COMPARISON OF DEVELOPED LATENT FINGERPRINT USING

CHICKEN DOWN FEATHER AND CAMEL HAIR FINGERPRINT

BRUSH

An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of
College of Criminal Justice Education
Northern Negros State College of Science and
Technology
Old Sagay, Sagay City, Negros Occidental

In partial fulfilment
Of the requirements for the degree
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINOLOGY

By:

BANTILAN, JOHN DAVE S.

BISAGAS, RAYANNE C.
LANGUIDO, ARJHENEL C.
LUMBO, YVONIE A.
MANCIO, PETCHE MAE L.

January 2023
 Republic of the Philippines
NORTHERN NEGROS STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Old Sagay, Sagay City, Negros Occidental
ISO 9001:2015
(034)722-4120, www.nonescost.edu.ph
Certified

APPROVAL SHEET

This Thesis entitled “COMPARISON OF DEVELOPED LATENT

FINGERPRINT USING CHICKEN DOWN FEATHER AND CAMEL
HAIR FINGERPRINT BRUSH” has been prepared and
submitted by BANTILAN, JOHN DAVE S., BISAGAS,
RAY ANNE C., LANGUIDO, ARJHENEL C., LUMBO,
YVONIE A., and MANCIO, PETCHE MAE L., in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Criminology has been examined
and recommended for oral examination.

ALLEN Z. BALLENAS, MSCJ

Adviser
THESIS PROPOSAL COMMITTEE

ALLEN Z. BALLENAS, MSCJ PRYOR I. LOBATON, MS

CJ
Member Member/Co-
Chair
ANGELO P. ALOB, Ph.D
Chairman

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

MELVIN P. OYANIB, MSCJ PRYOR I. LOBAT

ON, MSCJ
Member
Member

ANGELO P. ALOB, Ph.D

Chairman

ACCEPTED AND APPROVED in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science
in Criminology.

JOCELYN BANTIGUE, Ph.D

VP, Academic Affair
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our heartfelt

thanks to our parents and other family members

for supporting us morally, spiritually and

financially. We will be always thankful for

their unconditional love and discipline.

We would also like to thank our friends

and classmates for all the encouragement and

support and for helping us all throughout this

journey.

Our special thanks to our thesis adviser,

Mr. Allen Z. Ballenas, to the panel of

evaluators headed by Prof. Angelo P. Alob, Sir

Pryor I. Lobaton and Sir Melvin P. Oyanib. We

will always be grateful for all the guidance

and support, for the words of wisdom, and for

imparting your knowledge to us all throughout

the completion of this study.

And above all, we give our praises to God

Almighty. We thank You Lord for everything; we

know that without you, we are nothing. We give

back the honor and glory to your name.

THE RESEARCHERS
 ABSTRACT

This study entitled “Comparison of Developed Latent

Fingerprint Using Chicken Down Feather and Camel Hair
Fingerprint Brush” aims to determine the visibility of
developed latent fingerprint using Chicken down feather
using powder method compared to standard camel hair
fingerprint brush. Specifically, this will answer the
visibility of the developed latent fingerprint using the
Chicken down feather compared to camel hair fingerprint
brush on the following smooth surfaces: plastic material,
tile, cement and paper: Result showed that on a plastic
material, both brush A and B developed visible
fingerprint. On a tile surface, brush A and B developed a
visible fingerprint. On cement, Brush A developed a less
visible fingerprint however, Brush B developed a visible
fingerprint. On paper, Brush A developed a less visible
fingerprint however, Brush B developed a visible
fingerprint.

Key words: Descriptive, Fingerprint, Chicken down

feather, Escalante City
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

Approval Page: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgement: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi
Table Contents: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… v

Chapter I: Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………… 1

Statement of the Problem: ……………………………………………………………………… 4
Conceptual Framework: ……………………………………………………………………… 4
Significance of the Study: ……………………………………………………………………… 5
Scope and Limitation of the
Study: ……………………………………………………………………… 5
Definition of Terms: ……………………………………………………………………… 6

Chapter II: Related Literature: ……………………………………………………… 9

Chapter III: Methodology: ……………………………………………………………………… 15

Research Design: ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Locale of the study: ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Research Instrument: ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Data Gathering Procedure: ……………………………………………………………………… 16
Data Analysis: ……………………………………………………………………… 17

Chapter IV: Results and Discussion: ………………………………………… 18

Presentation of Data: ……………………………………………………………………… 18

Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions and recommendations: …… 22

Summary: ……………………………………………………………………… 22
Conclusion: ……………………………………………………………………… 23
Recommendations: ……………………………………………………………………… 23

References: ……………………………………………………………………… 25
Appendices
A. Instrument ……………………………………………………………………… 28
B. Validation letters ……………………………………………………………………… 33
C. Validation sheets ……………………………………………………………………… 37
D. Letters for developed ……………………………………………………………………… 41
fingerprint evaluation
E. Jurors’ examination
findings ……………………………………………………………………… 45
F. English critic ……………………………………………………………………… 58
certification
G. Pictures during ……………………………………………………………………… 60
experiment
H. Curriculum Vitae ……………………………………………………………………… 62
 LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables:

Table 1. Visibility of fingerprint

developed on plastic material. …………………………………………………… 18

Table 2. Visibility of fingerprint

developed on tile. …………………………………………………… 19

Table 3. Visibility of fingerprint

developed on Cement. …………………………………………………… 20

Table 4. Visibility of fingerprint

developed on Paper. …………………………………………………… 21

LIST OF FIGURES
List of figures

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of

the study …………………………………………………… 5
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The powder technique for detecting latent fingerprints

involves the application of a finely divided formulation to

the fingermark impression, generally with a glass-fibre or a

camel hair brush. The powder gets mechanically adhered to the

sweat residue defining the ridge pattern. The furrows which

are devoid of the fingerprint residue, do not adhere the

powder onto them. The final outcome is that the powder

formulation sticks to the ridges, but is easily blown off the

furrows. Since the powder is normally coloured, the ridge

pattern becomes visible and the latent print is said to have

developed (Sodhi & Kaur, 2001).

For latent print development, a fingerprint powder is

needed. And to make fingerprint powder works an applying

medium is required which is provided by a fingerprint brush.

There are five main parts of a fingerprint brush. These are :

Toe:where hairbrush ends, also called head ; Bristles: Hair of

brush. It can be made from fiberglass, polyester, natural

animal hairs, feathers, or nylon ; Ferrule: part that connects

bristles with handles ; Crimp : part of Ferrule that cramps

 2

the fibers and secures them to handle; Handle: flat

cylindrical or curved design. Usually made of wood or acrylic.

There are seven fingerprint brushes of which four are

common. All these fingerprint brushes are: Fiberglass Brush ;

Animal Hair Brush; Feather Brush; Magna Brush; Polyester

Brush; Carbon Brush; and Nylon Brush. Feather Brushes are soft

hair that is mainly made from Marabou feathers. These feathers

have tendrils that can collect fingerprint powder with ease

and cover a longer surface area. With the feather brush, much

less pressure is needed than animal hair fingerprint brushes

but they do have jagged barbs at regular intervals pointing

towards the tip of the feather. These jagged barbs seem to be

vein structures on leaves. Moreover, the tips of these

fingerprint brushes sometimes are made by trimming resulting

in coarse ends that might cause damage to finger marks on very

smooth surfaces. They, like animal brushes, do not work well

with aluminum powder. They are usually available in three

color feathers : red, white, and black.

Animal Hair Fingerprint brush such as camel, squirrel,

and pony hairs brush. Style: Both zephyr and mop styling. The

structure : surface is covered with scales that make it

rougher. Cross section: They have hollow structures with thin

exteriors which appear dumbbell- shaped. Powder Performance:

When developing prints on larger areas, they do not retain

 3

powder well and need to be recharged regularly. Powder Usage:

Granular or magnetic powders. Size: Small to medium in mop

style and longer in zephyr style. Disadvantages: Not optimum

brushes for aluminum-based fingerprint powders. Do not retain

powder very well and needs to be regularly recharged.

Fingerprint powder alone can’t develop prints. An

effective delivering medium is needed which is fulfilled by a

fingerprint brush. An idle fingerprint brush holds and doesn’t

shed excessive powder over surfaces, maintaining idle friction

by their fibers that do not damage latent marks.

A common way to lift fingerprints is to dust a powder

over the supposed area of a material, let the powder stick to

the oil, sweat left by the finger, and then lift the

fingerprint with tape. There are so many kinds of powder that

can be used to lift a fingerprint and unique way to get it.

In this study we focus on the Chicken down feather to

make a latent finger print visible in the surface of where the

fingerprint can be located.

The conduct of this study will provide an alternative

fingerprint brush in producing a latent fingerprint from

possible and accessible resources in case the standard

fingerprint brush is not available.

 4

Statement of the problem

The aim of this study is to determine the visibility of

developed latent fingerprint using Chicken down feather using

powder method compared to standard camel hair fingerprint

brush.

Specifically, this will answer the following questions:

1. What is the visibility of the developed latent

fingerprint using the Chicken down feather compared to

camel hair fingerprint brush on the following smooth

surfaces:

a. plastic material

b. tile

c. cement

d. Paper

Conceptual Framework of the study

IDENTIFICATION OF CHICKEN DOWN

VISIBILITY OF FEATHER VS STANDARD
FINGERPRINT CAMEL HAIR
DEVELOPED FINGERPRINT BRUSH

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the study

 5

Significance of the Study

The result of the study may be of great significance to

the following:

Criminology Students. To re enforce their knowledge about

the availability of materials present in our surroundings that

can be useful in the field of fingerprinting.

Criminology Department. The result of this study will

help the department financially. As the department don’t have

to purchase expensive laboratory equipment for the utilization

in the program.

Future researchers. The findings of this study may give

information for other researchers to conduct further research

related to this field.

Scope and limitations

The study is limited only to the analysis of the

visibility of developed latent fingerprint using Chicken Down

feather compared to the standard camel hair fingerprint brush

using powder method. The experiment was restricted only to

the available and utilized fingerprint powder in criminology

department, camel hair fingerprint brush and the chicken down

feather fingerprint brush developed.

 6

Definition of terms

For the purpose of the clarity and understanding, the

following terms were defined conceptually and operationally.

Camel Hair. Conceptually, the hair of the camel or a

substitute for it (such as hair from squirrels' tails). Cloth

made of camel hair or a mixture of camel hair and wool usually

light tan and of soft silky texture (www.merriam-webster.com).

Operationally, Camel hair refers to the Brush A that was used

in this study.

Comparison. Conceptually, comparison or comparing is the

act of evaluating two or more things by determining the

relevant, comparable characteristics of each thing, and then

determining which characteristics of each are similar to the

other, which are different, and to what degree

(en.m.wikipedia.org). Operationally, this terms refers to the

experiment conducted to compare the visibility of both Brush A

and B.

Developed Latent Fingerprint. Conceptually, the strict

definition of a “Latent” fingerprint is a fingerprint that is

not apparent to the eye but can be made sufficiently visible,

as by dusting or fuming, for use in identification. Latent

fingerprints typically do not fluoresce on their own

 7

(www.horiba.com). Operationally, it refers to a developed

latent fingerprint using the 2 Brushes compared.

Down feather. Conceptually, it refers to the down of

birds which is a layer of fine feathers found under the

tougher exterior feathers. It is a fine thermal insulator and

padding used in goods such as jackets, bedding, pillows and

sleeping bags (en.m.wikipedia.org). Operationally, this term

used to refer to the fabricated Fingerprint Brush made of soft

Chicken feather”.

