CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
DEFINITION OF FORENSIC CHEMISTRY: Forensic chemistry is defined as that
branch of chemistry that deals with the application of chemical principles in the solution
of problems that arise in connection with the administration of justice. It is chemistry
applied in the elucidation of legal problem.
SCOPE OF FORENSIC CHEMISTRY:
Forensic chemistry embraces a large and diversified field. It includes not only the
chemical side of criminal investigation with which it is generally associated with the
public mind but also the analysis of any material the quality of which may give rise to
legal proceedings. Forensic chemistry is not limited to purely chemical questions
involved in legal proceedings. Invaded other branches of forensic sciences notably legal
medicine, ballistics, questioned documents, dactyloscopy and photography.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC CRIME LABORATORY IN THE PHILIPPINES:
The development of scientific crime detection is comparatively recent although this
aspect of police work has long been exploited in fiction, notably by Conan Doyle's
masterly creation, Sherlock Holmes. Scientific crime detection as such may well be
described as owing its birth to the St. Valentine's Day massacre which occurred in
Chicago on February 14, 1929. A group of public minded individual was responsible for
the establishment of a scientific crime laboratory in that city which today has taken in
the historical annals of police science.
In the Philippines the first public recognition of the value of science in the proper
administration of justice was made when the position of "Medicos Titulares" was created
in the Philippines by virtue of the Royal Decree No. 188 of Spain dated March 31, 1876.
For every province a Forensic physician was assigned to perform public sanitary duties
and at the same time medico-legal aids to the administration of justice. On December
15, 1884, Governor General Joaquin Javellar created a committee to study the mineral
waters of Luzon and appointed Anacleto del Rosario as chemist. Realizing the
importance of this work, the government established in September 13, 1887 the
"Laboratorio Municipal de Manila" under the under the inspection of the "Direccion
General de Administracion Civil" and the control of the *Gobierno de Provincias". The
functions of the laboratory were to make analysis, not anty of food, water and others
from the standpoint of public health and legal medicine, but also of specimens for
clinical purposes. Anacleto del Rosario was appointed director after a competitive
examination in June 17, 1888. At present. there are four distinct laboratories in the
Philippines performing forensic chemical analyses, namely, the Forensic Chemistry
Division of the NBI, the Ct. laboratory of the Manila Police Department, the C.I.D.
laboratory of the Philippine Constabulary and the Camp Crame Crime Laboratory of the
Philippine National Police,
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: The investigator is a fact-finder, but he must know the laws
concerning the nature of his activities. He should procure evidence in such a way that
the findings can be admitted in court and remain impregnable to any attack be the
opposing counsel. The average investigator is in constant contact with various
investigative and enforcement agencies and he should learn to speak their language.
Scientific evidence, therefore, may be defined as the means sanctioned by law, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact wherein
scientific knowledge is necessary. Evidence bases on or conforming to the principles
and techniques of science.
Evidence is a proof of allegation. It is a means sanctioned by law, of ascertaining in
judicial proceedings the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128. Rules of
Court). Physical evidence is an article and material which is found in connection with an
investigation and which aid in establishing the identity of the perpetrator or the
circumstances under which the crime was committed or which in general assist in the
prosecution of the criminal. It encompasses any and all objects that can establish that a
crime has been committed or can provide a link between a crime and its victim or a
crime and its perpetrator.
Evidence may be (a) direct; (b) indirect, which includes circumstantial evidence and (c)
hearsay.
A. Direct evidence is simply that which the senses perceive. Any fact which a witness
testifies based on what he saw, heard, smelled, touched or tasted, is direct evidence.
B. Circumstantial evidence is, a kind of evidence which seeks to establish a
conclusion by inferences from proved facts. An evidence which establishes a fact or
circumstance from which the court may infer another fact at issue.
