Iancdi 3 A Activity (Saved)

Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga

College of Criminal Justice Education
SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION

INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES
First Semester A.Y 2023-2024

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Prepared by:
(IAN F. TIME)
BSCRIM – 3A
SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION

(DISCUSSED AND WRITE YOUR OWN DEFINITION)
SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY (100 points)

Instructions: you can answer the given questions using a short bond paper written or encoded
make use of a short folder to compile the said activity (Deadline October 16, 2023)
Use this format

I. Introduction ( DISCUSSED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPECIALIZED CRIME
INVESTIGATION in the field of Forensic SCIENCE and in investigation of crime per se
II.BODY
Here are the cases( search the following and follow the format below)
1. . Estacio v. Sandiganbayan
2. People v. De Jesus
3. People v. Lucero
4. People v. Pinlac
5. People v. Rous
Make a case digest using the format below

Case Title:
[Name of the Case]
Case Citation:
[Provide the official citation for the case, including the court name, volume, reporter, page
number, and year.]
Court:
[Identify the court where the case was heard, such as "Supreme Court or "Court of Appeals
Date Decided:
[Specify the date on which the court issued its decision.]
Key Parties:
[List the parties involved in the case, including the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s).]
Facts:
[Summarize the essential facts and circumstances that led to the legal dispute. Focus on the
relevant background information.]
Issues:
[Identify the legal questions or issues that the court had to address in the case. These are the
central questions that the case revolves around.]
Arguments:
[Outline the main arguments presented by each party in the case. Include the legal reasoning
and precedents they relied upon.]
Decision:
[Summarize the court's decision, including the judgment, holding, or ruling. Specify whether the
court affirmed, reversed, or remanded the lower court's decision.]
Reasoning:
[Explain the court's legal reasoning and the principles of law it applied to reach its decision.
Discuss any significant legal precedents cited by the court.]
Dissent (if applicable):

[If there were dissenting opinions, summarize the dissenting judges' views and their reasons for
disagreeing with the majority.]
Impact:
[Discuss the potential or actual impact of the case on the law, legal principles, or society in
general.]
Notes and Comments:

[Include any additional notes, comments, or observations about the case that may be relevant
or interesting.]
References:
[Cite any legal sources, statutes, regulations, or other cases referenced in the case digest.]
Keywords:
[List relevant legal keywords or phrases that describe the case's subject matter.]
Additional Information:
[Include any additional information or references that may be necessary for understanding the
case or its context.]
III.Conclusion:
Write your conclusion based on your research and relate it to our lessons
III. Assessment
Write your takeaway based on the results of your research
WARNING PLAGIARISM IS A CRIME ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT WILL MAKE ANOTHER

SET OF ACTIVITY
INTRODUCTION:
The case of Estacio v. Sandiganbayan G.R no. 75362 decided on March 6, 1990 involves
allegations of Estafa through Falsification of public/commercial documents. The case revolves
around a conspiracy to defraud a bank, with the petitioner, Estacio, being one of the co-
conspirator. The key issue in the case includes the admissibility of petitioners extrajudicial
statements, which he claimed were obtained through force and intimidation. However, the court
rejected this claim stating that the evidence on record was sufficient to establish his involvement
in the conspiracy. Furthermore, the court found that Estacio’s presence at meetings where the
fraudulent activities were planned, and his execution of his role in the scheme, demonstrated his
conspiratorial intent. This case underscores the importance of evidence in the establishing
criminal liability in conspiracy cases.
Case title: Jesus E. Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan
Case Citation: G.R No. 75362, March 6, 1990 262 Phil. 13
Court: En Banc of the supreme Court
Date Decided: March 6, 1990
Key Parties: Jesus Estacio y Estrella (petitioner), Sandiganbayan (respondent), Romero
Villasanta, Manuel Valentino, Felipe Salamanca (co-conspirator), Atty. Agapito Fajardo (superior
at central bank).
Facts: In August 1981, accused Romero Villasanta opened current accounts with three different
banks and deposited initial amounts. He then deposited several checks drawn against these
accounts, including checks from an account with insufficient funds. A syndicate, including the
petitioner Estacio, altered bank clearing statements to make it appear as if the checks had
cleared successfully, defrauding the banks.
Issues: Were petitioner’s extrajudicial statements extracted through force and intimidation?. Is
the petitioner guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Commercial documents?.
Arguments: The petitioner Estacio claimed that his confessions were extracted through force
and intimidation, but the court found details in the confession that only he could have known,
suggesting voluntariness. The petitioner claimed that the evidence did not establish his
involvement in the conspiracy. The evidence on record, including the testimony of co-conspirator
turned state witness, linked the petitioner to conspiracy.
Decision: The court found that the petitioner guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of
Public/Commercial documents based on the evidence presented. The court found that
petitioner’s confession was not extracted through force and intimidation.
Reasoning: The court reasoned that the details in the petitioner’s confession indicated
voluntariness. Even without the confession, the evidence linked the petitioner to the conspiracy,
including his presence at meetings where fraudulent plot was discussed.
Impact: The highlight in this case is the importance of voluntary confessions and properly
informing individuals their constitutional rights during interrogations and the need for strong
evidence to establish guilt in cases of conspiracy and fraud.
Notes and Comments: The case involved a complex conspiracy to defraud bank through
falsification of documents. This case underscores the principle that details disclosed in a
confession that have been known only by the declarant indicate voluntariness in its execution. It
also illustrates the court’s willingness to consider evidence beyond confessions when
establishing guilt in conspiracy cases.
References: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/mar1990/gr_75362_1990.html
Keywords: Extra judicial confession, conspiracy, estafa, falsification of documents, voluntary
surrender.
Additional Information: the case involved a syndicate that defrauded banks through check fraud
and altered bank clearing statements. The petitioner was part of this syndicate, and his
involvement was established through evidence, including hid confession.
Conclusion: In the case of People v. Jesus Estacio, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of
the petitioner, Jesus Estacio, for his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud a bank. The Court
rejected the petitioner’s claims that his extra-judicial confession was inadmissible due to alleged
violations of his constitutional rights and that he should be considered an accessory or
accomplice rather than a principal offender. The Court found that his confession was voluntary
and that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly linked him to the conspiracy.
Additionally, his claim of voluntary surrender was dismissed because he had gone to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under the instruction of his superior, not of his own
accord.
Assessment: This case highlights the importance of adhering to proper procedures when
obtaining confessions and the need for evidence to support claims of innocence or lesser
criminal liability. It also underscores the court’s consideration of the specific circumstances in
evaluating claims such as voluntary surrender. In the legal system, the burden of proof lies with
the accused to demonstrate their innocence or the presence of mitigating circumstances.
INTRODUCTION:
The case People vs. De Jesus, G.R No. 134815, May 27, 2004 revolves around the events of a
robbery with homicide that occurred in February 1994. SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco, a police officer
who worked for a money changer, was a victim of this crime. The perpetrators, namely Dante
Manansala, Eduardo De Jesus, and Crispin Del Rosario, conspired to stage a robbery with the
involvement of a british national Christopher Nash. The used Nash’s car to commit the crime,
confronting Ybasco and falsely claiming he had a warrant of his arrest. They proceeded to
handcuff him and drag him into the car. During the incident, a security guard named Roberto
Acosta, attempted to intervene, but it resulted in his tragic death. The robbers hoping to find a
substantial sum, discovered only php 5000 instead of the expected $250,000. They later
transported Ybasco to a sugar farm with the promise of releasing him, however the situation
took a dark turn when De Jesus shot Ybasco in the head. De Jesus denied his involvement in
the robbery, claiming to be working as a tricycle driver at the time. He argued that he fled when
he learned about a warrant of his arrest, citing concerns for his safety due to alleged police
mistreatment of his co-accused.
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo De Jesus y Enrile
Case Citation: G.R No. 134815, May 27, 2004, Supreme Court of the Philippines
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Date Decided: May 27, 2004
Key Parties: SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco (victim), Dante Manansala, Eduardo De jesus (accused),
Crispin Del Rosario, Christopher Nash (financier British National), Roberto Acosta (roving
security guard), Yolanda Dela Rapa (eyewitness).
Facts: SPO3 Eugenio Ybasco, a policeman worked for a money changer and delivered money
using a bicycle. In February 1994, Dante Manansala, Eduardo De Jesus and Crispin Del
Rosario planned to rob Ybasco. They used a car owned by Christopher Nash for the robbery.
They confronted Ybasco, handcuffed him, and dragged him to the car. A security guard, Roberto
Acosta, witnesses this and was shot by Del Rosario. The accused drove to Cabuyao Laguna
but the stolen money was much less than expected. They took Ybasco to a sugar farm where
De Jesus shot and killed him.
Issues: Is De Jesus guilty of robbery with homicide and whether there was sufficient evidence to
support his convictions.
Arguments: The prosecution argued that De Jesus, along with other accomplices, participated in
the abduction and killing of SPO3 Ybasco. They presented witness testimonies, physical
evidence, and the alleged actions of the defendant to establish his involvement. The defense,
represented by Eduardo De Jesus, denied any involvement in the crime. De Jesus’s alibi and
claims of innocence were found to be weak defenses. The positive identification by del Rosario
was considered more credible. De Jesus’s flight from justice was also considered as an
indication of guilt, and his claim of fearing for his life lacked basis.
Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding Eduardo
De Jesus guilty of robbery with homicide, and he was sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
Reasoning: The court based its decision on the collective testimonies and evidence presented
by the prosecution, as well as the inconsistencies in the defenses alibi. The court held that the
evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendants participation in the crime beyond
reasonable doubt.
Impact: This case set a legal precedent for cases involving robbery with homicide and the use of
alibi as a defense. It emphasize the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in criminal
cases.
Notes and Comments: This case serves as a reminder of the significance of credible evidence
and the need for a strong defense in criminal proceeding.
References: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_134815_2004.html
Keywords: Robbery with Homicide, Alibi, Criminal Defense, Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Additional Information: This case is significant in Philippine jurisprudence, demonstrating the
courts commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that individuals are afforded due
process in criminal cases.
Conclusion: In this case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed the conviction of
Eduardo De Jesus for robbery with homicide. The appellant, along with his accomplices, was
involved in a heinous crime where a police officer delivering money was abducted, robbed, and
killed. The case involved various witnesses, detailed accounts of the events leading to the
crime, and evidence, including the recovery of the victim’s body. The decision of the court
upheld the conviction and the death penalty imposed on Eduardo De Jesus for his role in the
crime. The case highlights the legal process in the Philippines, including the investigation, trial,
and review of capital punishment cases.
Assessment: This case illustrates the problem of criminal cases in the Philippines, involving
robbery with homicide. It underscores the importance of due process, evidence, and witness
testimonies in criminal proceedings. Additionally, it reveals the severe penalties, such as the
death penalty, which can be imposed for heinous crimes. This case serves as an example of
how the legal system in the Philippines operates to bring justice in such cases.
INTRODUCTION:
This legal case, identified as G.R No. 97936, took place in the Philippines and is associated with
the Supreme Court Second Division. The case involved the prosecution of Alejandro Lucero y
Cortel, who was accused of robbery with homicide. The case decided on May 29, 1995, and it
holds significant legal implications regarding the right to counsel during custodial investigations,
the importance of credible eyewitness identification, and the admissibility of the extrajudicial
confessions obtain in compliance with the constitutional right to counsel. The case ultimately
resulted in the acquittal of Alejandro Lucero.
Case Title: People of the Philippines v. Lucero y Cortel
Case Citation: G.R. No. 97936, May 29 1995
Court: Supreme Court, Second Division
Date Decided: May 29, 1995
Key Parties: Alejandro Lucero y Cortel, Bienvenido Echavez (accused), People of the
Philippines (complainant)
Facts: On May 7, 1988, Alejandro Lucero, Bienvenido Echavez, were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide. They were accused of robbing Dr. Demetrio Z. Madrid, who was in a
Mercedes Benz on road 14 near Mindanao Avenue in Quezon city. During the robbery, Lorenzo
Bernales, the driver of Dr. Madrid, was shot and killed. Only the accused Echavez brothers and
Alejandro Lucero were apprehended, while the others remained at large.
Issues: Did the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of Alejandro Lucero
beyond reasonable doubt. Was Alejandro Lucero’s right to counsel violated during his custodial
interrogation?
Arguments: The prosecution argued that Alejandro Lucero was positively identified by the victim,
Dr. Madrid, as one of the robbers. The defense argued that the identification was unreliable and
that Alejandro Lucero’s extrajudicial confession was obtained without proper legal counsel,
rendering it inadmissible.
Decision: The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the conviction of Alejandro Lucero for
robbery with homicide. The court found that there were significant doubts regarding the
credibility of the identification made by Dr. Madrid, as it took multiple line-ups for him to
positively identify Lucero. Furthermore, the extrajudicial confession obtained from Lucero during
custodial interrogation did not meet the constitutional requirements of the right to counsel. Atty.
Peralta, who was appointed as Lucero’s counsel, left him in the custody of the police during the
critical stage of the interrogation, in this failure to provide effective and vigilant counsel rendered
the confession inadmissible. As a result, there was insufficient evidence to convict Lucero.
Reasoning: The Court emphasize the importance of the right to counsel during custodial
interrogation, as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. It held that the right to counsel must be
vigilant, and that in this case, it was not adequately protected. The unreliable identification of
Lucero and the inadmissible confession led to doubts about his guilt, and the prosecution failed
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Impact: The highlight in this case is the importance of protecting the right to counsel during
custodial interrogations and need for reliable identification in criminal cases. It serves as a
reminder that conviction should only be based on evidence that meets constitutional standards.
Notes and Comments: This case raises questions about the reliability of eyewitness
identification and the admissibility of statements obtained without proper counsel.
Reference: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/gr_97936_1995.html
Keywords: Right to counsel, Custodial interrogation, Identification, Admissibility, Robbery with
homicide.
Additional information: The case took place on on May 7, 1988, in Quezon City Philippines. The
accused Echavez brothers were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Conclusion: In this case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed and set aside the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which had convicted the accused-appellant,
Alejandro Lucero, of robbery with homicide. The decision was primarily based on two factors:
the unreliable identification of the appellant and the violation of his constitutional right to counsel
during custodial interrogation. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to counsel and
the need for effective and vigilant legal representation during custodial Investigation. In this
case, the attorney provided to the appellant did not offer adequate protection of his rights, and
the appellant's uncounseled confession was deemed inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore,
the identification of the appellant by the victim was considered doubtful and inconsistent.
Assessment: This case serves as a clear example of the vital role of the right to counsel in
criminal proceedings and the constitutional safeguards in place to protect individuals during
custodial interrogations. It highlights that even if a confession is obtained, it must be done so in
a manner consistent with these constitutional rights, or it may not be admissible as evidence.
Additionally, the case reinforces the principle that it is the prosecution’s burden to prove the
accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
INTRODUCTION:
This case G.R Nos. 74123-24, is a legal case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
decided on September 26, 1988. The case involved Ronilo Pinlac y Libao, who was charged
with robbery and robbery with homicide in two separate cases. The charges come from
incidents in which he was accused of breaking into the house of two Japanese nationals in
