X. Failure to Investigate and Prosecute the Perpetrators

 

When the police arrived at the scene, they didn’t try to find any witnesses. They just kept asking me, “What happened? Who killed your son?” I was hysterical, and kept telling them, “Why are you asking me? You are the policemen—ask witnesses around here!”[121]

—Clarita Alia, Davao City, July 19, 2008.

Human Rights Watch’s investigations in Davao City, General Santos City, and Digos City found that local police are not conducting serious investigations into the killings. Many families of victims told Human Rights Watch that the police always arrived at the scene of crime too late to arrest the perpetrators, even when the killings took place very close to a police station.

The police often did not talk to eyewitnesses to the killings, neglected to collect the most obvious pieces of evidence, such as spent bullet casings, and later failed to inform the families of victims of any progress in their investigation. Instead, they often pressured the families of victims to identify the perpetrators, but when they offered leads, the police ignored such information.

In none of the 28 killings documented by Human Rights Watch were families of victims aware of any arrests or prosecutions of perpetrators.

Duties of Law Enforcement Officials

By law, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) have a duty to protect lives and property, investigate and prevent crimes, arrest criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution, and exercise powers of arrest, search, and seizure in accordance with the law, among others.[122] PNP guidelines further detail the duties of police officers in crime scene investigations, including cordoning off the crime scene, evacuating injured persons to the nearest hospital, interviewing witnesses, gathering physical evidence, and arresting suspects, among other tasks.[123]

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) mandates that all government employees, including police officers, must attend to the problems of the public promptly. The code further specifies that public officials have a duty to respond to letters and requests by the public within 15 working days of receipt.[124]

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Philippines also has obligations to ensure that victims of human rights violations have an effective remedy. The ICCPR obligates governments to ensure that any person whose rights are violated: “shall have an effective remedy,” including when the violation has been committed by government officials or agents, shall have this right determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, and shall have the remedies enforced by competent authorities when granted.[125]

 

Guarantees of Impunity

According to death squad “insiders,” most of the death squad amo or handlers are former or active police officers themselves, and they make sure that local police stations are familiar with the gunmen operating in a particular area of the city. Police mobile units are either informed in advance and do not patrol the area where the operation is about to take place, or simply leave the area as soon as a squad arrives.

Two local officials told Human Rights Watch said that death squad operations are always coordinated with the police—who arrive only “after the hitmen leave”—and with local officials. Said one, “Since I am a local official, the DDS coordinates with me before someone in my area is about to be hit.”[126]

The police apparently serve as a guarantor of impunity. “Anthony” said about his friends who joined the DDS:

They are not afraid because the person who would be the one to arrest them is usually their boss, and the rest is coordinated with the police. It happens that they get caught but they have their men in the system, so eventually everybody gets out. [127]

Ramon told Human Rights Watch:

My friend said they were told not to worry about the operations, because everything is coordinated, and even if something goes wrong, the amo would help them out. If someone accidentally gets caught—the amo will get him out of jail, usually through intermediaries. Of course, there is coordination! ... Otherwise, how come someone gets arrested after an unsuccessful hit and so easily gets released?! My friend said the arrangements were always made to get the members out. The amo would also arrange for such members to leave town for a while, to unwind.

A journalist told Human Rights Watch that the DDS members he interviewed “did not seem to worry about being arrested—they knew they would be able to get out.” However, they said they were, “instructed to always ensure that the target is dead after the attack—because if there are survivors, it would be harder for the police to protect them.”[128]

Such accounts were corroborated by victims’ families and witnesses to the killings. In virtually every case documented by Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses talked about the failure of the police to take even the most basic investigative measures that could lead to the identification and arrest of the perpetrators.

