 PublicSafety Officers must have to

understand the deeper meaning of

the General Principles of Crime
Investigation – for his/her
knowledge on this particular subject
matter will help him/her in
performing his/her investigative
duties and responsibilities.
 Basically,
Public Safety Officers in
the performance of their duties,
they must seek to establish the six
(6) cardinal points investigation,
namely:
 WHAT specific offense/crime has
been committed;

 WHEN the crime/offense was

committed;

 WHY the crime/offense was

committed;
WHERE the crime/offense was
committed;

WHO committed the crime/

offense; and

HOW the crime/offense was

committed.
 Itis therefore mandatory for all of
us to know and internally exercise
these General Principles of Crime
Investigation for the interest of
justice and equity.
 Determine if a crime has been
committed;

 Legally obtain information and

evidence to identify the person(s)
responsible;
 Arrest the suspect(s);

 Recover stolen property; and

 Present the best possible case to

the prosecutor.
APublic Safety Officer assigned as
an Investigator is a person who
possesses all the basic attributes of
good investigator and must be both
equipped with the theoretical and
practical knowledge and
 understanding of the general
principles of crime investigation as
well as the various steps and
procedures in the preservation of
the crime scene.
 The modern day investigator must
be as diverse as the crimes that
face him or her. The investigator’s
mind set is the key to success.
 Investigation- it is the process of
inquiring, eliciting, soliciting and
getting vital information/facts/
circumstances in order to establish
the truth.
 Crime Investigation – it is the
collection of facts in order to
accomplish the three (3) fold aims –
to identify the guilty party; to locate
the guilty party; and to provide
evidence of his (suspect) guilt.
 Crime Investigator – is a public
safety officer who is tasked to
conduct the investigation of all
criminal cases as provided and
embodied for under the Revised
Penal Code/Criminal Laws and
Special Laws which are criminal in
nature.
A well trained, disciplined and
experienced in the field of criminal
investigation duties and
responsibilities.
 Suspect or Suspects- individual(s)
who is/are pointed to be by the
victim(s) and witness(es) to have
had committed the crime in issue.
Subject person is not considered
as a criminal unless otherwise
pronounced in the court his/her
conviction.
 Crime Scene – a venue or place
where the alleged crime/incident/
event has been committed.
 Crime Scene Sketch – a drawn
overlay of the crime scene
indicating the position or exact
location where the body of the
victim lies/found including physical
evidence.
 It is the complete description of
the crime scene with complete
measurements and scales.
 Eye-witness Testimony – the
judicial or direct narration of facts
by the person or persons who really
witnessed how the crime was
committed by the suspect(s) to the
person of the victim(s) and/or to
the property stolen or taken.
 Circumstantial Evidence (Indirect
Evidence) – is that which tends to
establish a fact by providing
another (circumstantial evidence
also). It does not of itself
conclusively establish a disputed
fact but merely creates an
inference (notion/idea) or
presumption of its existence.
 Associate Evidence or
Corroborative Evidence –is
additional evidence of a different
character to the same point (in
issue).
 Information, as the first tool of
investigation, can be the launching pad
that will chart the course or destiny of
the investigator in his quest for the
solution of the crime.
 One who supplies linguistics data in
response to interrogation is called
informant. In intelligence community,
the informant is sometimes
denominated as asset. But whether
informant or asset, both are sources
of information.
 Whilethere is no formula to determine
the reliability or unreliability of an
informant, the investigator must be
guided by the technical science jargon
of “garbage in, garbage out”.
 Most often, the investigator takes
official cognizance of the crime only
after its commission. Seldom is a
crime committed in the presence of
the investigator. Thus, alternative
recourse of the investigator is to
resort to primary and secondary
sources which may be categorized
into:
 Primary Source – refers to informant
who can testify only to those facts
which he knows, that is, which are
derived from his own perception.
Example: eyewitness, victim,
offended party and co-conspirator.
 Secondary Source – refers to
informant whose declaration is within
the domain of the hearsay rule,
