REVIEW OF THE SEROLOGICAL ANALYSIS MADE 
BY PNP MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST ON SOME 
PHYSICAL EXHIBITS

CASE: Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong Case 

DATE EXAMINED: Friday, 8 January 1999 

REQUESTING PARTY: Atty. Sisinio Andales and Atty, Eric Carin.

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED: 
          1. One (1) Orange T-Shirt with the brand name "Giordano" marked as Exh, "A"
          2. One (1) blue Maong pants with brand name "Guess" marked as Exh. "B"
          3. One (1) Bra worn by the victim marked as Exh. "C"
          4. One (1) Panty marked as Exh. "D"
          5. One (1) black rubber shoes with brand name "Converse" marked as Exh."F' 
          6. Medico-legal report no. S-011 -97 marked as Exh. "SSS"
          7. Medico-legal report no. S-011 A-97 marked as Exh. "SSS-2"

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
          Rendering expert opinion on the serological analysis made by Medical Technologist on the above mentioned evidences. 

EXAMINATION AND EXPERT OPINION GIVEN BY: PAZ V. ABIS WHO IS A: 

          I. Full time professor and Head of the Chemistry and Mathematics Department of the Philippine College of Criminology;
  
          2. 2 B.S. Chemistry graduate, University of the Philippine in 1949 and M.S. Chem., Univ. of the Phil. In 1959 under MERALCO INDUSTRIAL SCHOLARSHIP;
  
          3. Registered Chemist as of Nov., 1954;  

          4. Author/Co Author of books, among them are: 
 "Principles of Chemistry for Criminology"; Laboratory Manual for Prin. of   Chemistry, Book I; Book II, Book III; Laboratory Manual for Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology.  
 
          5. Criminology Board Reviewer in Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology and Fire Technology at Phil. College of Criminology; Manual L. Quezon Univ.; Univ. of Manila; Holy Angeles Colleges in Puerto Princessa, Palawan; Luzon Colleges in Dagupan,  Pangasinan and Muntinlupa Technological College.  

FINDINGS: 
          Examination, evaluations, opinions and finally a conclusions has been asked of me concerning the articles gathered at the crime scene and examined by Jude Daniel M. Mendoza, Medical technologist of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Cebu City.  
 
          1. Exh. A, Exh. B, Exh. C and Exh. F, were tested for the presence of blood. The test used by Mr. Jude Daniel M. Mendoza was the Benzidine test and he obtained a blue color. The result made him conclude that the stains were of blood.  
          Benzidine Test is only a preliminary test for blood. 
          A positive blue visible result can be interpreted that the stain is may be blood. Other substance like sputum, pus, nasal secretion, plant juices, formalin and bentonite clay will also give blue with benzidine.  
          The Examiner should have subjected the stain to a confirmatory test like the Takayama Test to confirm that the stain is surely blood.
 
          2. Exh. A, on p. 27 lines 31 and 32 of the transcript of stenographic notes, Jude Mendoza claimed that he proceeded to examine the orange T-shirt for human blood. In his testimony, he said he used the precipitin test and the visible result of the test "turned a little bit pink". 
               To determine whether the stain is human or animal blood, the precipitin test is used. The visible result should be milky or white and not pinkish.  

PAGE 2
          3. Exh. D and Medico-legal Report No. S-011A-97 contained the examination of the panty and the report of the results of the examination as to whether semenal stains were present. 

          The expert opinions on the test conducted are:
 
                    3.1 The tiny bluish-violet light indicates the presence of spermatozoa. However, person afflicted with aspermia (without spermatozoa) will not give bluish flourescence, Bluish flourescene is not specific for seminal stains. It may also be given by some other albuminous materials. This test is given when the cloth is clean. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 in the Annex A and Annex B show that the panty is dirty. 

                    3.2 Florence test, a chemical test for semen had no visible result. 
                          Jude Mendoza stated that he cut a portion of the panty and divided it into two, 1/2 for microscopic examination and other half for Florence test. From the report, I understand that he made only 1 trial of the Florence test and came up with the conclusion that the stain is semen. This is a wrong analytical procedure. An analyst should make at least three (3) trials of the same test to come to a credible conclusion. 

xxx 

CONCLUSION: 

          Exh. A, Exh. B, Exh. C and exh. D cannot be used as circumstantial evidences because of the following reasons: 

               1. the collection and preservation of the specimen was faulty. One article was wrapped with a newspaper;

               2. insufficient sample of blood to do blood groupings;
 
               3. no standards for comparison were collected; 

               4. the tests conducted did not give the desired visible results to identify the serological specimen; 

               5. the scientific method of analysis to come to a credible identification was not followed. 

REMARKS: 
          The Original copy of this two pages report was given to Atty. Sisinio Andales; duplicate with Atty. Eric Carin and triplicate with the undersigned for future reference. 

DATE COMPLETED: January 18, 1999  

                                                                             EXAMINED BY: 

                                                                              signed: PAZ V. ABIS, M. S. Chem. 
                                                                                             Head, Chemistry and Mathematics 
                                                                                             Department, PCCr.