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
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

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:
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

[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
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

INTRODUCTION:
Specialized crime investigation plays a pivotal role in the field of forensic
science and the overall investigation of crimes. It serves as a critical
component in the criminal justice system, facilitating the collection,
analysis, and interpretation of physical evidence to uncover the truth in
complex cases. Forensic experts, specializing in various field such as DNA
analysis, ballistics, toxicology, and digital forensics, provide invaluable
insights that help link suspects to crime scene or victims. These specialists
can identify patterns, establish timelines, and reconstruct events,
contributing to the prosecution of offenders and the acquittal of innocent.
Moreover, specialized crime investigation promotes fairness, as it
minimizes the risk of wrongful convictions and strengthens the criminal
justice systems credibility. It also aids in solving cold cases and in
understanding emerging threats, like cybercrimes, which have become
increasingly prevalent in our technologically driven society. Specialized
crime investigation within forensic science enhances the accuracy and
effectiveness of criminal investigations, safeguarding both the innocent and
society at large.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

II.BODY

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.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

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.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

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.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

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.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

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.
 Republic of the Philippines
Cagayan State University Gonzaga
College of Criminal Justice Education

III.Conclusion:
In Estacio’s conviction for estafa thru falsification reflects the importance of investigating
financial fraud. The legal system demands a thorough examination of documents and financial
transactions to ensure justice is served. Then De Jesus alibi defense ultimately failed as the
court found him guilty of robbery with homicide. This highlights the challenge of proving
innocence solely through alibi, reinforcing the importance of strong alibi verification and
considering other evidence in criminal investigations. Lucero’s acquittal due to insufficient
evidence. It serves as a reminder that justice requires a strong, admissible evidence to secure
convictions. Also Pinlac’s acquittal due to the confession obtained through torture and violence
highlights the significance of upholding human rights in criminal justice system. It teaches as
that obtaining evidence through unlawful means not only violates ethical standards but also
imperil the credibility of the case. Last is Rous guilty for highway robbery with homicide
emphasizes the severity of violent crimes on the road and the responsibility of criminal justice
system in addressing such offences. It is important of a fair trial and proper legal procedure.
These cases collectively emphasize the critical aspects of criminal detection and investigation.
Fair legal system necessitates the careful handling of evidence, protection of individual rights,
and through examination of alibi defenses to ensure the right balance between convicting the
guilty and protecting the innocent.

Assessment:
In the case Estacio, De Jesus, Lucero, and Pinlac, we can see the importance of the proper
processes in the pursuit of justice and the investigation of crimes committed by the individuals.
In the cases, i learned the use of right evidence, in Estacio’s case, it was proven that
falsification led to estafa, and De Jesus case, the alibi defense was utilized. Here, the collection
of the correct evidence is crucial to establish or provide a defense for an accused, and the anti-
torture law in Pinlac’s case, it emphasize the need to adhere to laws protecting against torture
and violence in obtaining confessions. This is ensuring that evidence is obtained correctly not
through violence and also it should be done in the use of proper process. I learned that the legal
system has mechanisms in place to ensure that those accused of wrongdoing are punished
while those innocent are allowed to maintain their freedom.