While many of the killings were committed near police stations and in areas regularly patrolled by the police, witness statements suggest that the police were never there to prevent or stop the killings. A journalist investigating death squad killings in Davao City told Human Rights Watch:

Only in 60 percent of the cases police actually come to the crime scene. In several incidents I witnessed the police would come, and wait for an investigator from SOCO [Scene of Crime Operations], while the victim, still alive at the time of their arrival, would just die from the loss of blood. In a couple of cases we had to get the victims into our radio car and drive them to the hospital.[129]

A number of witnesses told Human Rights Watch that in cases where the police arrived at the scene, they often failed to take even the most basic steps, such as examining the body, questioning witnesses, or collecting and examining material evidence, including bullet casings.

As already noted, a witness to the killing of Conrad Dequina, a young man shot dead in October 2007, told Human Rights Watch that the police who came to the scene did not appear to be interested in gathering any evidence. He said:

Nobody said anything, because they were all afraid. The police asked who the victim was, and laughed as if they liked what they saw. They didn’t talk to any of the witnesses. And then they left, leaving behind the body and empty shells. They didn’t do anything. They didn’t seem to care about any evidence.[130]

Witnesses also said the police pressured the family to identify the perpetrators, saying that otherwise the family would not be able to file a complaint. In many instances, families of victims could not identify the killers and thus chose not to pursue the cases, unaware that it was not their responsibility—but that of the police—to find the suspects.

In the cases we investigated where family members provided police with information that could lead to the identification of the perpetrators, including, sometimes, the names or detailed descriptions of the suspects, police either did not follow up on such leads or did not inform the family if they had done so.

In most of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the victims’ families were not aware of any progress in police investigation into the killings. The police did not get back to the families with any follow-up inquiries or updates, and the families’ efforts to obtain information from the police proved futile.

Given the poor—and perhaps intentionally poor—police response to the killings, it is not surprising that virtually none of the targeted killings in Davao City or neighboring cities gets resolved and the perpetrators are almost never identified.

Lack of Witness Testimony

In July 2008, Davao City Police director, Sr. Supt. Ramon Apolinario, told the media that the police’s efforts to investigate targeted killings were hampered by the unwillingness of witnesses to testify to the police: “We can produce cartographic sketch of the perpetrators, gather evidence from the crime scene, but as long as we do not have the testimonies of the witnesses, we can never ... file the formal charges.”[131]

As Apolinario points out, witnesses often refuse to give statements to the police, making it difficult for the police to carry out effective investigation. But he neglects to mention that the police are largely the reason behind such reluctance. Witnesses have little faith that the police will properly investigate these killings, let alone protect the witnesses from the assailants. In fact, many believe the police are part of death squad operations, hence reporting to them would only endanger themselves.

The authorities appear to be well aware of witnesses’ fear of coming forward. In response to a Human Rights Watch query, Raul D. Bendigo, City Prosecutor of Davao City, wrote:

The main reason for the poor “solution” rate of these killings is the non-availability of witnesses. Indeed, witnesses are afraid to come out and testify. Some of the reported killings were done in broad daylight and in front of many persons. Some suspect that the witnesses’ fear may be due to the fact this it is perceived that the government cannot protect the witnesses. We have heard of some who suspect that witnesses fear to come out due to their perception that some of the killings are sanctioned or committed by lawmen or men in government.To date, this suspicion has remained that, and not supported by evidence.[132]

The case of the Alia brothers illustrates the difficulties in investigating death squad killings when the police are seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Clarita Alia, the brothers’ mother, said she was too scared to share the information she had with the police, believing they were involved in the killings and might harm her other children. She told Human Rights Watch that after the killing of her son Bobby, the witnesses were able to identify the perpetrator and knew his name. But she chose not to share this knowledge with the police. She explained:

I did not tell this to the police because the killer is very close with the police. In fact, he had been seen drinking in the company of the police officer who threatened to kill my children. The police know full well who the killers of my sons are. They don’t need to hear these names from me.[133]

The memorandum by the Davao City Police Office Precinct No. 2 on the killing of Richard Alia stated:

[The killing of Alia brothers] could have been due to several circumstances involving internal conflict of gang members ... The investigation leading to the solution of the case lies mainly to the participation of the victims’ parents for they surely know the peers—gang members—of their sons but for unknown reasons they vehemently refused to cooperate. Investigators of this precinct had a hard time dealing with them.[134]

To date, the Alia family is not aware of any progress in the investigation and no suspects have been apprehended by the police.

