THERE WAS one thing that spelled the difference in the prosecution of the killers of Kian delos Santos. It is video footage of policemen manhandling him in his last moments on earth. It caused an outcry and led to the identification and conviction of the malefactors.
What about the hundreds of alleged drug personalities who were killed after supposedly fighting it out with the police?
Sadly, there are no videos that could present the technical and unsentimental truth. Worse, very few eyewitnesses are brave enough to come out and bare the bloody details to prosecutors and judges.
Without similar video evidence, the kin left by those who died in the drug war have left it all to the judgment of heaven. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions has become an imposing obstacle that courage alone cannot surmount.
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo deserves accolades for recently coming out with rules on the use of body-worn cameras in the execution of warrants of arrest and search warrants.
The Supreme Court acted on reports of deaths resulting from the implementation of these warrants. Court processes have become instruments of death and not implements of justice as they are meant to be.
The Supreme Court thus felt the need to heed the call of lawyers’ groups and human rights advocates to re-formulate criminal procedure and make use of technological advancements in the protection of fundamental rights.
Incidentally, Chinese manufacturers can supply body cameras for only five thousand pesos per gadget. A very small price for government to pay for human rights.
According to the Supreme Court, law enforcement agents are now required to use body-worn cameras when implementing search and arrest warrants.
There is hardly any excuse. If no body camera is available, the police are required to use an “alternative recording device.” A cellular phone with a camera can come in handy. The point is – these operations may no longer be done without cameras as tools of recording evidence.
Even in cases of warrantless arrests, like buy-bust operations, police officers are required to use video recording devices “insofar as it is practicable.”
We note significant distinctions between failure to use body-worn cameras in making arrests and implementing search warrants.
Failure to use video cameras in effecting arrests will not nullify the arrest. Validity of the arrest may still be shown by testimony. But it will subject the erring officer to contempt of court and possible criminal, civil, and administrative charges.
On the other hand, failure to use video cameras in implementing a search warrant will make the artifact or contraband inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense that may have been committed. The things seized will be useless in court. Such failure will also expose the police to contempt of court and possible criminal, civil, and administrative charges.
There are also important riders in these new regulations. For example, it is now clear that witnesses to the arrest or search may record the events with their own cameras or devices. The police cannot stop them from recording. The recordings may be presented and authenticated during trial.
Also, the police may not invoke confidentiality in cases where a killing transpires during the implementation of a search or arrest warrant. These events are now expressly classified as public events that ought to be disclosed to the people.
Public indifference is fuel for impunity. Brutality is fed by an unfeeling public grown numb and weary by news of the constant use of deadly force. Something had to be done by those who profess love for the rule of law./PN