Circumstantial, evidence is sufficient to produce conviction if there is more than one
circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
C. Hearsay evidence is a statement made by a witness on the authority of another and
not from his own personal knowledge or observation. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible
except with certain well-defined exceptions. Some of the common exceptions to the
rules of exclusion generally applicable to hearsay evidence are declaration against
interest, dying declarations, res gestae, reputation, public records and statements made
at a prior time.
FORMS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
A. Real of Autoptic evidence - It is that evidence which is addressed to the senses of
the court. It is not limited to that which can be known by the sense of vision but extends
to those which are perceived by the senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch.
B. Testimonial evidence An expert may be placed on the witness stand and answer all
questions to be propounded by both parties in the case. It is a solemn declaration made
orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer.
C. Experimental evidence An expert witness may be required to perform certain
experiments to prove a certain matter of fact. The court, however, in its own discretion
may or may not allow this kind of evidence
D. Documentary evidence Any written evidence presented by an expert in court which
is relevant to the subject matter in dispute and not excluded by the Rules of Court.
Formal written report, expert opinion, certificates and dispositions are included in this
group.
WITNESS One who testifies in court and has personal knowledge or experience of
something. A person, other than the suspect who is requested to give information
concerning an incident or person. He may be a victim, a complainant, an accuser, a
source of information and an observer of an occurrence. A Witness in court may be an
ordinary or expert witness.
An ordinary witness is one who states facts and may not express his opinions or
conclusion. He may testify to impressions of common experience such as the speed of
a vehicle, whether a voice was that of a man, woman or child. Beyond this is closely
limited.
As ordinary witness, the Rules of Court requires that the person must have the following
qualifications:
1. He must have the organ and power to perceive.
2. The perception gathered by his organ can be imparted to others.
3. He does not fall in any of the exception provided for by the law, Sec. 26, Rules
123, Rules of Court.
An expert witness is one who possesses a special skill be it in art, trade or science or
one who has special knowledge in matters not generally known to men of ordinary
education and experience. He is a person skilled in some art, trade or science to the
extent that he possesses information not within the common knowledge of man.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORDINARY AND EXPERT WITNESS:
1. An ordinary witness can only state what his senses have perceived while an
Expert witness may state what he has perceived and also give his opinions,
deductions or conclusions to his perceptions.
2. An ordinary witness may not be skilled on the line he is testifying while an expert
witness must be skilled in the art, science or trade he is testifying.
3. An ordinary witness cannot testify on things or facts he has not perceived except
those provided for by law while an expert witness may testify on things which he
has not seen by giving his opinions, deductions or conclusions on the statement
of facts.
PROBATIVE VALUE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
The probative value of expert testimony refers to how useful and relevant an expert’s
opinion is in helping the court understand the facts of a case.
In simple terms:
It's about how much the expert's knowledge helps prove something important in the
trial.
Key Points:
 Expert testimony comes from someone with special knowledge, skills, or training
(like a forensic chemist, doctor, or crime lab technician).
 The court uses it to clarify technical or scientific matters that regular people (like
the judge or jury) may not understand.
 It must be reliable, based on facts, and connected to the case to have high
probative value.
 If the expert opinion is confusing, irrelevant, or based on guesses, it has low
probative value and might even be ignored.
Example:
If a forensic toxicologist testifies that a victim had poison in their blood, and the findings
match the accused’s fingerprints on the poison bottle, then the expert's testimony
strongly supports the case — it has high probative value.
In weighing the testimony of an expert, all the circumstances of the case must be taken
into consideration, among them (a) the degree of learning of the witness; (b) the basis
and logic of the conclusion; and (c) the other proof of case.