Clarita Alia’s concerns were echoed by many other persons interviewed by Human Rights Watch. They said that even the witnesses to the killings were not willing to testify out of fear, believing that the police work hand-in-hand with death squad members.

The police, however, do little to encourage witnesses to come forward by offering them protection—instead, they use the reluctance of witnesses as an excuse for inaction.

A local journalist who has been closely following extrajudicial killings in Davao City told Human Rights Watch that he often tries to follow up with the police to collect information about investigations, but has had no success. He said:

I followed up with the police on every case. For weeks and months after the killings, we keep asking the police for information, but they just get irritated with me and say “The investigation is ongoing.” It’s always the same answer—they simply brush me off.

When we ask the police, they just smile and say, “No case will go forward if there are no witnesses.” But they know full well that the witnesses are terrified and wouldn’t come forward because the police wouldn’t protect them.[135]

Police response to death squad killings is worse than police response to other crimes. As one Davao-based lawyer explained to Human Rights Watch:

There is a double standard. The standard procedure is to gather evidence, talk to witnesses, and investigate the case. It’s the job of the police, not the families, to find witnesses. In all murder cases they do open files, but in the case of extrajudicial killings they then simply throw it into the “unresolved cases” pile.[136]

Role of Prosecutors

Prosecutors have also largely failed to successfully prosecute death squad killings. In a letter responding to a Human Rights Watch inquiry, Davao City Prosecutor Raul D. Bendigo listed 10 cases of “execution-style” killings processed by his office since 2005.[137] Of them, only one case resulted in the conviction of a suspect. The prosecutor notes that, “judging from the number of what appear to be execution-style killings reported in the media in the city, more have remained ‘unsolved.’”[138]

Bendigo, however, questioned the very existence of a death squad, noting in his letter that while, “some of the reported killings do reveal patterns,” his office had, “no hard evidence ... on the existence of the so-called Davao Death Squad (DDS).”[139]

Role of the Commission on Human Rights in Davao City

The widespread impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of targeted killings is exacerbated by the ineffectiveness of institutions charged with promoting human rights and accountability, such as the Commission on Human Rights in Davao City.

Several family members of victims, including Clarita Alia, told Human Rights Watch that they tried to seek justice through the Commission on Human Rights in Davao City. Yet their efforts did not lead to any tangible results, and Commission representatives, just like the police, kept saying that they could not take action unless the families were able to produce witnesses willing to testify.

The Commission’s failure to adequately respond to the pattern of killings came under harsh criticism from the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. In his 2008 report, the rapporteur noted:

If it were not for the fact that the local office of the CHRP [Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines] denies the existence of a death squad, it should be capable of conducting an effective investigation. There are many witnesses who would provide information anonymously or who would testify were they to receive a credible protection arrangement.[140]

Only recently, and in response to a public dialogue between local authorities and members of the civil society on a series of targeted killings of alleged drug dealers, petty criminals, and street children in Davao City, the Commission decided to hold a public hearing.[141] At this writing in February 2009, the hearing is scheduled for the end of March 2009 in Davao City.

 

Role of Ombudsman

In 2005, the deputy ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices suspended four top police officials for six months without pay, citing their failure to solve a series of vigilante killings in their jurisdiction since 1998. In his order, issued on June 16, 2005, the deputy ombudsman said:

The inability of the respondent police officers to prevent the summary killing in Davao City is an indication of gross neglect of duty and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official functions.[142]

Mayor Rodrigo Duterte quickly responded to this order by directing the four officials to file a petition for certiorari, saying the order would demoralize the police. "I have pledged to help [the police] especially when they are prosecuted for simply performing their duties," Duterte reportedly said.[143] The suspension order was then reversed by the Court of Appeals after the police officers filed a petition questioning the propriety of their suspension.[144]