Makati, Metro Manila, and commiting theft, as well as causing the death of one of the victim.
The court found that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish the accused’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The primary evidence against the accused was an extrajudicial
confession, which the court found to be inadmissible due to alleged violation of the accused
constitutional rights, including the failure to properly inform him of his rights and the absence of
legal counsel during the confession and there were allegations of torture and maltreatment
during the investigation. The court reversed the judgement of conviction and acquitted the
accused, finding that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: People of the Philippines v. Ronilo Pinlac y Libao
Case Citation: G.R. Nos. 74123-24, September 26, 1988
Court: Supreme Court, Second Division, Manila, Philippines
Date Decided: September 26, 1988
Key Parties: Plaintiff-Apellee: People of the Philippines, Accused-Apellant: Ronilo Pinlac y Libao
Facts: Ronilo Pinlac y Libao was charged with two separate offences, robbery in Criminal Case
No. 10476 and robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 10477. On April 8, 1984, in Makati,
Metro Manila, Pinlac forcibly entered the house of Koji Sato and the house of Saeki Osamu. He
robbed both victims, resulting in the death of Saeki Osamu and Pinlac was subsequently
arrested.
Issues: Whether the accused, Ronilo Pinlac y Libao, was guilty of the crime of robbery and
robbery with homicide. Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused was obtained in
violation of his constitutional rights.
Arguments: The prosecution argued that Pinlac was guilty of both robbery and robbery with
homicide based on circumstancial evidence, including fingerprints found at the crime scenes.
The defense contented that Pinlac’s extrajudicial confession was obtained through torture and
violence, violating his constitutional rights.
Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts judgement and acquitted Ronilo Pinlac
y Libao of the charges. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not
establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the extrajudicial confession of
Pinlac was ruled inadmissible due to violations of the accused’s constitutional rights.
Reasoning: The court emphasize that during custodial investigation, it is the duty of the police to
effectively communicate the rights of the accused, including the right to remain silent and the
right to counsel. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish compliance with these
constitutional rights. Furthermore, there was evidence that the accused had been maltreated
and tortured, casting doubt on the voluntary nature of his confession.
Impact: This case highlights the importance of ensuring that suspects constitutional rights are
respected during custodial investigations. It also underscores the need for the prosecution to
affirmatively establish compliance with these rights to admit confessions as evidence.
Notes and Comments: The court’s decision to reverse the conviction and acquit the accused
was based on the lack of sufficient evidence and the violation of the accused’s rights. It serves
as a reminder of the importance of due process and the prohibition of torture and violence
during interrogations.
References: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/sep1988/gr_74123_24_1988.html
Keywords: Robbery, robbery with homicide, custodial investigation, constitutional rights, extra-
judicial confession, acquittal
Additional information: This case serves as a precedent emphasizing the importance of
respecting the constitutional rights of suspects during custodial investigations and the need for
the prosecution to prove compliance with this rights. The accused, Ronilo Pinlac y Libao, was
ultimately acquitted due to insufficient evidence and the violation of his rights during the
investigation.
Conclusion: In the case of People of the Philippines v. Ronilo Pinlac y Libao, the accused was
charged with robbery and robbery with homicide. The trial court had convicted him based on an
extra-judicial confession, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted the
accused. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the accused’s
constitutional rights, particularly his right to remain silent and have counsel present during
custodial investigation. The evidence suggested that the accused was maltreated and tortured
before signing the confession, which rendered it inadmissible. This case underscores the
importance of upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that confessions are obtained
legally and In accordance with constitutional safeguards.
Assessment: The case serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of due process and
the rights of individuals accused of crimes. It highlights the need for law enforcement authorities
to strictly adhere to the legal requirements during custodial investigations. The case
demonstrates that even in the pursuit of justice, the rights of the accused must be respected,
and any evidence obtained through illegal or coercive means should not be admitted in court.
INTRODUCTION:
This is a legal case involving multiple individuals accused of highway robbery with homicide and
carnapping in the Philippines. The case revolves around an incident that occurred on December
