UPDATE (Philippines): Two minor torture victims released from jail; court rules the of arrest 11 victims as illegal 

[RE: UA-082-2006: PHILIPPINES: Brutal torture of 11 persons and subsequent filing of fabricated charges against them; UP-063-2006: PHILIPPINES: Lawyers for 11 torture victims file motion to withdraw charges against them; UP-067-2006: PHILIPPINES: Torture victims file charges against policemen; UP-092-2006: PHILIPPINES: Plot to kill torture victims in jail; UP-099-2006: PHILIPPINES: Jail authorities failing to ensure adequate security despite grave danger torture victims are facing; UP-100-2006: PHILIPPINES: Further details on plot to kill torture victims]
———————————–
UP-115-2006: PHILIPPINES: Two minor torture victims released from jail; court rules the of arrest 11 victims as illegal

PHILIPPINES: Illegal arrest and detention; torture; unlawful treatment of minors; complete collapse of rule of law
———————————–

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is pleased to inform you that two minors amongst the 11 torture victims detained in La Trinidad, Benguet, have been release from jail and have been turned over to their parent’s custody. On May 30, minors Frencess Ann Bernal (15) and Ray Lester Mendoza (16) were released from La Trinidad District Jail after the court granted the earlier petition by their legal counsel to turn them over to their parents.

A reliable source also reported that on May 19, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in La Trinidad, Benguet ruled the arrest of the 11 victims on 14 February 2006 at a checkpoint in Abatan, Buguias, Benguet as illegal (please see our previous appeal: UA-082-2006). In a separate newspaper report, Judge Agapito Laoagan Jr. ruled the “warrantless” arrest by the police as illegal as it did not fall under the principle of a “hot pursuit” operation. Under arrests made by virtue of “hot pursuit” operations, warrants may not be required. Further, the arrests should be made within hours from the commission of the crime.

This was the argument by the arresting police authorities when they arrested the 11 youths. But contrary to the rule, the victims were arrested on February 14, four days after the incident they are accused to have committed–thereby the court declared it as illegal. The witnesses who implicated the 11 youths for attacking an Army detachment in Cabiten, Mankayan, Benguet on February 10, only appeared at a police headquarters in Buguias, Benguet after the group had been arrested on February 14.

Judge Laoagan also further stated that the arresting police officers were not present and were not the actual eyewitnesses to the crime (February 10 incident). In fact, the police became aware of the identities of the accused as the perpetrators of the incident only after the witnesses identified them. He added that the Supreme Court has ruled that an arrest made one day after the crime does not comply with the sense of immediacy required under the aforementioned rule (hot pursuit).

It can be recalled that in March 2005, the victims’ legal counsel attached to the Free Legal Assistance Group (Flag) in Baguio City earlier filed a motion to quash or withdraw the charges against their clients. They claimed irregularities in the process of arrest, detention, investigation and filing of charges. A separate complaint was also filed against the six police officers, all attached to the 1604th Police Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG), allegedly involved in illegally arresting, detaining, brutally torturing and denying them of rights entitled to detainees under the Republic Act 7438 (please see our previous appeal: UP-067-2006).

Although the court ruled the arrest of the 11 victims as illegal, the remaining victims are still being detained at the La Trinidad Provincial Jail in Benguet. According to reports, the court’s ruling also grants the government prosecutor 15 days to review his procedures, and conduct a another preliminary investigation into the case “so they [the detained victims] can properly submit their counter-affidavits.” The court’s ruling, however, was decided on the legality of the arrest but not on the merit of the case. The ruling by the court did not cover one of the victims, Rundren Lao, as he was able to escape from police custody the same day they were arrested.

While the AHRC welcomes the ruling by the court, it is deeply concerned that the evidence taken from the victims by way of torture may be used by the prosecutors against the 11 victims once the court decides on the merit of the case. In our previous appeals, we have reported that the 11 victims have been brutally beaten, tortured, electrocuted and forced to sign statements and admit allegations against them by the arresting police and investigators. If these were used as evidence against them this would have serious implications on the case.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Arresting police often exploit the principle of “hot pursuit” in order to justify their arrests made without court warrants. While courts uphold that any arrests of suspects a day after or several days after a crime has been committed cannot be considered as “hot pursuit” and must require a warrant from a competent court, the police continue on conducting warrantless arrests claiming it as “hot pursuit”.

Take as example the arrest of Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Marcial Ocampo, one of the suspects in the killing of activist Elpidio de la Victoria, (a.k.a. Jojo) of Cebu City on 12 April 2006. The police arrested Ocampo five days after de la Victoria was killed without any arrest warrant. The police insist warrants are not required on Ocampo’s arrest at it was a hot pursuit operation (please see our previous appeals: UA-131-2006).

Prior to Bernal and Mendoza’s release from jail, the AHRC received a letter dated 23 May 2006 from Senior Superintendent Wilfredo Navarrete, regional director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) for the Cordillera Administrative Region (Car). In his letter, Navarrete admitted that Bernal “was [detained] with adult female detainees considering that the jail [La Trinidad District Jail] has no available detention cell for minor female offenders”. Navarette however explained that the “warden was directed to closely monitor the female cell to ensure the safety of the minor detainee”.

Navarette was responding to the concerns earlier raised by the AHRC that minors Bernal and Mendoza were being detained with adults (please our previous appeals: UP-099-2006). The detention of minor detainees with adults is a violation to the provision of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) to which the government is State party. Under par. 91 (b) 21 September 2005 concluding observation on the Philippines by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, it clearly stipulates: “that persons below 18 years of age are not detained with adults”.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the concerned agencies, in particular the prosecutors of the Department of Justice (DoJ) asking them to consider withdrawing the charges filed against the 11 torture victims. Now that the court has ruled the arrest made by the police was illegal, there exists sufficient grounds that any evidence, confessions and statements taken from the victims from the time of their arrest, detention, investigation and filing of charges in court is inadmissible. Additionally, please also raise your concern that to prosecute any person based on evidence taken by way of torture is totally unacceptable.

Finally, please request the National Police Commission (Napolcom), the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to resolve the pending complaint before them against the arresting police officers without delay. The Napolcom must decide on the administrative charges against the six arresting policemen involved. Appropriate administrative and criminal charges must also be filed against the policemen involved if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute them.

 

 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER