G.R. No. 268510 - People vs. Pereda and Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. 268510)

Factual Background: The Killing of Kian

The prosecution established that on the night in question, Kian, a seventeen-year-old minor, was assaulted and shot by the accused, who acted with intent to kill and without justifiable motive. The key civilian witnesses—Sheen Concepcion, Princess Ann Alano, and Ma. Luisa J. Walican—identified the accused in open court as the police officers who accosted Kian, forced him to accompany them, and brought him toward a dark alley near the river where he was eventually shot and killed.

Sheen testified that she saw three persons arrive on motorcycles at a pharmacy near Kian’s house. She identified Oares and Pereda as wearing black shirts and Nono as wearing a red shirt. She later saw the group proceed to Kian’s house, kick the gate, and direct Kian to be frisked. Shehen observed Kian being made to hold a towel that appeared to cover a firearm and being boxed by the two officers, while Kian pleaded to be allowed to go home. Sheen further testified that Cruz passed by and asked the accused where they were taking Kian. Sheen saw Kian dragged away toward the basketball court area and toward a dark end near the river, with Cruz following and escorting while Kian was between Oares and Pereda. Sheen later learned that Kian had been killed.

Princess corroborated that she saw Oares, Pereda, and Kian near the basketball court vicinity before hearing gunshots shortly thereafter. She stated that she did not know who fired but witnessed Oares and Pereda dragging Kian and pushing him into a dark area she described as a “dulo,” followed by gunshots after a short interval.

Luisa likewise testified that she saw the accused seize Kian and that Pereda locked an arm around Kian’s neck while Oares was behind him. She testified that after Kian was dragged to the pigpen area, she saw Pereda fire his gun repeatedly at Kian and saw Oares also fire several times. She described Cruz as standing guard while the shooting occurred. She further testified that police personnel responded with the remark “nanlaban po eh,” and she feared retaliation when asked whether she knew who the victim was.

Forensic and Scene-Processing Evidence

The prosecution also presented forensic and ballistic evidence to establish the nature of the wounds and the likelihood of the shooters’ positions. Dr. Erwin Erfe testified that the examination of Kian’s cadaver revealed five gunshot wounds, with three entry wounds and two exit wounds. Abarrientos, a ballistician from the NBI, conducted trajectory examination and concluded that bullets were fired downward and inclining to the right, suggesting two persons fired shots based on bullet dents and grazing marks.

Crime scene processing was conducted by PCINSP Avelino U. Andaya, who reported recovery of four fired cartridge cases, a firearm magazine, a .45 caliber firearm, and two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance. He also testified that the inventory marked multiple fired cartridge cases as coming from different firearm sources and that sachets were inserted inside Kian’s brief. Chemistry reports indicated that two specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and that a caliber 9mm firearm with a specified serial number tested positive for gunpowder nitrates. The report also indicated gunpowder residue results on specific firearm components and that Kian’s hands yielded negative results for gunpowder nitrates, consistent with the conclusion that Kian did not fire a firearm.

Dr. Jocelyn Padilla-Cruz, a medico-legal officer, performed the autopsy and testified that she found two gunshot wounds on Kian’s head. She opined that the possible distance of the gun barrel tip to the wounds was about sixty centimeters or two feet, and that the victim’s position was likely sitting or kneeling when the wounds were inflicted. She added that, due to the wound locations—left side behind the ear for the first wound, and the back of the forehead for the second—Kian likely could not see the assailant(s) at the time of firing.

Defense Theory at Trial

The defense did not deny the basic sequence of events in the area but presented a different narrative of police operations. Oares testified that he was conducting a police operation and that after reaching a dark narrow path, shots were fired toward them by unknown persons. He claimed he instructed the others to secure an “asset” and that he followed the shooter. He asserted that he fired his gun in response to the gunfire and that he waited for his police chief after the encounter.

Pereda testified that he and his team were conducting an operation to point out a “pot session” and to serve arrest warrants, and that upon entering a dark road, someone fired at them and the group took cover. He claimed Oares retaliated and that the shooter ran away. He also insisted that the person seen in the CCTV footage was the asset and not Kian.