PRACTICE OF FORENSIC CHEMISTRY: The work of a forensic chemist is divided into
four stages, namely:
1. Collection or reception of the specimen to be examined - It is most important that
whenever possible the chemist should personally collect all the specimens necessary
for the examination. Unless this is done, something essential to the elucidation of the
problem may be omitted and in some cases questions regarding the collection and
transit of the specimen are raised during the trial. In the collection of specimen the
following guiding principles must be observed in the practice of forensic chemistry:
a. SUFFICIENCY OF SAMPLES - Police are usually inclined to be niggardly in taking
samples probably because they have an unqualified belief in the magic of such
analytical instrument as the microscope and spectrograph. This mistake should be
avoided.
b. STANDARD FOR COMPARISON - If the evidence in question is found in the
presence of foreign substance, a sample of the foreign substance must be submitted for
analysis.
C. MAINTENANCE OF INDIVIDUALITY Each evidence must be collected and
preserved as a separate sample. There must be no mixing or intermingling of unknown
with known.
d. LABELLING AND SEALING - Evidence will have no value in court inspite of the
good report of the expert if the specimen cannot be identified and possibility of
tampering excluded.
2. The actual examination of the specimen The first step in the examination of an
article is to scrutinize it carefully and write down in the laboratory notebook a complete
description of its external appearance including the manner in which it is secured and
particulars of the sealing.
3. Communication of the results of the examination The results of the examination
conducted will be communicated to the requesting party in the form of a written report
which must include an enumeration of the articles received for examination with detailed
description of the packing, sealing and labeling, date of receipt and from whom
received, the purpose of the examination, the findings and conclusion. The findings
should include a brief but sufficient record of all significant facts noted during the
examination.
4. Court Appearance The written report of the chemist is usually supplemented at a
later date by oral evidence if the case is brought to court or fiscal's office. In court
appearance the witness must be composed and as much as possible avoid being
irritated by upbraiding of the opposite counsel. As Brouarded said: "If the law has made
you a witness, remain a man of Science. You have no victim to avenge, no guilty or
innocent person to ruin or save. You must bear witness within the limits of Science.
Six Golden Rules in the Practice of Forensic Chemistry:
1. Go slowly: good work cannot be hurried, therefore take all the time necessary to
make the case complete, no matter how urgent it may appear or how pressing others
may be of the result; it is generally possible to adjourn a case if the work cannot be
finished in time.
2. Be thorough: make a careful and minute examination of everything and donot be
satisfied with a qualitative analysis if a quantitative one be possible; it always pays to do
too much rather than too little and it is difficult to foresee what will or will not be requires
in Court.
3. Take notes: keep a full, neat and clear record or everything seen and done.
4. Consult others: many cases will lead the expert into paths with which he is not
familiar, and when this happens he should consult others who are most likely to know.
5. Use imagination: this is somewhat hazardous advice, since an expert with a vivid
and uncontrolled imagination is a most dangerous person, a disciplined imagination.
however, which enables inferences and deductions to be made from slender and
incomplete premise is often very useful.
6. Avoid complicated theories: the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
In the investigation of crimes, whether crime against person or property, or even crimes
against the state, physical evidence is one of the most important factors that should be
given special attention. The prosecuting fiscal may win or lose a case on the physical
evidence presented to him by the investigator. It is probably the most damaging
evidence which can break down the hardened criminal. Unlike testimonial evidence,
physical evidence will not tell a lie.
However, these evidences that are very valuable become lost as fas as prosecutive
value is concerned. Some of the primary reasons that may contribute to this disaster
are:
1. Improper packing of the specimen.
2. Failure to identify the specimen.
3. Improper precautions used in transmitting the specimen.
4. Improper preservation.
5. Lack of precaution to prevent tampering of the specimen.
In most instances the investigator mishandles the specimen without intention. He
commits mistakes neither due to sheer negligence nor thoughtfulness but rather
Due to ignorance of the proper method of handling physical evidence. Sometimes these
errors occur because the investigator is so much occupied with he investigation and he
has no time to take proper care of the specimen. He thus turns over the specimen to a
clerk who takes charge of the packing and shipping of them. It is quite heartbreaking if
after spending laborious hours gathering these physical evidence, they become lost
because of improper packing.