In The 23rd July 1997 issue of the Sun Star Daily, it was reported that the “Joint Regional mobile group (RMG) 7 and Carcar police operatives yesterday (July 22, 1997) combed the cliffs of Sitio Tan-awan, Barangay Guadalupe, Carcar after residents complained of a foul smell in the area.”
It further reported that the “police
found no body, except for a pair of old black rubber shoes which they
brought along for examination.” No mention of any
diskette found was ever reported.
Mysteriously, a year after, a certain SPO1 Antonio Sabala, Jr. testified in open court on September 21, 1998 that he also “found” a computer diskette at the same time as when he found the old “unisex black converse rubber shoes”.
Surprisingly, four days after the dead body was found, and after so many curious towns people and passing motorist stopping by the top of the ravine, no one noticed the diskette just laying right there under the railings near the cliff, except the witness, off course.
One might be able to believe about the rubber shoes not being discovered earlier, since it was found at the garbage site near the cliff, but the diskette?
What’s more surprising still, after the heavy rains during those four days
it was just lying there. And a lot of handling, from the witness to the
Carcar police station, to the CIG in Cebu City, where it lay there for
The Bailen report “cast doubt on whether the print was indeed developed and lifted initially from the diskette or lifted from another source, and remnants of which were merely transferred to this part of the diskette.
It is also logical to expect that if the diskette was actually held between the fingers of the accused, at least one of the other four fingers should have left marks on the other side (of the metallic plate), which should have been developed and lifted.”
2) As the rolled on fingerprint is typically not the kind of print one leaves while casually touching an object, but must be definitely printed (i.e. rolled on) on a plain surface, the other conclusion would be that the rolled on fingerprint allegedly lifted and developed from the diskette must have been produced by one who consciously rolled a finger on that flat surface.
And 3) It is unlikely that then person claimed by the PNP fingerprint examiner said to be the source of that thumbprint could have left that latent print by simply touching the diskette.”
As an experiment, try to hold the diskette in such a way that only your thumbprint will touch one side of the plate without any of the other fingers touching the rear portion.
HOME INDEX NEXT PART