Cruz likewise testified that they were on an operation with Oares as team leader and with an asset who supposedly indicated the location of an ongoing pot session and the person subject of a warrant. He stated that shots were fired toward them and that they took cover. He similarly claimed that the asset was present.

RTC Ruling: Conviction for Murder; Acquittal for Planting of Evidence

The RTC held that the elements of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code were present and found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the prosecution witnesses positively and consistently identified the accused from the time Kian was accosted at the pharmacy until the shooting occurred. The RTC found that conspiracy existed because the accused were identified from their initial accosting of Kian, through the dragging toward the shooting location, and during the killing, with Cruz allegedly standing guard while Oares and Pereda shot Kian. It also noted that Oares admitted shooting Kian.

As to qualifying circumstances, the RTC found treachery. It reasoned that Kian, who was a minor, was shot while in a sitting position covering his head and pleading, and that the time, place, and manner of attack were deliberately chosen to ensure execution and to prevent resistance. It also found that superior strength was absorbed into treachery. The RTC rejected the presence of evident premeditation and nighttime. It found the defense version of a shootout unpersuasive due to inconsistency with forensic findings, including the short estimated distance of the gun to the victim and negative results of paraffin tests on the victim’s hands, along with ballistic conclusions about downward firing.

The RTC rejected alibi and denial interposed by Pereda and Cruz, emphasizing positive identification. It also upheld the acquittal in the planting-of-evidence cases, finding failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

CA Ruling: Affirmance and Rejection of Procedural and Substantive Errors

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC convictions. It held that the prosecution witnesses’ purported inconsistencies were minor and did not touch the elements of murder. It also emphasized that witnesses are not expected to recall every detail precisely during a stressful and sudden incident. The CA further held that differences in how witnesses described certain circumstances—such as the number of motorcycles, immediate movement after gunshots, the identity of a person referred to as an “asset,” and the failure of one witness to observe the specific moment of firing—did not negate the core fact that the accused were present and involved in the accosting and killing.

The CA upheld treachery, agreeing that the evidence supported that Kian was placed in a powerless position and shot at close range with an attack that left him unable to defend himself. It also sustained conspiracy based on the series of acts showing a common design, concerted action, and mutual participation. It rejected reliance on the presumption of regularity and related claims of fulfillment of duty, remarking that the manner of killing cast serious doubt on the regularity of police operations. It also found that justifying circumstances were not proven.

The CA maintained the RTC’s assessment on penalty and awards, including civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages, each in the amounts imposed by the RTC, with legal interest.

Post-CA Proceedings: Entry of Judgment, Timeliness, and Remedy Issues

After the CA decision, the procedural paths diverged among the accused. Oares filed a motion for reconsideration timely, which the CA denied. Pereda and Cruz did not timely file motions for reconsideration, and the CA issued a Partial Entry of Judgment on June 14, 2023, certifying finality as to Pereda and Cruz as of January 22, 2023.

Cruz later sought recall of the Partial Entry of Judgment and admission of his late appeal, attributing the delay to mistaken reliance by prior counsel on an assumption of automatic elevation. The CA, in a Resolution dated October 23, 2023, recalled the Partial Entry of Judgment as to Cruz and gave due course to his appeal in the interest of justice.

Pereda filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court on August 18, 2023, admitting failure to file a notice of appeal with the CA and again invoking the same theory that the CA decision would be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The Court, in its handling of the petitions, treated Pereda’s filing as an appeal for consolidation purposes, despite identifying defects in the petition’s compliance with Rule 45 requirements and the apparent use of an incorrect remedy. The Court also considered that the CA had already given due course to the appeals of Oares and Cruz, and it invoked substantial justice and judicial economy to resolve the case on the merits despite procedural lapses.

Supreme Court Issues and Analysis: Proof of Murder and Liability of All Three Accused

The Supreme Court affirme

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 268510)

Parties and Consolidated Appeals

People of the Philippines appeared as the Plaintiff-Appellee in all consolidated proceedings.
Jeremias T. Pereda appeared as Accused-Appellant in the petition for review under Rule 45.
PO3 Arnel Oares y Gastillo, PO1 Jeremias Pereda y Tolete, and PO1 Jerwin Cruz y Roque appeared as Accused in the related proceedings.
Oares and Cruz each filed separate appeals from the same appellate decision.
The Court treated the matter as consolidated and resolved all appeals in a single resolution.

