CA affirms conviction of policeman in Carl Arnaiz and 'Kulot' De Guzman case | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
CA affirms conviction of policeman in Carl Arnaiz and 'Kulot' De Guzman case
CA affirms conviction of policeman in Carl Arnaiz and 'Kulot' De Guzman case
MANILA — The Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Caloocan City policeman Jefrey Perez in the torture and death of teenagers Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo “Kulot” De Guzman at the height of the drug war of the Duterte administration in 2017.
MANILA — The Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Caloocan City policeman Jefrey Perez in the torture and death of teenagers Carl Arnaiz and Reynaldo “Kulot” De Guzman at the height of the drug war of the Duterte administration in 2017.
In a decision of the 2nd Division promulgated on April 10, 2025, the court upheld the two terms of life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua and other penalties against Perez.
In a decision of the 2nd Division promulgated on April 10, 2025, the court upheld the two terms of life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua and other penalties against Perez.
The CA upheld the guilty verdict handed down by the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court Branch 122 on November 10, 2022 for two counts of violation of Republic Act No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 and three counts of violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for planting of evidence.
The CA upheld the guilty verdict handed down by the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court Branch 122 on November 10, 2022 for two counts of violation of Republic Act No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 and three counts of violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for planting of evidence.
“The cases of Carl and Kulot highlight the harsh reality of police misconduct—where those meant to safeguard us become abusers,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos, Jr.
“The cases of Carl and Kulot highlight the harsh reality of police misconduct—where those meant to safeguard us become abusers,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENT
Arnaiz and De Guzman were last seen together on August 17, 2017, but their bodies were found days apart, in separate locations.
Arnaiz and De Guzman were last seen together on August 17, 2017, but their bodies were found days apart, in separate locations.
Arnaiz was found in a funeral parlor in Caloocan City, while De Guzman was discovered in a creek in Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
Arnaiz was found in a funeral parlor in Caloocan City, while De Guzman was discovered in a creek in Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
The CA said in the decision that based on the report of forensic consultant Dr. Francisco Erfe, Arnaiz sustained swelling, contusions and abrasions on various parts of his body.
The CA said in the decision that based on the report of forensic consultant Dr. Francisco Erfe, Arnaiz sustained swelling, contusions and abrasions on various parts of his body.
The court also said that when all circumstances and pieces of evidence are taken together, they paint a complete picture that Perez was responsible for the injuries suffered by Arnaiz and De Guzman.
The court also said that when all circumstances and pieces of evidence are taken together, they paint a complete picture that Perez was responsible for the injuries suffered by Arnaiz and De Guzman.
"Also, following the 'last seen alive principle,' there is strong evidence to support the proposition that accused-appellant is guilty of the charge," the court said.
"Also, following the 'last seen alive principle,' there is strong evidence to support the proposition that accused-appellant is guilty of the charge," the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The CA also stressed in the decision the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses regarding the presence of illegal drugs at the crime scene.
The CA also stressed in the decision the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses regarding the presence of illegal drugs at the crime scene.
“The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses only reinforce the possibility that the alleged sachets of shabu and marijuana leaves were planted as evidence against Carl,” the court said.
“The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses only reinforce the possibility that the alleged sachets of shabu and marijuana leaves were planted as evidence against Carl,” the court said.
The court noted that Perez asserted in his counter-affidavit that he and other police officers conducted a legitimate police operation against a reported case of robbery.
The court noted that Perez asserted in his counter-affidavit that he and other police officers conducted a legitimate police operation against a reported case of robbery.
The claim of Perez, however, contradicted with the statement of his own witness, PCpl. John Michael Limarez, who claimed that he and another police officer only went to the crime scene after hearing the gunshots.
The claim of Perez, however, contradicted with the statement of his own witness, PCpl. John Michael Limarez, who claimed that he and another police officer only went to the crime scene after hearing the gunshots.
“This discrepancy raises serious doubts about the accuracy and credibility of accused-appellant, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the presence of other police officers in the crime scene,” the court said.
“This discrepancy raises serious doubts about the accuracy and credibility of accused-appellant, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the presence of other police officers in the crime scene,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The CA however adjusted the moral and exemplary damages awarded by the RTC to the families of the victims based on latest jurisprudence.
The CA however adjusted the moral and exemplary damages awarded by the RTC to the families of the victims based on latest jurisprudence.
From a total of of P2 million awarded by the RTC, the CA ordered Perez to pay the Arnaiz family a total of P100,000 and P150,000 to the De Guzman family.
From a total of of P2 million awarded by the RTC, the CA ordered Perez to pay the Arnaiz family a total of P100,000 and P150,000 to the De Guzman family.
“Finally, it is our fervent hope that this case will be a living testament that although far from being perfect, our judicial institution remains steadfast in protecting the rights of those who cannot help themselves, and we will continue to do so, lest the confidence in the judiciary be shaken,” the court said.
“Finally, it is our fervent hope that this case will be a living testament that although far from being perfect, our judicial institution remains steadfast in protecting the rights of those who cannot help themselves, and we will continue to do so, lest the confidence in the judiciary be shaken,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
