaces.

Superglue Fuming

Similar to iodine fuming. Items go into chamber and superglue is

melted. Fumes make prints visible. Works best on plastics.
Iodine Fuming
Typically used on paper surfaces. Iodine fumes stick to the outlines of
the print to make it visible.

Ninhydrin

Works best on paper. Spray paper down with ninhydrin and place the
piece of paper over steam. After some elapsed time, the fingerprints
will become visible.

Silver Nitrate
Similar to ninhydrin in that both are typically for paper. After
spraying the paper down with silver nitrate, exposte it to
sunlight and the fingerprints will show up.

Crystal Violet

Similar to nihydrin and silver nitrate. Ctrystal violet is primarily for tape
. Spray tape with crystal violet and wash excess off. Fingerprints will
then become visible.