The guilty verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) against Caloocan police officer PO1 Jefrey Perez for torture and the planting of evidence against teenagers Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo “Kulot” de Guzman, who were killed in 2017 at the height of the war on drugs.

The CA also stressed that law enforcers are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order.

Nineteen-year-old Arnaiz and 14-year-old De Guzman were reported missing in 2017 before being found dead.

Report by the police stated that Arnaiz had robbed a taxi driver and was shot as he fired at responding policemen. They also said a gun, shabu and marijuana were found on him, but a witness said he was killed while handcuffed.

On the other hand, De Guzman’s body was found in Nueva Ecija with 25 stab wounds.

The appeal of Perez that sought to overturn his conviction by the Caloocan Regional Trial Court was denied by the CA Second Division, which sentenced him to two terms of life imprisonment for planting drugs against Arnaiz, and to reclusion perpetua for planting a gun on him.

The lower court also sentenced the police to reclusion perpetua for the torture of De Guzman and to six months to four years for the torture of Arnaiz.

The appellate court affirmed the jail sentence but reduced the moral and exemplary damages that Perez has to pay to the families of Arnaiz and De Guzman.

The decision dated 10 April penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos Jr., the CA said Arnaiz and De Guzman “lost their futures due to a system that permits torture, murders, and the fraudulent planting of evidence.”

Culture of impunity        

It stressed the need to end the culture of impunity in the country that allows these violations to take place.

The CA stated, “The heartbreaking losses of their lives should act as a rallying cry for reforming law enforcement, enhancing judicial oversight, and ensuring that no further lives are claimed by those who are meant to protect.”

Perez for his part challenged the Caloocan court’s jurisdiction as well as the relevance of the testimony of the witness who allegedly saw him shoot Arnaiz, since the murder case against him was withdrawn from the Caloocan court and refiled in Navotas.

The police argued that even assuming that the victims were tortured, there was no basis to convict since the act was not made to extract a confession, to punish, or to intimidate as stated in the Anti-Torture Act or Republic Act 9745.

He also challenged the planting of evidence saying the prosecution failed to submit the items.

However, the appellate court was not convinced and said circumstantial evidence, taken together, leads to the reasonable conclusion that he had tortured the victims.

 The CA noted that torture is often conducted in secrecy, which is why the absence of direct evidence is not surprising. But this is not a reason to reverse his conviction.

Based on the “last seen alive principle,” it said it can be concluded that Perez committed the crime since Arnaiz and De Guzman were last seen alive in his custody and that of PO1 Ricky Arquilita. Arquilita died while the case was pending.

“In fine, when all the circumstances and pieces of evidence are taken together and not nitpicked individually, they paint the complete picture that accused-appellant was indeed responsible for the injuries suffered by Carl and Kulot, to the exclusion of all others,” the CA said.