THE CONVICTION of some policemen for the killing of 17-year-old Kian Delos Santos in 2017 has always been held as an example that the criminal justice system in the Philippines is working.
In fact, that case was cited by the Philippine government when it sought a halt in the investigation being undertaken by the International Criminal Court into the drug war killings that merited daily headlines six years ago.
Considering that the Philippine justice system operates to punish the offender, its Solicitor General said that a resumption of the investigation constitutes an interference with the Philippine government’s domestic functions and affairs.
***
Who can contradict that the Kian case was more the exception rather than the rule throughout the entire period that “oplan tokhang” was being implemented by the national police?
Government was constrained to let the process take its course because of the media conflagration that followed the killing.
Yet the investigation and the prosecution that followed it stopped at the level of the actual perpetrators of the murder.
***
It is incredible that the convicted low-ranking police officers (a PO3 and two PO1s) would risk their careers and personal freedoms in inflicting capital harm without compelling reasons.
It is reasonable to deduce that they were acting on orders of a superior power.
There is nothing in the Kian decision that would show any personal or business relationship between the victim and the perpetrators that would betray motives other than compliance with an illegal directive. The defense admitted that the police officers were on the streets that night to conduct “One-Time, Big-Time” operation.
***
The Kian decision mentions PCI Jocelyn Padilla Cruz, a medico-legal officer assigned at the crime laboratory of the Northern Police District who was presented to identify her report on the autopsy of Kian’s body.
Her anatomical sketches identified the location of the bullet wounds sustained by Kian. She said that Kian sustained two gunshot wounds to the head.
The cause of death was gunshots to the head. The report says the shots were fired two feet away from Kian who was in a sitting or kneeling position.
The decision does not state that the medico-legal officer had identified any other wounds. But the trial court relied heavily on her testimony to establish the circumstance of treachery to qualify the offense to murder.
***
Dr. Raquel Fortun, a renowned forensic pathologist in the country, has slammed the autopsy report as superficial and all a “pretense.” Her own examination showed a bullet on Kian’s “neck region.” This is not indicated in the decision of the trial court.
This finding confirms some of the senators’ misgivings about the autopsy report when the Senate was investigating Kian’s murder. The bullet could have been matched with any of the guns alleged to have been used to fire the fatal shots.
Since the autopsy report itself is shot full of holes, what does it say of the court decision that cited it in convicting the lowly police officers? Will it be sustained on appeal?
Or can a case of “false in one, false in all” be made by the defense?
***
The judge cannot be blamed for putting premium over a report that is based on the expertise of its writer.
However, if a highly publicized judicial proceeding can be infected by a haphazardly done autopsy report that is presented as gospel truth, how can we trust that similar investigations of “nanlaban” killings would be backstopped by better forensic work?
Kian’s case, far from supporting the Philippines’ defense in the ICC, appears to confirm the ICC prosecutor’s contention that the drug war killings are not being investigated or prosecuted in a manner that complies with international protocols on investigating potentially unlawful deaths./PN
