People v. Pereda
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On August 16, 2017, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Police Officers Arnel Oares (Oares), Jeremias Pereda (Pereda), and Jerwin Cruz (Cruz) conducted a police operation in Caloocan City. Eyewitnesses Sheen Concepcion, Princess Ann Alano, and Ma. Luisa Walican observed the officers accost 17-year-old Kian Loyd Delos Santos (Kian). The officers were seen punching Kian and dragging him toward a dark alley near a pigpen. Kian was heard crying and pleading, "Sir tama na po, pauwiin niyo na po ako kasi po may exam pa po ako bukas." Shortly thereafter, gunshots were heard. Kian was found dead in a face-down, squatting position, holding a firearm in his left hand, with two plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride found in his clothing. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 125, convicted the three officers of Murder but acquitted them of charges for planting evidence under Republic Act (RA) No. 10591 and RA 9165, citing the evidence for planting as hearsay. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused and that physical evidence (autopsy and ballistics) contradicted the defense's claim of a shootout. 3. The Appeal: Oares and Cruz filed timely appeals. Pereda, however, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court after the period for appeal had lapsed, claiming he mistakenly believed the case would undergo "automatic review" following the CA's affirmation of his Reclusion Perpetua sentence. The Supreme Court treated Pereda's petition as an ordinary appeal in the interest of substantial justice, noting that his co-accused Cruz had been granted a recall of the entry of judgment due to similar counsel negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Rule 45 Petition filed by Pereda may be treated as an ordinary appeal despite procedural lapses. Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the existence of conspiracy were sufficiently established. Whether the accused can validly invoke the justifying circumstance of performance of duty or the presumption of regularity.
Ruling
The Appeals are DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellants are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. They are solidarily liable to pay the heirs of Kian Loyd Delos Santos PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and PHP 50,000.00 as temperate damages, all with 6% interest per annum.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: While Pereda availed of the wrong remedy and filed out of time, the Court exercised its prerogative to relax technical rules in the interest of justice. Following the doctrine in People v. Olpindo (2022), the Court noted that since the enactment of RA 9346, automatic review of death penalty cases is suspended, and the proper remedy for Reclusion Perpetua is a Notice of Appeal. However, because the CA had already recalled the Partial Entry of Judgment for co-accused Cruz due to the "gross negligence" of their common former counsel, the Court deemed it equitable to treat Pereda's petition as an appeal. This ensures that the entire case is opened for review, preventing a situation where one conspirator is barred from relief due to a technicality while others proceed. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not be used to frustrate the service of substantial justice, especially in criminal cases involving the highest penalties. On Issue 2: The prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused through consistent eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses positively identified Oares and Pereda as the shooters and Cruz as the officer standing guard. Forensic findings by the National Police District (NPD) Crime Laboratory revealed that Kian was shot twice in the head from a distance of approximately two feet while in a sitting or kneeling position. Furthermore, the Chemistry Report showed that Kian's hands tested negative for gunpowder nitrates, directly refuting the defense's claim that Kian fired a gun at the officers. The Court held that the minor inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts—such as the number of motorcycles or the exact house they ran to—did not impair their credibility regarding the material fact of the killing. On Issue 3: Treachery was present because the attack was executed in a manner that rendered Kian powerless to defend himself. The autopsy showed that the gunshot wounds entered from the back of the head and behind the ear, indicating Kian could not have seen his assailants at the moment of the fatal shots. The Court noted that the officers deliberately dragged Kian to a dark, secluded alley to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. Conspiracy was likewise established through the concerted actions of the accused: Oares and Pereda maltreated and dragged Kian, while Cruz followed closely and stood guard during the shooting. Under the principle of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, making all three equally liable as principals. On Issue 4: The accused cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of performance of duty because the killing was not a 'necessary consequence' of their police operation. Under the Philippine National Police (PNP) Operational Procedures, the use of firearms is only justified if the offender poses an imminent danger of causing death or injury. In this case, Kian was an unarmed minor who was pleading for his life, and the forensic evidence proved he did not engage in a shootout. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is a disputable presumption that vanishes when there is evidence of a deviation from standard conduct. The Court concluded that 'performance of duties does not include murder,' and the brutal execution of a defenseless minor is a clear transgression of the law that negates any claim of regularity.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarifies that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only where nothing in the records suggests that law enforcers deviated from standard conduct. When an official act is irregular on its face—such as the execution of an unarmed minor in a kneeling position—an adverse presumption arises. Furthermore, for the justifying circumstance of performance of duty to apply, the killing must be a 'necessary consequence' of the duty; the Court emphasizes that the law does not authorize the use of lethal force as a first resort or as a form of 'retaliation' without an actual, imminent, and real threat to the officer's life.