Fingerprint brush. Conceptually, it refers to the

unquestionably the finest brushes available for developing

latent fingerprints (Vindulan & Buenavista, 2012).

Operationally, this term used to refer to the Brush A which is

the Camel hair fingerprint brush and the Brush B which is the

fabricated Chicken Down feather.

Fingerprint powder. Conceptually, it refers to the

powders commonly used that include aluminum, bronze and gold

and under most circumstances they are the most sensitive (will

detect more impressions) powders available (Vindulan &

Buenavista, 2012). Operationally, this term used to refer to

the SILK BLACK “Hi-Fi” Volcano Latent Print”.

Latent fingerprint. Conceptually, it refers to the chance

impression, left on an item, through the transfer of

 8

perspiration and oils, from the friction ridge skin to the

item itself (Delizo, 2013). Operationally, this term used to

refer to the latent fingerprint to be developed using the

“Brush A” and “Brush B”.

 9

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

A variety of brushes and techniques were used to enhance

marks during the course of mark development. Aluminum flake

(and other forms of non-magnetic powder) are applied with one

of several types of brush, including those made from camel

hair or squirrel hairs and others based on fibreglass. Brushes

are normally loaded with powder by being dipped into the

powder jar, but excess powder is normally spun off the brush

before applying the brush to the mark. Brushing too heavily,

or with too much powder results in the obliteration of the

mark through 'clogging' and since such excess powder is

difficult to remove, powder is always applied with a very

light touch. When aluminum powder is used to develop a

fingerprint mark, the mark is built up slowly by the

successive application of light amounts of powder on each

application until the mark is clear. Earlier forms of black

and white powder could be deliberately overloaded onto a mark

and then brushed away, but although the use of such powders

made it difficult to spoil a mark by clogging it, fingerprints

developed in this way could not be lifted, but only

photographed in situ. In all such cases, of course, the heavy

application of a brush to a fingerprint mark can result in the

 10

oil and grease that comprises the mark being wiped away with a

brush even if the brush contains little powder. When Magneta

flake powder was used, it was applied to the mark by a

magnetic powder applicator or 'magnetic brush'. The

applicator- which resembles a pen or pencil- has a magnet at

one end which is used to pick up the powder from its container

and hold it in the shape of the fuzzy globule.

Fiberglass, animal hair, synthetic or natural fiber

brushes may be used to develop fingerprints. The brush should

not be damp or oily. It is first lightly dipped in the powder

and then tapped with the finger so that only a small amount of

the powder is left on the brush. The object is then lightly

brushed in circular motions. Powder particles will adhere to

all places where there is oil or dirt. If fingerprints are

present on the object, they show up more or less clearly.

A variant of the simple brush and powder combination is

the magnetic brush, The original commercial version of which

is the Magna Brush. Actually a small retractable magnet, not a

real brush at all, the magnetic brush uses special magnetic

powder that also can be obtained in several colors. The

principle of magnetic powder enhancement is the same as for

conventional powder, namely adherence of fine particles to

fatty components of the residue. The magnetic brush technique

 11

is more useful on some surfaces than conventional powder

dusting, mainly because the magnetic wand can be used to

remove any excess powder from the substrate. It also has the

potential to be a gentler technique because with no bristles

the brushing process is less likely to damage the latent

print.

Another aid to fingerprint development, the Magna-Brush,

utilizes magnetic powders and magnetic applicator. Streamers

of magnetized powder are brought in contact with the suspected

surface. The powder ideas and print, while the magnet removes

the excess. This method has the advantage of not leaving

excess powder on the object and the surrounding area. Because

of the nature of the process, it can be used effectively only

on nonmagnetic surfaces.

Preparing a fiberglass fingerprint brush for use. The

technician spins the brush in the hand which flairs the

bristles and expands the brush head. After extended storage,

the bristles of a fingerprint brush will often stick together.

This technique will correct that condition.