15, 1987, in Bauang, La Union, where a man named Pastor Pasahol was robbed and killed. The
accused individuals, Socrates Rous alias Bobby and Rolando Laygo y Collado alias Lando,
were tried in connection with this crime. The case primarily hinges on the admissibility of the
extra judicial confessions made by accused during the investigation. The court ultimately found
the confessions to be admissible and upheld the conviction of the accused.
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Socrates Rous
Case Citation: G.R. No. 103803-04, March 27, 1995
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila, Third Division
Date Decided: March 27, 1995
Key parties: People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appelle) Socrates Rous alias Bobby, Rolando
Laygo y Collado alias Lando, Premitivo Garcia alias Bong/Peming, Vergilio Pradis and Celestino
Rabina, (accused)
Facts: Socrates Rous alias Bobby, Rolando Laygo y Collado alias Lando, were charge with the
crime of Highway Robbery with Homicide and violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972). The charges come from a criminal incident that occurred on
December 15, 1987, in Bauang, La Union, where they conspired to rob and murder the victim,
Pastor Pasahol, on a national highway. The victim’s car and valuable belongings were taken
during the incident. The primary evidence against the accused was their respective extra-judicial
confessions.
Issues: The admissibility of the extra-judicial confessions of Socrates Rous and Rolando Laygo.
The validity of the confessions given without the continues presence of their respective lawyers.
Arguments: Socrates Rous argued that his extra-judicial confession was inadmissible as it was
taken without the continues presence of his lawyer, Atty. Roberto Ferrer. Rolando Laygo
contended that he was forced to sign his confession after being maltreated by the investigating
officer, Sgt.Roberto Gaddi.
Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of lower court, which the accused found
guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide. It held that both extrajudicial confessions of the
accused were admissible in evidence. The accused signed the confession in the presence of
their counsel. The court emphasize that the purpose of the constitutional requirements was to
prevent coercion, and no evidence of coercion presented.
Reasoning: The court reasoned that substancial compliance with the constitutional requirement
was sufficient. Coercion was not present in the process of obtaining the confessions. The court
also noted the high probative value of confessions as evidence when they are free from
coercion. The admissibility of the confessions was based on a lack of evidence showing that
they were extracted through violence or threats. The court emphasized that confessions carry a
strong presumption of truth when given voluntarily and in compliance with constitutional
safeguards.
Impact: The case underscores the importance of ensuring that confessions are obtained without
coercion or threats. It affirms the admissibility of confessions when the accused has been
informed of their rights and has counsel present.
Notes and Comments: The importance in this case is the significance of compliance with
constitutional requirements when takin confessions.
References: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/gr_103803_04_1995.html
Keywords: Confession admissibility, Right to counsel, Coercion
Additional information: The case revolves around the admissibility of extra judicial confessions,
with the court emphasizing the importance of ensuring that confessions are obtained voluntarily
and without coercion.
Conclusion: In this case, Socrates Rous Alias Bobby and Rolando Laygo Y Collado Alias Lando
were charged with Highway Robbery with Homicide and other related offenses. The key issue
was the admissibility of their extrajudicial confessions as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled
that the confessions were admissible because they were given voluntarily and in the presence
of counsel. The court found that there was no evidence of coercion or violence used to obtain
the confessions. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that confessions
are obtained in accordance with the law and the accused’s constitutional rights.
Assessment: This case highlights the significance of adhering to due process and respecting
the rights of the accused during investigations. It underscores that confessions obtained through
coercion, violence, or without proper legal safeguards are inadmissible as evidence. It also
shows that the presence of legal counsel during the confession can help ensure its admissibility.
This case digest reinforces the principle that the legal system should protect the rights of the
accused while pursuing justice.

Iancdi 3 A Activity (Saved)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iancdi 3 A Activity (Saved)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Cagayan State University Gonzaga

SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION

First Semester A.Y 2023-2024

SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION

SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY (100 points)

Use this format

Make a case digest using the format below

Dissent (if applicable):

Notes and Comments:

WARNING PLAGIARISM IS A CRIME ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT WILL MAKE ANOTHER

You might also like