COMPARISON CHART

QUESTIONED SIGNATURE 1 STANDARD SIGNATURE 1

STANDARD SIGNATURE 2

STANDARD SIGNATURE 3
 COMPARISON CHART

QUESTIONED SIGNATURE 1 STANDARD SIGNATURE 4

STANDARD SIGNATURE 5

STANDARD SIGNATURE 6
s
 COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTIVE ASPECT STANDARD SPECIMEN QUESTIONED SPECIMEN

No. of specimen: 6 1

Dominated by narrow spacing Dominated by narrow spacing

General Formation formation with garland formation with garland
connections. connections.

Indicative of slightly upward

stroke direction of baseline Indicative of flat-shaped stroke in
Relation to Base Line
strokes but not consistent. baseline.

Greater degree of handwriting

pressure and lesser degree of
Line Quality ------ do ------
the handwriting or writing
speed.

Wider distance of strokes in both

Narrow distance of strokes in
Ratio and Proportion initial and terminal writing
both initial and terminal strokes.
executions

Varies within the primary Varies within the primary

Variation controlling pattern under controlling pattern under
simple degree of modification. extreme degree of modification
 SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION

STANDARD SPECIMEN QUESTIONED SPECIMEN

1. Retrace 1. No retrace
2. Flattened stoke/ flat-shaped stroke 2. Slanting retrace stroke
3. Long narrow loop 3. Shorter broad loop
4. Triangular space formation 4. Filled intersecting strokes
5. Blunt initial stroke 5. -do-
6. Wide spacing (inconsistent) 6. Narrow spacing
7. No tremor 7. Tremor
8. Small loop 8. Bigger loop
9. Taller garland 9. Shorted garland
10. No pen-pressure 10. Pen-pressure
11. Narrow stroke 11. Wider stroke
12. No added stroke 12. Added stroke

Conclusion: The questioned signature and standard signatures were written by two different
persons.

Republic of the Philippines

 Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY
University Site, Ibabang Dupay, Lucena City, Quezon

QUESTIONED DOCUMENT EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 2024-D098-(Group 4)

CASE: This case is a Signature Analysis of a suspected falsified signature of Mr. Luis
Raymond Quina (victim) on a Bank Cheque.

TIME AND DATE RECEIVED: The signature analysis is requested by the Lucena City Police
Office on April 29, 2024, 10:30 AM

REQUESTING PARTY/UNIT:
LUCENA CITY POLICE OFFICE
Allarey St. Brgy. 5, Lucena City
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
The specimens for comparative examination were the suspected falsified signature on a Bank
Cheque, this is marked as QS1 and 6 standards were collected or requested.
1. One (1) copy of the signature on a Bank Cheque being questioned as a personal
signature of Luis Raymond Quina marked as QS1-FS.
2. Submitted documents bearing the signature of Luis Raymond Quina marked with:
SS1-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Hate Letter dated 03-18-2021
SS2-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Marriage Contract dated 05-16-2021
SS3-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Love Letter dated 01-01-2022
SS4-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Will and testament dated 03-07-2018
SS5-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Land Title dated 04-02-2016
SS6-FS = One (1) copy of a signature on a Business Contract dated 08-12-2018

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:

To conduct scientific examination and analysis on the submitted specimens whether or not the
questioned signature marked “QS1-FS” and the standard signatures marked “SS1-FS to SS6-FS”
were written by one and the same person.

FINDINGS:
Scientific comparative examination and analysis of the questioned and submitted
standards reveal divergences in the manner of execution, line quality, stroke structure, and other
individual handwriting characteristics. Specifically, the following were the findings:

QS1-FS and SS1-FS

 As shown by the findings, the questioned signature is not genuine signature of Mr. Quina,
but rather some other person who tries to imitate her signature. The questioned signature marked
as QS1 have a no retrace while collected standard signature marked as SS1 have a retrace labeled
as number 1. However, while the questioned signature has a slanting retrace stroke, the standard
signature has a flattened stroke or flat-shaped stroke labeled as number 2. Additionally, the
questioned signature has a shorter broad loop, the standard signature has a long narrow loop
labeled as number 3.

QS1-FS and SS2-FS

As shown by the findings, the questioned signature is not genuine signature of Mr. Quina,
but rather some other person who tries to imitate her signature. The questioned signature marked
as SS1 has a slanting retrace stroke, the standard signature marked as SS2 has a flattened stroke
or flat-shaped stroke labeled as number 2. However, the questioned signature has a shorter broad
loop, the standard signature has a long narrow loop labeled as number 3. Additionally, the
questioned signature has a filled intersecting strokes, the standard signature has a triangular
space formation labeled as number 4.

QS1-FS and SS3-FS

As shown by the findings, the questioned signature is not genuine signature of Mr. Quina,
but rather some other person who tries to imitate her signature. The questioned signature marked
as QS1 has a filled intersecting strokes, the standard signature marked as SS3 has a triangular
space formation labeled as number 4. However, the questioned signature marked as QS1 and the
standard signature marked as SS3 are both have blunt initial stroke labeled as number 5. In
addition, the questioned signature marked as QS1 has a narrow spacing which is diverse in the
standard signature marked as SS3 which has a wide spacing (inconsistent) labeled as number 6.

QS1-FS and SS4-FS

As shown by the findings, the questioned signature of Mr. Quina, but rather some other
person who tries to imitate his signature. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has a narrow
spacing in writing execution while in standard signature as SS4 has a wide spacing labeled as
number 6. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has mild tremor in writing execution while
in standard signature marked as SS4 has no tremor in number 7. Additionally, the questioned
signature marked as QS1 has bigger loop while standard signatured marked as SS4 has a small
loop labeled as number 8.

QS1-FS and SS5-FS

 As shown by the findings, the questioned signature of Mr. Quina, but rather some other
person who tries to imitate his signature. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has a shorted
garland in writing execution while in standard signature as SS5 has a taller garland labeled as
number 9. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has pen-pressure in writing execution while
in standard signature marked as SS5 has no pen-pressure in number 10. Additionally, the
questioned signature marked as QS1 has a wider stroke while standard signatured marked as SS5
has a narrow stroke labeled as number 11.

QS1-FS and SS6-FS

As shown by the findings, the questioned signature of Mr. Quina, but rather some other
person who tries to imitate his signature. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has a pen-
pressure in writing execution while in standard signature as SS6 has no pen-pressure labeled as
number 10. The questioned signature marked as QS1 has a wider stroke in writing execution
while in standard signature marked as SS6 has a narrow stroke in number 11. Lastly, the
questioned signature marked as QS1 has an added stroke while standard signatured marked as
SS6 has no added stroke labeled as number 12.

CONCLUSION:
 The Questioned Signatures and Standards were WRITTEN BY TWO DIFFERENT
PEOPLE.

REMARKS:
The original copy of this report is retained in this office for future reference.

TIME AND DATE COMPLETED: 10:00 AM, May 07, 2024

Examined by:

JOHN ZEDRICK MARVIDA REVILLA

Document Examiner

Verified by:

YUANNE B. PACHECO
Senior Document Examiner

Approved by:

FERGELYN J. CANONIGO
Chief, CCJC QDE Laboratory