MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the murder conviction of the three cops who killed 17-year-old Kian delos Santos at the height of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war in 2017.

The High Court’s 2nd Division found cops Police Officer III Arnel Oares, PO1 Jeremias Pereda, and PO1 Jerwin Cruz guilty of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years in prison. They were also ordered to pay the Delos Santos family a total of P275,000 in damages.

This decision, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, affirmed the earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which convicted the three cops without the eligibility for parole.

Surveillance videos from closed circuit television in the area where Delos Santos was killed revealed that the teenager was dragged by cops to a dark corner, then was later shot by the three cops in Caloocan City in August 2017. The cops even lied, claiming that the kid had links to drugs, but Delos Santos’ family refuted this.

Delos Santos became the face of Duterte’s brutal and bloody war on drugs that had claimed nearly 30,000 people, according to human rights groups’ tallies. His death cast doubt on the conduct of the Philippine National Police, which Duterte had instructed to wage the war.

When Caloocan City RTC convicted the cops in November 2018, it ruled that Delos Santos was helpless, taking note of the account that the teenager was already kneeling, covering his head, and pleading when he was shot. The CA later affirmed the RTC’s ruling.

To date, there have only been five known conviction of cops involved in the drug war, Delos Santos’ case included. Duterte is now detained at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, due to his crimes against humanity case that stems from his war on drugs and the alleged Davao Death Squad.

Court’s decision

In affirming the conviction, the SC ruled that all the elements of murder were present in the case.

“Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the act of killing another person, especially when the act involves treachery, among other factors, as long as it is not parricide or infanticide,” the SC said.

According to the High Court, treachery is present when the victim has no chance to defend himself and when the suspect deliberately chooses the means or the methods of the attack. Treachery, according to the SC, includes shooting the victim in vital areas like the head, or attacking them from behind to prevent defense.

In Delos Santos’ case, treachery was present.

“The bullets entered from the side and back of his head, showing that he likely did not see his attackers and was unable to defend himself. The SC found that the officers deliberately took Kian to a secluded location and placed him in a helpless position, enabling them to kill him with impunity and ensuring the execution of the crime,” the High Court explained.

The SC also rejected the defense’s claim that the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony affected their credibility. The High Court said these “minor differences” were not related to the elements of murder.

In addition, the High Court also rejected the cops’ argument that they were just doing their duties.

“This defense applies only when the harm is an unavoidable result of a lawful police action. In this case, the SC ruled that the officers were not acting within the bounds of their duty — and even if they were, killing Kian was neither necessary nor justified,” the SC said. “The killing of a minor could not be considered standard in this operation [and] performance of duties does not include murder.”

However, the SC tweaked the penalty against the cops. The RTC and CA originally convicted the three without eligibility for parole. Parole allows convicted people to afford conditional early release.

“While affirming the conviction, the SC changed the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA by removing the phrase ‘without eligibility for parole.’ This applies only when there are circumstances that justify the death penalty, which were not present in this case,” the SC explained. – Rappler.com