Procedural Posture and Case Consolidation

The Court addressed two consolidated streams: (1) Pereda’s Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, and (2) the respective appeals filed by Oares and Cruz.
The underlying conviction came from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found the accused guilty of murder.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision and later denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Oares.
The Court recognized procedural irregularities affecting Pereda’s chosen remedy and filing timeline.
Despite Pereda’s procedural defects, the Court proceeded to resolve the appeals in the interest of substantial justice because the CA granted due course to the appeals of Oares and Cruz.

Charges in Criminal Cases

In Criminal Case No. C-102925, the accused were charged with murder for the killing of Kian Loyd Delos Santos.
In Criminal Case Nos. C-102926 and C-102927, the accused were additionally charged with planting of evidence under Republic Act Nos. 10591 and 9165.
The accused entered pleas of not guilty in all cases.
The RTC later acquitted the accused in the evidence-planting cases and archived the case against Renato Perez Loveras @ Nono @ Nonong pending apprehension.

Key Factual Allegations

On or about 16 August 2017 at about 8:30 p.m., in Barrio Libis, Baesa, Caloocan City, the accused allegedly assaulted and shot Kian, then a seventeen (17)-year-old minor.
The information alleged intent to kill, absence of justifiable motive, and qualifying circumstances including treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, use of firearm, nighttime, and conspiracy.
The accused were charged as acting in mutual assistance with the at-large Nono.
The prosecution’s narrative placed the initial accosting at a pharmacy area and the fatal shooting at a dark alley near the river/pigpen vicinity.

Prosecution Evidence: Witness Accounts

Sheen Concepcion, testifying as a minor, stated she saw two motorcycles and three men approach the pharmacy.
Sheen identified Nono as the person wearing a red shirt and helmet, and identified Oares and Pereda as the two persons wearing black shirts and helmets.
Sheen testified that the men asked where the house was where Nono would supposedly receive drugs, then proceeded toward Kian’s house.
Sheen stated she saw the group kick Kian’s gate and heard remarks suggesting Kian would not resist or move.
Sheen later observed Kian being frisked, boxed, made to hold what appeared to be a firearm covered with a towel, and then prepared for transfer.
Sheen testified that Cruz passed by and asked where Kian would be taken, and she saw Oares and Pereda drag Kian toward the basketball court while Cruz accompanied them.
Sheen stated Kian’s slippers were left near a store and described Cruz as later present while the group moved to the dark area.
Sheen added that after the shooting and Kian’s killing was relayed to her by Princess, the family found Kian face down in mud holding a gun.

Prosecution Evidence: Princess and Luisa

Princess Ann Alano testified that she was with Luisa near the pharmacy when motorcycles parked and Oares and Pereda talked to Kian.
Princess identified Cruz as present on the motorcycle in the basketball court area.
Princess stated Oares and Pereda overtook them while telling others to get out of the way and that they were dragging Kian.
Princess testified that Oares pushed Kian toward a dark alley, referred to as the dulo, and she heard gunshots shortly thereafter.
Princess acknowledged that she did not know who fired the gun, but she later described relevant locations in a sketch.
Ma. Luisa J. Walican testified she saw Pereda lock his arm around Kian’s neck while Oares stood behind Kian and Cruz was nearby.
Luisa stated she saw Kian being dragged past the basketball court and through the pigpen area.
Luisa testified that once Kian was in the pigpen area, she saw Pereda fire his gun multiple times and that Oares also fired several shots, while Cruz stood guard without preventing the killing.
Luisa testified that she asked why the killing occurred and the response was “Nanlaban po eh.”
Luisa stated she feared retaliation and refused to identify the victim’s killer to authorities when asked whether she knew the person.