hence, inadmissible.
 Within this purview, the investigator
must be conversant with the
qualification and exclusionary rule on
informant. Anybody can be an
informant, but not all informants are
competent or their declaration relevant
and material to the case at bar.
 Informant per se is not a witness in
contemplation of the rules, therefore, his
statement is hearsay and not admissible
in judicial proceedings. Similarly, the
declaration of an asset falls within the
province of hearsay rule and likewise
exclusionary.
 Hearsay Evidence means all evidence
which are not found upon the
personal knowledge of the witness
from whom it is elicited. The only
exception, however, is when the
informant or asset is categorized as
primary source.
 Inone case, the court ruled that it is
hearsay evidence if the testimony of a
witness is predicated upon what he
has heard other persons say on the
facts in dispute. People versus
Sarmiento, 64 SCRA 351.
 Pursuant to Section 30, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court, the testimony of a
witness is generally confined to the
facts of which he has personal
knowledge, that is, facts of which he
came to know directly through his
own perception.
 Under this rule, a witness testimony
as to what he merely learned from
others, either through being told or
having read, may not be received as
proof of the truth of what he has
learned.
 Equally disturbing is the arrest of a
person by the investigator on mere
suspicion based on INFORMATION. The
question is, can an arrest on mere
suspicion justify?
 Word and Phrase’s dictionary define
suspicion as being the imagination of
the existence of something without
proof, or upon very slight evidence or
upon no evidence at all.
 The court ruled, “Suspicion was but a
flickering thought based on nothing
more than the product of imagination.”
Therefore, the accused was entitled to
acquittal. People versus Batuampo CA.,
62 O.G. 6269.
 Itis illegal and the incidental search
is also unlawful. Thus a person
arrested merely on suspicion and the
search yielded drugs or contrabands
on his person, the seized evidence is
not admissible in evidence under the
“Doctrine of the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree”.
 But if the arrest was made due to the
fact that the person to be arrested is
acting suspiciously, then the arrest is
valid and the incidental seizure of the
contraband on his person is
admissible in evidence.
  The next arena of concern of the
investigator is when an informant
point to a witness who saw the
commission of a crime and knew the
author thereof, yet adamant to testify
and maintains stoic silence. It may be
asked, can the said witness be held
liable as an accessory to the crime?
 The court ruled, “If a person who saw
the commission of a crime and knew
who is the perpetrator, but kept silent
and did not report it to the authorities
is not liable even as accessory.” US vs
Callapag 21 Phil. 262.
 Therationale behind this ruling is that
such omission is not one of those acts
enumerated in Article 19 of the
Revised Penal Code. It is further
argued that such omission is not
harboring or concealing or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the
crime. Article 19, para 3. (RPC).
 INFORMATION– is the data gathered
by the investigator from other persons
including the victim himself/herself and
from public records, private records
and modus operandi files (style or
mode of committing crime).
 INFORMANT– is any person who
furnishes the police an information
relevant to a criminal case about the
activities of criminals or syndicates.
 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT is a
person who provides the police with
confidential information concerning a
past crime or a projected and planned
crime. He does not want to be
identified as the source of information.
 Under the law, these informants are
protected and their identity could not
be revealed by the police even under
the order of the Court unless on
exceptional case where there is a
claim of the defense that the
informant framed up the accused.
 Informant increases accomplishments
in all areas of investigation;

 Without informants, investigator’s

source of information is limited to
what he gets through interview;
 Informant enable the law enforcers
to infiltrate the criminal elements
and help lower criminal morale.
Advance information improves crime
prevention and enables the police to
find out the identity or transient
hoodlums; and
 Informants are investigative “short
cut” to solve cases, to recover stolen
property, and to make apprehensions.
 Constant Need;

