Human Rights Violation Case-Analysis

PPGC211
CASE ANALYSIS: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

Direction: Copy or Download a Case Decision. Write your own Analysis of the Case/Decision: Do you
Agree/Disagree with the Court's Verdict? Explain your position or stand. Cite the particular provision in
the Constitution which was violated.
Note: I cannot find and download the actual copy of the Supreme Court decision regarding this case so I
only relied on released online news articles from trusted networks. I also provided pictures of the hard
copy of the case for incredibility.
Summary of the Case:
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) welcomes the guilty verdict of the court against the cops, PO3
Arnel Oares, PO1 Jeremias Pereda and PO1 Jerwin Cruz, involved in the death of 17-year-old boy Kian
Loyd Delos Santos in August 2017. The decision marks the triumph of the rule of law, especially in the
face of the growing number of deaths allegedly linked to the government’s drug campaign. The recent
verdict stresses the need for the government to open its operations to greater scrutiny given that Kian’s
case is not the first ‘nanlaban’ incident which was disproven in court.
“In Criminal Case No. C-102925, the court finds accused […] guilty of the crime of murder defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,” the
decision penned by RTC Judge Roldolfo Azucena Jr. said.
The three officers were acquitted of planting evidence on Delos Santos, as the prosecution failed to prove
the accusations against the officers. All three were sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of
parole. The Supreme Court has defined reclusion perpetua as “imprisonment for at least thirty years after
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. A maximum sentence of 40 years imprisonment without
parole is now being imposed after death penalty was prohibited in 2006. Aside from that, they were
directed to pay Delos Santos’ family P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 for moral damages, P45,000
for actual damages, and P100,000 for exemplary damages.
References:
- https://chr.gov.ph/statement-of-the-commission-on-human-rights-on-the-courts-decision-on-the-kian-
loyd-delos-santos case/#:~:text=The%20Commission%20on%20Human%20Rights%20(CHR)
%20welcomes%20the%20guilty%20verdict,boy%20Kian%20Loyd%20Delos%20Santos
- https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1058265/3-policemen-guilty-of-killing-kian-delos-santos-court
Analysis:
I agree to the court’s verdict since it was proven that Kian delos Santos did not ‘fought’ the police. Also, if
we consider the history of the actions of the policemen during the war on drugs, it was eerily very similar
to other cases wherein a ‘target’ was told to be ‘nanlaban’. Due to this, it was hard to believe the
statements of the police since people started to notice their ‘modus’.
Kian was, unfortunately, killed but thankfully there are witnesses who choose to speak what they saw
which added to the kid’s innocence. The CCTV footages where Kian was being dragged by the police
were not tampered and I think that greatly contributes in achieving the justice for Kian and his family. As
part of the court decision and in accordance to law, the suspects need to pay the victim’s family a total of
345,000 PHP which, in my opinion, is not enough. Of course, money cannot revive the dead but I
personally think that this amount is unfair considering what they did to Kian.
As for the violated provision in the Constitution, the policemen disobey the following during the arrest of
Kian delos Santos:
(a) Article 3, Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
(b) Article 3, Section 11: Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
(c) Article 3, Section 12: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.
(d) Article 3, Section 14: (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Human Rights Violation Case-Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights Violation Case-Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PPGC211

CASE ANALYSIS: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION

Summary of the Case:

You might also like