1 month ago
24
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
December 22, 2025 | 4:41pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the murder conviction of three police officers involved in the 2017 killing of 17-year-old student Kian Delos Santos during the anti-drug campaign under detained former President Rodrigo Duterte.
In a 39-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez and dated August 11, 2025, the high court’s Second Division found police officers Arnel Oares, Jeremias Pereda, and Jerwin Cruz guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt for the killing of Delos Santos.
The high court upheld the sentence of reclusion perpetua, which carries a prison term of 20 to 40 years. Aside from imprisonment, the three police officers were found "solidarily liable" to pay the heirs of Delos Santos the following damages:
- P 75,000 as civil indemnity
- P75,000 as moral damages
- P 75,000 as exemplary damages
- P 50,000 as temperate damages
What happened before? Citing witness accounts from the night of Aug. 16, 2017, the court said the incident began when police officers stopped and searched Delos Santos in Caloocan City.
After allegedly finding illegal substances, the officers reportedly struck the teenager, disregarding his pleas to be released so he could attend school for an exam the following morning.
According to the court, the officers then placed Delos Santos in a compromising position by forcing him to hold a concealed object resembling a firearm, while using his own clothing to partially cover his face
Despite internal discussions among the group on whether to follow standard procedure by bringing Delos Santos to the police station, the officers instead decided to “bring him down,” dragging him to a secluded riverside area where he was fatally shot.
In their defense, the police officers claimed they were conducting a legitimate anti-drug operation when they allegedly came under fire, insisting that Oares was merely returning fire while pursuing an armed suspect.
However, both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) rejected these claims, finding the officers guilty of murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
This prompted the three police officers to file a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the decisions of the RTC and the CA.
Ruling. The Supreme Court dismissed all the petitions filed by the three police officers.
First, the high court noted several procedural deficiencies in the petition filed by Pereda, observing that he had availed himself of the wrong legal remedy and failed to comply with mandatory filing requirements.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court explained that the petition lacked essential components, including the specific dates of receipt of the assailed decision, a properly authenticated certified true copy of the lower court’s ruling, and a complete sworn certification against forum shopping.
The high tribunal further pointed out that the petition was filed well beyond the prescribed period, emphasizing that the reglementary period for appeal begins upon receipt of the decision itself, not the notice of entry of judgment.
Despite these significant procedural lapses, the high court opted to rule on the merits of Pereda’s case together with those of his co-accused, Oares and Cruz.
The Supreme Court explained that since the appeals of the two other officers had already been given due course, the interests of justice and judicial economy outweighed the strict application of procedural rules.
It emphasized that because all three officers were convicted based on the same set of facts, a full review of the case was necessary to ensure a consistent and fair judicial outcome.
The high court ruled that all the elements of murder were present in the case.
"This Court finds that all of the elements of murder are present, and that all three accused are liable as principals of the crime. The elements that a person was killed, and that the killing was not parricide or infanticide, are not contested by any of the parties," the court's ruling read.
According to the Supreme Court, there was direct admission that Oares shot Delos Santos, although he claimed the shooting occurred during a supposed shootout. His co-accused likewise stated that Oares was the one who fired the fatal shots.
The court also held that the officers acted with a common purpose and design. While Oares and Pereda were identified as the shooters, Cruz was found equally liable for participating in dragging the victim to the site and “standing guard” to ensure the act was not interrupted.
It noted that although Pereda and Cruz identified Oares as the shooter, a fact Oares himself admitted, the officers attempted to justify the killing by claiming it happened in the regular and lawful performance of their police duties.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this defense, citing jurisprudence that requires the accused to prove not only that they were acting in an official capacity, but also that the resulting injury or offense was an unavoidable and necessary consequence of performing that duty.
"Here, there was no showing of either requisite. The acts shown in the prosecution evidence as discussed above would show that the accused were not acting in the performance of a duty," the court's ruling read.
"Even assuming that they were performing their duties as police officers, it is not shown that the killing of Kian is a necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty," it added.
Treachery was present. The killing was also "attended with the qualifying circumstance of treachery," according to the court.
The high court noted that forensic evidence, which showed multiple gunshot wounds to Delos Santos' head, fired from behind while he was likely kneeling or sitting, clearly demonstrated a deliberate intent to ensure death without giving the victim any chance to retaliate.
It added that by dragging Delos Santos to a secluded area and placing him in a vulnerable position, the officers consciously adopted a method of execution that guaranteed the crime's success with impunity, thereby fulfilling treachery.
