QUESTIONED DOCUMENT EXAMINATION RESULT NO.

The undersigned at the end of this report

TEODORO JON VELEZ

Questioned Document Examiner

CREDENTIALS

 Graduate of Master’s Degree in Education and Professional Criminologist

 Member of the Professional Criminologist Association in Criminology Education
 Certificate in Crime Laboratory training particularly in the Questioned Document
Division, specializing in signatures, handwritings, alterations and counterfeiting
 Certificate in Investigative Photography where the photographing of questioned
document is one of its major subjects
 Certificate in Tenprint fingerprint examination and Latent to Print Examination in
Tokyo University, Japan
 Certificate in Criminalistics conducted by the Crime Laboratory
 Certificate in Forensice Science course at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
Washington, D.C., Maryland, U.S.A.
 Participant in the seminar and observation course at the National Police Research
Institute for Police Sciences and the Metropolitan Police Department by the Japan
International Cooperative Agency Jaydah
 Participant in the Seminar conducted by VISA and Mastercard International held
here in the Philippines
 Part-time professor of Questioned Documents in the Philippine College of
Criminology and Republican Colleges
 Participant in the 5th Forensic Examination in Brussels, Belgium
 Participant in the International Conference of Forensice Examiners in Berlin,
Germany.
 Resource speaker of TV on Truth Verified Incorporated System on Questioned
Documents

CONTENTS
A. Method used in the Study
B. Description of the Documents Submitted for Examination
C. Comparative Examination of the Handwritings in the Documents Submitted
D. Findings and Conclusion
E. Qualifying Statement
 (A)
METHOD USED IN THE STUDY

All of the writing in this case was examined with the unaided eye and under microscope
at magnifying lenses from 7X through 25X and stereoscopic microscopic and with the
help of photographic enlargements. Glass alignment plates were used to examine the
baseline, top line and spacing of the writing. Thereafter, the ACE Method (Analyze,
Compare and Evaluate) is used to examine the questioned document hand-in-hand with
the known documents submitted as standards for comparison.

The order of the following procedure used in this handwriting examination is as follows:

1. Handwriting examination and analysis of the disputed writing in order to define

its characteristics
2. Handwriting examination and analysis of the samples of the known written
handwriting in order to define the characteristics
3. Comparison of the above findings in order to determine the similarities and
differences.

(B)
DESCRIPTION OF THE
DOCUMENTS FOR EXAMINATION

A. THE QUESTIONED DOCUMENT – Petition to take the 2015 Bar Examinations

The questioned document is a three-page certified true copy of the Petition to take the
2015 Bar Examination. Although we know the exact size of the document which is 8.5
inches x 11 inches, we do not know the thickness, color and border line of the paper sheets
since we do not have the original document to examine.

The first page of the questioned document, for the purpose of this study will be named
as Q1, the second page as Q2, and third page as Q3. The Specific specimens taken into
consideration are:

Q1.a Name entry in the Questioned Document

Q1.b Handwritten Address entry in Questioned Document
Q2.a Signature under the printed name of Mark Go in Questioned Document

B. MARK GO’S KNOWN DOCUMENTS

The following materials are handwritten entries of Mark Go in different documents:

K1 Mark Go’s Student Directory in USC College of Law

K1.a Name Entry handwritten by Mark Go
K1.b Address Entry handwritten by Mark Go
K2 Mock Bar Examination Blue Book
 K2.a Name Entry handwritten by Mark Go
S1 Standard signature of Mark Go

C. JOHN GO’S KNOWN DOCUMENTS

The following specimens are handwritten entries of John Go in the

K3 John Go’s Income Tax Return (ITR) in the year 2015

K3.a Name entry in ITR handwritten by John Go
K3.b Address Entry handwritten by Mark Go

(C)
COMPARATIVE EXAMINATIONOF THE
HANDWRITINGS IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

1. Both known documents (of MARK GO) and questioned writings use entirely upper
case letters.

Image of Q1.a: Name Entry in the Questioned Document

Image of K1.a: Name Entry in the Known Document of MARK GO

The baseline of Q1.a is artificially straight and appears to have been formed by
holding a straightedge on the paper as guide. The letter spacing in the Q1.a is
different from the spacing in K1.a where it is more condensed with each other while
the words are spread apart.

