PEOPLE VS PEREDA [G.R. Nos. 268510 and 274142, August 11, 2025]

 CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE VS PEREDA

 [G.R. Nos. 268510 and 274142, August 11, 2025]

SECOND DIVISION, J. Lopez

 

Murder; Treachery; Conspiracy; Fulfillment of Duty; Presumption of Regularity; Credibility of Witnesses; Appeal in Criminal Cases; Reclusion Perpetua; Favorable Judgment Applicable to Non-Appealing Accused

 

Police officers cannot invoke the presumption of regularity or the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty when the evidence shows that they forcibly took an unarmed and defenseless minor to a secluded area and shot him while he was sitting or kneeling. Conspiracy may be inferred from coordinated acts before, during, and after the killing. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the judgment is not subject to automatic review; the accused must timely file the proper notice of appeal. Nevertheless, a favorable modification of the judgment may benefit all co-accused under Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Court.

 

On August 16, 2017, police officers Arnel Oares, Jeremias Pereda, and Jerwin Cruz were conducting an anti-illegal drug operation in Barangay 160, Caloocan City. They were accompanied by an alleged informant known as “Nono.” 

Prosecution witnesses saw Oares and Pereda accost, frisk, assault, and forcibly drag 17-year-old Kian Loyd Delos Santos toward a dark alley near a basketball court, while Cruz accompanied them. One witness testified that Oares and Pereda later shot Kian several times while Cruz stood guard. 

CCTV footage corroborated that several men were dragging another person toward the area where Kian was killed. Forensic findings further showed that Kian was likely sitting or kneeling when shot at close range, that the bullets were fired downward, and that his hands tested negative for gunpowder nitrates, contradicting the claim that he had engaged the officers in a shootout. 

The accused claimed that the person seen in the footage was their police asset and that Oares merely returned fire during an encounter. The RTC rejected their version, found them guilty of murder qualified by treachery, and acquitted them of the separate charges for planting evidence. The CA affirmed the conviction, prompting their appeals to the Supreme Court. 

 

Issue No. 1: Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three accused killed Kian Loyd Delos Santos.

YES. The prosecution established all the elements of murder.

The eyewitness testimonies formed a coherent and continuous account. Sheen saw Oares and Pereda accost, frisk, assault, and drag Kian, with Cruz later joining them. Princess saw Kian being dragged and pushed toward the dark alley, after which she heard gunshots. Luisa directly witnessed Oares and Pereda shoot Kian while Cruz stood guard.

These accounts were corroborated by the CCTV footage and the forensic evidence. The footage showed several persons dragging and manhandling another individual toward the area where Kian was killed. The trajectory examination established that the shots had been fired downward. The autopsy indicated that Kian was sitting or kneeling and was shot from approximately two feet away. The negative gunpowder-residue result on Kian’s hands further contradicted the claim that he fired at the police officers.

The Court accorded great respect to the RTC’s assessment of witness credibility, especially because the CA affirmed the same factual findings. No improper motive was shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses.

The alleged inconsistencies concerning the number of motorcycles, the witnesses’ exact positions, where they ran after hearing gunshots, and whether one witness initially mistook Kian for an asset involved minor details. They did not concern the essential fact that the accused forcibly brought Kian to the secluded area where he was shot. Minor inconsistencies may even indicate that the testimonies were spontaneous rather than rehearsed.

 

Issue No. 2: Whether or not Oares could invoke the presumption of regularity and the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty.

NO. The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty requires proof that: first, the accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office; and second, the injury caused was the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty.

By admitting that he shot Kian and invoking a justifying circumstance, Oares assumed the burden of proving the justification through the strength of his own evidence. He failed to do so.

The prosecution evidence showed that the officers were not lawfully performing their duties when they assaulted and forcibly dragged Kian, placed him in a defenseless position, and shot him at close range. Even assuming that they were initially conducting a legitimate operation, Kian’s killing was not a necessary consequence of that duty.

The presumption of regularity is merely disputable and applies only when the record does not show any deviation from standard official conduct. It cannot prevail where the police action is irregular on its face or where the prosecution has presented affirmative evidence of unlawful conduct. Here, the eyewitness, CCTV, ballistic, and medico-legal evidence overcame any presumption that the officers regularly performed their duties.

 

Issue No. 3: Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

YES. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms of attack that directly and specially ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from any defense the victim might make.

Kian was a 17-year-old minor who had been physically restrained, dragged to a secluded and dark area, and placed in a sitting or kneeling position. He was pleading for his life and covering his head with his hands. He was then shot at close range in the head from an angle that prevented him from seeing his assailants.

The accused deliberately placed Kian in a position where he could neither defend himself nor escape. The manner and location of the attack ensured the execution of the killing without risk to the assailants. Treachery therefore qualified the killing to murder.

The Court did not separately appreciate abuse of superior strength and nighttime because they were absorbed in treachery. Evident premeditation was also not proven because there was no evidence of when the accused resolved to kill Kian or that sufficient time had elapsed for reflection. The use of a firearm was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the Information did not allege, and the evidence did not show, that a loose firearm was used.

 

Issue No. 4: Whether or not conspiracy existed among Oares, Pereda, and Cruz.

YES. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the coordinated acts of the accused showing a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest.

The three officers arrived and operated together. Oares and Pereda accosted and assaulted Kian. Cruz joined them and asked where they would bring him. The three proceeded together toward the dark alley. Oares and Pereda shot Kian while Cruz stood guard and did nothing to prevent the killing.

Their coordinated actions—from the initial seizure of Kian, through his forcible transfer to the secluded location, until his killing—demonstrated a common criminal design. Cruz’s participation was not limited to mere presence. He accompanied the group, helped secure the area, and stood guard while his companions shot Kian.

Once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all. Thus, all three accused were liable as principals for murder, regardless of who fired the fatal shots. 

Arnel Oares, Jeremias Pereda, and Jerwin Cruz were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and were each sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They were held solidarily liable to pay Kian Loyd Delos Santos’ heirs ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages, all with six percent legal interest per annum from finality until full payment.






CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT