Abstract
This mixed-methods explanatory sequential study was conducted to determine fingerprint identification practices among law enforcement agencies on Panay Island for the calendar year 2024-2025. The respondents for the quantitative part of the study were one hundred (100) purposively selected respondents, composed of ninety (90) PNP Investigators, eight (8) PNP fingerprint experts, and two (2) NBI fingerprint experts, classified according to their length of service and course. For the qualitative part, the participants were the eight (8) fingerprint experts of the PNP and two (2) fingerprint experts of the NBI, who hold the designation of fingerprint examiner and have five years or more of experience in fingerprint identification. The respondents were classified according to their length of service and the course in which they were enrolled. The extent of fingerprint identification practices among law enforcement agencies was determined using a researcher-developed questionnaire that was duly validated by experts. The mean, frequency, percentage, and standard deviation were used for descriptive data analysis, while the Mann-Whitney test was used for inferential data analysis; the level of significance was set at 0.05. Thematic analysis was employed to interpret the qualitative data. The findings indicated that fingerprint identification practices among law enforcement personnel were moderate in terms of length of service and course. There was no significant difference in fingerprint identification practices among law enforcement personnel, regardless of length of service or course of study. Four key themes emerged in the representation of fingerprint identification practices across different law enforcement agencies: the use of standardized processes, the use of the ACE-V method, the use of methods and techniques for fingerprint comparison, and the conduct of fingerprint verification. The moderate practice of fingerprint identification among law enforcement personnel across all categories, including length of service and course, provided a baseline level of competency in fingerprint identification practices within the law enforcement community. The lack of significant differences in fingerprint identification practices among law enforcement personnel, when classified by length of service and course, suggests that factors such as experience and academic background do not significantly affect these practices. The key themes identified in the interviews, including the use of standardized processes in fingerprint identification, the application of the ACE-V method, the utilization of methods and techniques for fingerprint comparison, and the conduct of fingerprint verification, highlighted the core practices and methods employed by various law enforcement agencies in fingerprint identification. This study has shed light on the intricate and methodical practices that underpin fingerprint identification across various law enforcement agencies on Panay Island. The emergence of four key themes reflects a shared commitment among these agencies to uphold the accuracy and reliability of fingerprint examinations. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of ongoing professional development, the reinforcement of standardized procedures, and the enhancement of forensic competencies to ensure that fingerprint identification remains a credible and indispensable tool in the pursuit of justice.