2. Comparing both, the “GO” in the K1.a has imperfect curve as compared to the “GO”
in the Q1.a. Additionally, the round strokes of the letter “R” in the K1.a is much
more prominent and rounder compared to the “R” in the Q1.a which is sharper and
smaller in stroke. The “Z” in the Q1.a has no middle-stroke as compared to the
known document where the “Z” has a presence of a horizontal line in the middle of
the diagonal stroke of the K1.a’s letter Z.
 Transposing Q1.a (orange tone) and K1.a (green tone)

3. Scientific comparative examination and analysis of the questioned handwriting

“Q1.a, Q1.b“ and the submitted standard handwriting in the known document
marked “K1.a, K1.b” reveal significant divergences in the manner of execution, line
quality and stroke structure.

4. As to the signature in the Questioned Document marked as “Q2.a” compared to the

Standard Signature of MARK GO marked “S1”:

Image of Q2.a: Submitted signature specimen in the Questioned Document

Image of S1: MAKOY GO’s Standard Signature in the submitted Mock Bar
Examination Marked as “K2”

Transposing Q2.a (orange tone) and S1 (green tone)

Not only are both significantly different at first glance, but the structural pattern,
stroke and interplay of the delicate and heavy strokes are different. In “Q2.a” the
strokes seem consistently light which means that the one making it is doubting.
While the strokes of “S.1” seems heavier and continues. How the stroke in “Q2.a”
ended seems unsure and rehearsed since the end is blunt. The curvature also seems
bigger than the standard signature of Mark Go denominated as “S1.”
5. Scientific comparative examination and analysis of the questioned signature
marked ‘Q2.a” and the submitted standard signature of MAKOY GO marked “S.1”
reveal significant divergences in the manner of execution, line quality and stroke
structure.

6. Both known documents (of JOHN GO) and questioned writings use entirely upper
case letters.

Image of Q1.a: Name Entry in the Questioned Document

Image of K3.a: Name Entry in the Income Tax Return of JOHN GO

Transposing Q1.a (orange tone) and K3.a (green tone)

At first look, it is apparent that both documents hold similarities in the specimen
subject to this examination. In fact, the stroke and the curves of the letters are very
similar. The curvature of the “GO” in Q1.a is very similar in the “GO” in K3.a. There
is also a stark similarity in both the middle name “PEREZ” in both the documents.
Apart from the wider spacing in K3.a, the “PEREZ” in both Q1.a and K3.a are very
similar especially the slant of the words when it was written. As a matter of fact,
both writings show freedom, spontaneity and flair.

7. Comparative examination of the specimens submitted, under magnifying lenses

and stereoscopic microscope and with the help of photographic enlargements,
reveals that there exist significant fundamental similarities in handwriting
characteristics between the questioned and standard handwriting of JOHN GO,
such as in:
a. Structural patterns of letters
b. Proportion characteristics
c. Continuity of strokes
d. Placement of delicate and heavy strokes
e. Interplay of delicate and heavy strokes
f. Natural variations
g. Line quality
 (D)
CONCLUSION

1. The questioned handwriting marked “Q1.a, Q1.b” appearing in the Questioned

document and the submitted standard handwriting of MARK GO marked “K1.a,
K1.b,K2.a” WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.
2. The questioned signature marked “Q2.a” appearing in Q2 of the Questioned
document and the submitted standard signature of MARK GO marked “S1” WERE
NOT MADE BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.
3. The questioned handwriting marked “Q1.a, Q1.b” appearing the Questioned
document and the submitted handwriting of JOHN GO marked “K3.a, K3.b”
WERE WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON.

(E)
QUALIFYING STATEMENT

This opinion is based solely on the document listed as having been examined. This
opinion is subject to amendment if additional examinations are performed using
additional exemplars which may exhibit evidence not observable in the documents upon
which this opinion was based.

This handwriting examination has

been carried out by the Questioned
Document Examiner

TEODORO JON VELEZ

Handwriting Analyst