In the current environment of touch DNA, sterility of the

fingerprint brush becomes a major issue. The crime scene

investigator is presented with two approaches. If

 12

fingerprinting effort is ongoing while DNA evidence is still

being collected, then the factory-sealed and certified sterile

brushes must be employed. The powder employed must also be

new, and magnetic powder and brushes should never be used

under the circumstances. A failure to follow these guidelines

is likely to result in a claim of cross contamination, from

both brushes and powders, either from within the scene being

processed or from prior scenes where the equipment was

employed. If, however, a basic methodology is in place that

requires all DNA collection to occur prior to any

fingerprinting effort, or if there is no current or future

anticipation of DNA evidence collection, the standard kit

brushes and magnetic brushes can be used so long as they are

clean and kept in good working condition. This latter protocol

is the most appropriate response. Crime scene supervisors

should force the issue that all DNA collection occurs prior to

any fingerprinting effort.

The standard kit carried to scene examinations by the

crime scene examiners in the force studied contained a number

of fingerprint powders and a range of fingerprint brushes for

use in applying such powders in order to develop a discovered

mark. Powders in regular use included: aluminum flake (a

medium for the development of fingermarks found on non-porous

 13

surfaces); a bronze variant of this material (used when marks

would not otherwise stand out against an aluminum-colored

background); white fingerprint powder (used on grainy surfaces

and normally photographed rather than lifted); and 'Magneta

flake', a magnetic powder suitable for use on all surfaces,

including some wooden surfaces that are heavily grained.

Examiners regularly used all of this media, but aluminum

flake and Magneta flake powders were normally the first choice

of all the examiners. Reasons for the choice between them were

not always clear since a large variety of local circumstances

seemed to be taken into account in the decisions made.

Aluminum flake was used on windows, kitchen work surfaces,

painted areas and on many items thought to have been moved or

touched by suspects. Magneta flake powder was often used where

it was thought capable of producing better results than the

non-magnetic powders. It was sometimes asserted that this

medium would provide better prints and some shiny surfaces

(such as laminated paper or other coated surfaces), and it was

often preferred for use on smooth plastic surfaces (including

plastic bags).
 14

The powder should not be sprinkled over or tapped on to

the object while brushing. Prints from sweaty or dirty fingers

or produced by a firm grip may cause the friction ridges to

spread out, filling up the spaces between the ridges. Too much

powder can destroy these prints. If too much powder is used,

it can be "washed" by pressing a fingerprint lifter against

the print. The lifter will remove the excess and the spaces

between the ridges may be nearly free of powder. If necessary,

the latent print can be reprocessed to get usable results.

Some fingerprint examiners use black fingerprint powder

as a universal developer on smooth non-porous surfaces. On

dark surfaces, such as furniture and firearms, aluminum or

copper powders also give good results. These powders are

useful if the print is to be photographed before being

lifted.
 15

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The descriptive method was used in this study.

Descriptive studies are usually the best methods for

collecting information that will demonstrate relationships and

describe the world as it exists. These types of studies are

often done before an experiment to know what specific things

to manipulate and include in an experiment. Bickman and Rog

(1998) suggest the descriptive studies can answer questions

such as “what is” or “what was”. Experiments can typically

answer “why” or “how”.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted in NONESCOST, Fingerprint

Laboratory, Escalante City, Negros Occidental, Philippines.

Research Instrument
 16

This study utilized a modified instrument of the study

“Powder method in Developing latent Fingerprint using Chicken

Down Feather” by Gomez et. al., 2022.

Data gathering procedures

In the conduct of the study, the researchers seek an

approval letter from the Laboratory in charge of the CCJE to

borrow the equipment to be used during the experiment.

After the approval, the experiment started with developing the

latent fingerprint using the two fingerprint brushes which are

the “camel hair fingerprint brush which is the standard brush

manufactured by Sirchie” and the developed chicken down

feather developed.

After the experiment, the interpretation of the developed

latent fingerprints were subjected for review and conformity

of the three (3) jurors.