Prosecution Evidence: Barangay CCTV and Identification

Abraham Montano, Jr., a barangay officer handling CCTV, testified that footage from August 16, 2017 between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. was requested after the incident.
Abraham testified the CCTV playback at around 8:24 p.m. showed two persons in civilian clothes dragging and manhandling another person, with a third person following.
He testified he copied the video from the DVR to a USB flash drive and handed it to the prosecutor upon request of the NBI.
Randy Delos Santos, Kian’s uncle, identified his Sinumpaang Salaysay and confirmed he was the informant in Kian’s Certificate of Death.
Randy testified he identified Kian in the CCTV footage based on Kian’s clothes at the time.

Prosecution Evidence: Forensic and Autopsy Findings

Dr. Erwin Erfe testified that during examination of the cadaver, the forensic team noticed five gunshot wounds, comprising three entry wounds and two exit wounds.
Hiyasmin G. Abarrientos testified on trajectory examination, stating bullet dents and marks indicated downward firing, slightly inclining to the right.
Abarrientos concluded the dent and mark were likely caused by two persons.
PCINSP Avelino U. Andaya testified the crime scene processing recovered four fired cartridge cases, a firearm magazine, a .45 caliber firearm, and two sachets containing white crystalline substance.
Andaya testified the body was face down and holding a .45 caliber firearm on the left hand at the time they arrived.
Andaya testified that sachets containing white crystalline substance were found inserted inside the victim’s brief.
PCINSP Engineer Richard Allan B. Mangalip identified reports on evidence examination.
Chemistry Report No. D-144-17-S found specimens positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Chemistry Report No. C-203-17 related to a 9mm firearm tested positive for gunpowder nitrates, and Mangalip associated this firearm with Oares’s service pistol and handling at swabbing.
Mangalip testified that paraffin examination on Kian’s hands yielded negative results for gunpowder nitrates, meaning the hands did not fire any firearm.
Dr. Jocelyn Padilla-Cruz conducted the autopsy and testified she found two gunshot wounds on Kian’s head.
Dr. Padilla-Cruz testified possible barrel-to-wound distance was around 60cm or two feet, and she opined Kian’s position at firing was sitting or kneeling.
She testified the first wound entry was at the left side and back of the ear, making it unlikely Kian saw the assailant, and the second wound was at the back of the forehead, making it unlikely Kian saw the assailant.

Defense Evidence: Accounts of a Supposed Encounter

Oares testified that on August 16, 2017 he was conducting police operations in Barangay 160 and claimed the incident was an encounter after gunshots were fired toward them.
Oares testified that they covered the face of an asset, proceeded through the basketball court, and took cover after shots were fired by unidentified persons.
Oares testified that he retaliated, fired multiple shots while running toward the gunfire source, and called his police chief during the incident.
Oares claimed he was hiding around five to six meters away from where the victim was found.
Oares testified about firearms use in terms of the “right to retaliate” during operations when gunshots were fired toward them.
PINSP Jerry Tomas Damaso identified firearms identification findings linking two cartridge cases to firearm serial no. 561852.
Pereda testified he was conducting Oplan Galugad, that an asset pointed to a supposed pot session and the person subject of an arrest warrant, and that gunshots were fired toward them.
Pereda testified Oares retaliated and that after reaching near the river, Oares instructed securing the asset while Oares ran after the shooter.
Pereda claimed the person in the CCTV footage was the asset, not Kian.
Cruz testified in a substantially similar narrative of operations with an asset, shots fired toward them, taking cover, retaliation by Oares, and securing the asset while Oares ran after the shooter.
Cruz testified he did not ascertain shot direction and stated that hands of the three officers were not subjected to paraffin examination.

RTC Ruling on Murder

The RTC found all elements of murder present and convicted Oares, Pereda, and Cruz.
The RTC held that the prosecution witnesses’ identification of the accused was positive, categorical, and consistent.
The RTC found conspiracy from the coordinated actions of the accused from the initial accosting through the dragging and the shooting.
The RTC ruled that Oares and Pereda shot Kian while Cruz stood guard and did not attempt to prevent the killing.
The RTC appreciated treachery and held that at the time of shooting Kian, a seventeen-year-old minor, was in a position that left no opportunity to defend himself while pleading.
The RTC considered Kian’s position as supported by trajectory and autopsy finding