The difference between mistaken identity and summary execution

Assuming without admitting that the policemen who killed the innocent young man in Navotas were acting in good faith, believing honestly that who they shot was the fugitive they were after, the question they cannot answer was: Why did you have to kill him? There was no evidence there was unlawful aggression, much less that the lives of the policemen were in grave and imminent danger.

In People of the Philippines vs. Raymark Daguman (GR 219116), the Supreme Court, decided August 26, 2020 that: "Police officers are generally presumed to have regularly performed their duties and their testimonies in criminal cases are given credence. Their extensive training and the gravity of their sworn duty to protect the peace give weight to their observations in the field. The presumption, however, can be overturned when there is evidence to the contrary." So, policemen, during their operations, enjoy the presumption of regularity. But such a presumption can be overturned by evidence.

The Supreme Court declared in that case: “Republic Act No. 6975, otherwise known as the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, empowers the police to enforce laws for the protection of lives and properties, take all necessary steps to ensure public safety, and bring criminal offenders to justice SECTION 24. Powers and Functions. The PNP shall have the following powers and functions: (a) Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties; (b) Maintain peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety; (c) Investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution." But in performing their functions, policemen are not allowed to use unnecessary force.

Justice Leonen stressed in that case of People vs. Daguman: "Armed by the government and given the authority to use firearms, police officers are taught ‘schemes, strategies and plans on how to approach danger.’ Depending on the situation, police officers may be authorized to use force to enforce laws, as long as the force used is necessary and not excessive. When there is a confrontation between law enforcement and a suspect, the police's use of force should be reasonable and proportionate to the threat as perceived by the officers at that time. According to the Philippine National Police, reasonableness of the force employed depends on the following criteria."

We should remember that in the Navotas killing, the young boy was not committing a crime, He did not even show any overt act of aggression. The shooting was totally unnecessary and conscienceless. The Supreme Court held in Daguman that: "The use of a firearm is justified if the offender poses imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer or other persons. The use of firearms is also justified under the doctrines of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. However, one who resorts to self­defense must face a real threat to his life, and the peril sought to be avoided must be actual, imminent and real. Unlawful aggression should be present for self-defense to be considered as a justifying circumstance."

The Supreme Court concluded that there was a summary execution of prisoners in People vs. Lagata, cited in this Daguman case. Thus: "Even if appellant sincerely believed, although erroneously, that in firing the shots be acted in the performance of his official duty, the circumstances of the case show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against the prisoners, so as to seriously wound one of them and kill instantaneously another. While custodians of prisoners should take all care to avoid the latter's escape, only absolute necessity would authorize them to fire against them. Theirs is the burden of proof as to such necessity. The summary liquidation of prisoners, under flimsy pretexts of attempts of escape, which has been and is being practiced in dictatorial systems of government, has always been and is shocking to the universal conscience of humanity"

The Navotas incident was a blatant evidence that the International Court of Justice and our own Commission on Human Rights have reasons to believe there are indeed cases of extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians. This is another big black eye to this administration, exacerbated by the recent illegal raid of an innocent retired professor in Cavite, and the multi-billion drug syndicate involving police generals and other ranking PNP officials. So, what is happening to our country, General Bato?