The Criteria for choosing the right jurors for this study

were as follows:

1. A faculty of criminology for at least 5 years.

2. At least a master’s degree in Criminology.

The first juror is Dr. Vanessa T. Cayacay. A Master of

Science in Criminal Justice Education, Doctor in Philosophy in

 17

Criminal Justice Education and been teaching in the NONESCOST

Criminology Program for more than three (3) years.

The second juror is Prof. Sherwin D. Baynosa. A Master of

Science in Criminal Justice Education and Doctor in Philosophy

in Criminal Justice Education. Have been a faculty in

Criminology since 2013.

The third juror is Prof. Angelo T. Layson. A Master of

Science in Criminal Justice Education with specialization in

Criminology, have been teaching in Criminology program for

more than 5 years.

The data was interpreted by this rating scale:

Scale Interpretation

3 Visible

2 Less visible

1 Not visible

Data Analysis

The developed latent fingerprint were forwarded to the

jurors and subjected for analysis.

For the problem no. 1 that determines the visibility of

the developed latent fingerprint using the Chicken down

feather compared to camel hair fingerprint brush on the

 18

following smooth surfaces: plastic material, tile, cement and

papers, mean was used.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Presentation of data

Visibility of fingerprints developed using “Brush A”

which is the standard Camel Hair Brush and the “Brush B” which

is the Chicken Down Feather in smooth Plastic material, tile,

cement and paper surface.

A. Plastic material

Fingerprint No. of Not Less visible Mean interpretation

developed jurors visible visible
BRUSH A

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible

BRUSH B

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible
 19

Table 1. Visibility of fingerprint developed on Plastic

material.

Table 1 revealed that 3 out of 3 jurors confirmed that

brush A and B developed a visible fingerprint.

B. Tile

Fingerprint No. of Not Less visible Mean interpretation

developed jurors visible visible
BRUSH

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible

BRUSH B

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible

Table 2. Visibility of fingerprint developed on tile.

Table 2 revealed that 3 out of 3 jurors confirmed that

brush A and B developed a visible fingerprint.

 20

C. Cement

Fingerprint No. of Not Less visible Mean interpretation

developed jurors visible visible
BRUSH A

3 0 2 1 2.3 Less visible

BRUSH B

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible

Table 3. Visibility of fingerprint developed on Cement.

Table 3 revealed that in brush A, 2 of the jurors

confirmed that it developed a less visible fingerprint and 1

of the jurors affirmed that it developed a visible

fingerprint. However in brush B, 3 of the jurors affirmed that

it developed a visible fingerprint.

 21

D. Paper

Fingerprint No. of Not Less visible Mean interpretation

developed jurors visible visible
BRUSH A

3 0 2 1 2.3 Less visible

BRUSH B

3 0 0 3 3.0 visible

Table 4. Visibility of fingerprint developed on paper.

Table 4 revealed that in brush A, 2 of the jurors

confirmed that it developed a less visible fingerprint and 1

of the jurors affirmed that it developed a visible

fingerprint. However in brush B, 3 of the jurors affirmed that

it developed a visible fingerprint.

 22

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study entitled “Comparison of Developed Latent

Fingerprint Using Chicken Down Feather and Camel Hair

Fingerprint Brush” aims to determine the visibility of

developed latent fingerprint using Chicken down feather using

powder method compared to standard camel hair fingerprint

brush. Specifically, this will answer the visibility of the

developed latent fingerprint using the Chicken down feather

compared to camel hair fingerprint brush on the following

smooth surfaces: plastic material, tile, cement and paper:

Result showed that on a plastic material, both brush A and B

developed visible fingerprint. On a tile surface, brush A and

B developed a visible fingerprint. On cement, Brush A

developed a less visible fingerprint however, Brush B

developed a visible fingerprint. On paper, Brush A developed a

less visible fingerprint however, Brush B developed a visible

fingerprint.
 23

Conclusions

Based on the experiment conducted between the Brush A

which is the camel hair fingerprint brush and Brush B which is

the chicken down feather, the following conclusions were

drawn.

1. On plastic surface, both Brush A and Brush B developed a

visible fingerprint.

2. On tile surface, Brush A and Brush B developed a visible

fingerprint.

3. On cement, Brush A developed a less visible fingerprint

however, Brush B developed a visible fingerprint.

4. On paper, Brush A developed a less visible fingerprint

however, Brush B developed a visible fingerprint.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following

recommendations were drawn:

1. It is recommended that the Chicken down feather can be

useful in developing latent print on smooth plastic

 24

material as it can developed the same visibility as

compared with the standard Camel hair fingerprint brush.

2. It is also suggested that the Chicken down feather can be

useful as well in developing latent print on tile

surfaces as it can developed the same visibility with the

standard Camel hair fingerprint brush.

3. It is suggested that Chicken down feather shall be used

in developing latent fingerprint on cement and smooth

papers since it can develop a visible fingerprint than

the camel hair Brush which developed a less visible

fingerprint.

4. To the future researchers, it is suggested for further

study not limiting only to smooth plastic material,

cement, tile and paper.

 25

References:

Sodhi, G. S., & Kaur, J. (2001). Powder method for detecting

latent fingerprints: a review. Forensic science
international, 120(3), 172-176.

Wagner, N. R. (1983, April). Fingerprinting. In 1983 IEEE

Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 18-18). IEEE.

Valdes-Ramirez, D., Medina-Pérez, M. A., Monroy, R., Loyola-

González, O., Rodríguez-Ruiz, J., Morales, A., & Herrera,
F. (2019). A Review of Fingerprint Feature
Representations and Their Applications for Latent
Fingerprint Identification: Trends and Evaluation. IEEE
Access, 7(1), 48484-48499.

Darlito Bernard G. Delizo (2013). Criminalistics Textbook

and Review Materials, 1ST edition, Wiseman’s Book Trading
Inc.

Prof. Veneranda Poschor-Depayso, MSCRIM (2013). The Basics

of Fingerprint, Wiseman’s Book Trading Inc.

Jesus B. Vinluan & Jose M. Buenavista, Jr (2012). Advance

techniques in Dactyloscopy with AFIS, Second Edition,
Philippine Copyright, Wiseman’s Books Trading, Inc.

Davis, Moses, Hillary Lauren (2009). A critical comparison

of black fingerprint powder formulations to improve
latent fingerprint clarity and contrast on common
substrates. University of California
 26

McCarthy & Duncan (2012)."Latent Fingerprint Recovery from

Simulated Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices."
Journal of Forensic Identification 62.5

Mahadevan, K. M., and G. Nagaraju (2020). "Development and

detection of level II and III features of latent
fingerprints using highly sensitive AIE based Coumarin
fluorescent derivative." Journal of Science: Advanced
Materials and Devices

Lauzon, Nidia, et al (2015). "Development of laser

desorption imaging mass spectrometry methods to
investigate the molecular composition of latent
fingermarks." Journal of the American Society for Mass
Spectrometry 26.6: 878-886

Sharma, Kirti Kumari, et al. (2018). "A pyrene formulation

for fluorometric visualization of latent fingermarks."
Methods and applications in fluorescence 6.3: 035004.

Sundar, Latha, and Frederick Rowell (2014). "Detection of

drugs in lifted cyanoacrylate-developed latent
fingermarks using two laser desorption/ionisation mass
spectrometric methods." Analyst 139.3: 633-642.

Weaver, David E. (2018) "Document Title: Co-Polymerization

of Sublimation Dyes and Expanding the Micro-Crystalline
Vapors of Cyanoacrylate in Fingerprint Development."

Baxter Jr, E. (2015). Complete crime scene investigation

handbook. CRC press.

Daluz, H. M. (2018). Fundamentals of fingerprint analysis. CRC

Press.

Fisher, B. A. (2003). Techniques of crime scene investigation.

 27

crc Press.

Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2016). Orders of ordinary action:

Respecifying sociological knowledge. Routledge.

Gardner, R. M., & Krouskup, D. (2018). Practical crime scene

processing and investigation. CRC Press.

Graham, E. A. (2012). Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing:

Methodology, John M. Butler, Academic Press/Elsevier (27
July 2011), RRP:£ 60.99, ISBN: 978-0-12-374513-2.

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2016). Criminal

investigation. Cengage learning

James, S. H., & Nordby, J. J. (2002). Forensic science: an

introduction to scientific and investigative techniques.
CRC press.

Ramirez, C. R., & Parish-Fisher, C. L. (2020). Crime scene

processing and investigation workbook. CRC Press.

Thompson, R., & Thompson, B. F. (2012). Illustrated Guide to

Home Forensic Science Experiments: All Lab, No Lecture. "
O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
 28

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENT
29
30
31
32
 33

APPENDIX B

VALIDATION LETTERS
34
35
36
 37

APPENDIX C

VALIDATION SHEETS
38
39
40
 41

APPENDIX D

LETTERS FOR
DEVELOPED
FINGERPRINT
EVALUATION
42
43
44
 45

APPENDIX E

JURORS’ EXAMINATION
FINDINGS
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
 58

APPENDIX F

ENGLISH CRITIC
CERTIFICATION
59
 60

Appendix E

PICTURES DURING
EXPERIMENT
61
 62

APPENDIX H

CURRICULUM VITAE
 63

BANTILAN,JOHN DAVE S.

Prk. Remedios, Brgy. Andres Bonifacio, Sagay City, Negros

Occidental,6122

Cell No. 09271535036

Personal Data

Age : 20

Sex : Male

Birth date : October 04, 2002

Civil Status : Single

Educational Attainment

Primary : Tu-ong Elementary School

Secondary : Vito National High school

Tertiary : Northern Negros State College of Science and

Technology

Course : Bachelor of Science in Criminology

 64

BISAGAS,RAY ANNE C.

Pedrosa Village, Brgy. Alijis, Bacolod City, Negros

Occidental,6100

Cell No. 09396563701

Personal Data

Age : 21

Sex : Female

Birth date : May 16, 2001

Civil Status : Single

Educational Attainment

Primary : Toboso Central School

Secondary : Toboso National High School

Toboso National High School-Senior High School

Tertiary : Northern Negros State College of Science and

Technology

Course : Bachelor of Science in Criminology

 65

LANGUIDO, ARJHENEL C.

Prk. Masinadyahon, Brgy. Rizal , Sagay City, Negros

Occidental,6122

Cell No. 09102478694

Personal Data

Age : 21

Sex : Female

Birth date : June 26, 2001

Civil Status : Single

Educational Attainment

Primary : Alfredo E. Marañon Sr. Elementary School

Secondary : Sagay National High School- Rizal Extension

Sagay City Senior High School

Tertiary : Northern Negros State College of Science and

Technology

Course : Bachelor of Science in Criminology

 66

LUMBO, YVONIE A.

Brgy. Mahilum, Calatrava, Negros Occidental, 6126

Cell No. 09972953593

Personal Data

Age : 21

Sex : Female

Birth date : November 30, 2001

Civil Status : Single

Educational Attainment

Primary : Hipolito P. Mahilum Elementary School

Secondary : Toboso National High school

Toboso National High school-Senior High School

Tertiary : Northern Negros State College of Science and

Technology

Course : Bachelor of Science in Criminology

 67

MANCIO, PETCHE MAE L.

Prk. Santol, Brgy. Jonob-jonob, Escalante City, Negros

Occidental, 6124

Cell No. 09972896908

Personal Data

Age : 23

Sex : Female

Birth date : November 09, 1999

Civil Status : Single

Educational Attainment

Primary : Himay-angan Elementary School

Secondary : Himay-angan National High school

Tertiary : Northern Negros State College of Science and

Technology

Course : Bachelor of Science in Criminology

68
69