 Evaluation of the individual being

considered as informant; and

 Basic Considerations.
 Maximum Benefits – Informant should
be used for the maximum benefit of
the entire organization, and not of only
one officer or investigator;
A designated executive should be
aware of the identity of the
informant. At least two (2) individuals
in the law enforcement agency should
know the identity of a confidential
informant; and
 Consider a program within your
respective commands for the
development of the informants.
 Probably the most demanding and
least mechanical phase of
investigative work is the INTERVIEW
and INTERROGATION.
 Itis also one of the most critical,
for the effectiveness of an
investigator is largely proportional
to his skills in eliciting information
from the witnesses, informants,
complainants and suspects.
 If the investigator cannot get all
the material facts from these
persons at the outset of the
investigation, it can mean the
difference between solution and
frustration.
 Interview and Verbal Interrogation
are one and the same creature in
interrogation. Both are by oral
medium and, therefore, unwritten.
Both are preliminary inquiries that
may ripen to written interrogation.
 Both have a common thrust and
purpose, “to determine whether the
witness is credible or incompetent,
or whether one is purveyor of truth
or peddler of lies.”
 Interview- is a simple inquiry/
conversation-type elicitation of
information from a willing victim(s)/
witness(es) relevant to a certain
crime/incident/event under
investigation.
 “Never conduct or let anyone conduct an
interview if the interviewer has not gone to
the crime scene. The questioning should be
in agreement with the facts and conditions
at the crime scene. The questioning will lead
wayward for the interviewer who had not
seen personally the crime scene and he will
not be in a position to distinguish half-
truths, exaggerations or falsehood from
the answers of the person being
interviewed”.
 The interview of a witness can
be described by the acronym
“IRONIC” – which stands for
“IDENTITY, RAPPORT, OPENING
STATEMENT, NARRATION,
INQUIRY and CONCLUSION”.
 Priorto commencing interview, the
investigator should IDENTIFY
himself to the witness by name,
rank and agency. The investigator’s
official authority to make the
authority is thereby established
and witness cooperation is probably
increased –
 sincemost of the persons respond
positively to figures of authority.
The witness also obtains names of a
person to contact in the future, if
necessary.
 Upon making contact with the
witness, the investigator must seek
to establish RAPPORT with him –
since a good interpersonal
relationship maximizes the ability
to extract information.
 The salesmanship of the
investigator is crucial to a good
witness-investigator relationship.
Reluctance and even hostility can be
over come if the officer
establishes a good relationship with
the witness.
 At some interview, the
investigator will need to indicate
why witness is being contacted.
But in some situations, the reasons
for inquiry will be obvious – as
where the victim teller in a bank
robbery is interviewed.
 However, the witness should be told
no more about the reason for
contact than fairness requires.
 As a rule, the investigator should
allow the witness to present
whatever information he possesses
as a NARRATIVE in his own words.
 The officer should refrain from
injecting questions or comments until
the witness has finished his history.
Interruptions should be made only to
keep the witness on tract and
eliminate non-pertinent information.
 Once the witness has told his initial
story, the investigator may then
ask specific questions to fill in
omitted acts, clarify ambiguous
statements, verify names, dates
and other details and insure that all
pertinent information has been
extracted.
 Just as entries in a notepad should
contain the WHO, WHAT, WHEN,
WHERE, WHY, AND HOW of
various topics, the interviewing
officer should be sure that the
same “5 Ws and 1 H” are covered
with respect to the information
which the witness may have.
 In accomplishing this task, the
investigating officer should avoid
Leading and Misleading or
Suggestive Questions. Specific
inquiries generally should required
elaboration on a point rather that a
mere “YES” or “NO” response.
 The interview should be
CONCLUDED when it becomes
apparent that the witness has
nothing pertinent left to offer. At
that time, the officer should orally
summarize the witness’s statement.
 At this stage, the investigator
should also insure that he has the
correct name and address of the
witness in the event that further
contact is needed. Finally, the
witness should be thanked for his
aid.
 Interrogation is the skillful
questioning of a hostile person
suspecting of having committed an
offense or of a person who is
reluctant to make a full disclosure
of information in his possession
which is pertinent to the
investigation.
 Toobtain information concerning the
innocence or guilt of the suspect;

 Toobtain confession to the crime

from the guilty suspect;
 To encourage the suspect to make
admission;

 To know the surroundings and

circumstances of a crime;
 To learn of the existence and
location of physical evidence, such
as documents or weapons;

 To learn and know the identity of

accomplices or accessories;
  To develop information which will
lead to the fruits of the crime;

 To develop additional leads for the

investigation; and
 To discover the details of any
other crime in which the suspect
participated in the past.
 “Make him admit something, no
matter how small or trivial. Usually
the first admission will lead to
another. In securing the first
admission is the biggest stumbling
block in dealing with tough
suspects”.
 Voluntariness. Unlike in interview
of a witness, the statement of a
person being interrogated must
have been made voluntarily and
must not be the product of
threats, fear, fraud, coercion and
other improper tactics;
 The voluntariness requirement
stems from the 1987 Constitution
(Art III, Sec 12 {1} – Miranda
Warning);
 Jurisprudence dictates the
correct procedure to be followed
by the police investigators in
making arrest and conducting
custodial investigation. At the
time of a person arrested, it shall
be the duty of arresting officer
to:
 Identify himself;

 Inform him of the reason for the

arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any; and

 He shall be informed of his

constitutional rights.
 Interview the victim, the accuser,
or the discoverer of the crime
before interrogating the suspect;
 Be patient and persistent. Never
conclude an interrogation at a time
when you feel discouraged and
ready to give up; continue for a
little while longer;
 Make no promise when asked
“What will happen to me if I tell
you the truth”;
 View with skepticism the so-called
conscience-stricken confession;
 An unintelligent or uneducated
suspect with a low cultural
background should be interrogated
on a psychological level comparable
to that usually employed in the
questioning of a child.
 A number of crime incidents committed in
the country are unsolved and/ or
dismissed at the trial court because of
insufficiency of evidence. Important pieces
of evidence that will provide clue on the
suspect/s or offenders identities can be
found at the crime scene.
 However, those vital evidence at the crime
scene are either left out or destroyed by
unscrupulous investigators. The physical
evidence recovered at the crime scene are
critical in the prosecution of the case in
court and with the advent of new
technologies, they could be analyzed
scientifically for these purposes.
 The recovery of physical evidence during
investigation of the crime scene is the
most important task of current law
enforcement. In most cases, the material
items of evidence and descriptive
information collected from the crime scene
make a big difference in the success of
and failure of cases in court.
 The idea of enhancing SOCO is to assist
police investigators in term of scientific
approach in investigating criminal cases,
specifically heinous crimes.
 INSTRUMENTATION - is defined as the
scientific examination of real evidence;
application of instruments and other
scientific aids or methods of physical
science in detecting crime
 Itis the sum total of the application of
all sciences in investigation otherwise
known as criminalistics. Although
instrumentation means more than
criminalistics because it includes also
all the technical methods by which the
suspect may be traced and examined.
 Criminalisticsas a scientific discipline,
is now the best legal arsenal of
investigator to cushion the impact
brought about by Article 3, Section
12, Paragraph 1 of the 1987
Constitution.
 Proper handling of physical evidence
is necessary to obtain the maximum
possible information upon which
scientific examination shall be based
and to prevent exclusion as evidence
in court.
 Specimen which truly represents the
material found at the crime scene,
unaltered, unspoiled, or otherwise
unchanged in handling will provide
more and better information upon
examination.
 Legal requirements make it necessary
to account for all pieces of physical
evidence from the time it is collected
until it is presented in court. With
these in mind, the following principles
should be observed in handling all
types of evidence:
 The evidence should reach the
laboratory as much as possible in
the same condition as when it is
found;
 The quantity of specimen should be
adequate. Even with the best
equipment available, good results
cannot be obtained from insufficient
specimen. Submit a known or
standard specimen for comparison
purposes;
 Keep each specimen separate from
others so there will be no
intermingling or mixing of known and
unknown materials. Wrap and seal in
individual packages when necessary;
 Mark or label each piece of evidence
for positive identification as the
evidence taken from a particular
location in connection with the crime
under investigation; and
 The chain of custody of evidence
must be maintained. Account for
evidence from the time it is collected
until it is produced in court. Any
break in the chain of custody may
make the material inadmissible as
evidence in court.