DOJ, PNP urged: File ‘nanlaban’ cases in courts

MANILA, Philippines — The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has reiterated its appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Philippine National Police (PNP) to file charges before the courts against policemen involved in “nanlaban” cases.

“It is alarming that nanlaban cases still abound without being tried in courts,” CHR spokesperson Jacqueline de Guia said.

“Anti-drug operations need to follow proper procedures aligned with enshrined rights and the rule of law,” she added.

De Guia made the statement amid conflicting accounts on the death of a man in Malate, Manila earlier this month during an anti-narcotics operation.

Police claimed that drug suspect Adrian Acuzar died after he fought back against lawmen who tried to arrest him.

But Acuzar’s family said he could have been a victim of mistaken identity and summary execution.

They said Acuzar was not on the drug watchlist of the PNP.

De Guia said the CHR was looking into the death of Acuzar.

The human rights body earlier called on the DOJ and PNP to file cases against police officers tagged in “nanlaban” cases.

The CHR noted that the determination of whether an incident was a case of self-defense should be determined only by the courts.

“Probable cause should have been determined if it’s a nanlaban case,” CHR chairman Chito Gascon said in an earlier interview.

“The DOJ should file charges against these police officers and let them present self-defense arguments before the judge,” he added.

A 2013 Supreme Court ruling noted that the admission of a killing – despite the supposed presence of justifying circumstances such as self-defense – is enough to establish probable cause against a respondent.

The high court said the burden of proof shifts to the respondent who owned up to the killing.

“Well settled is the rule that where the accused had admitted that he is the author of the death of the victim and his defense anchored on self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove this justifying circumstance before the court,” read the ruling.

“To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused himself had admitted the killing. The burden is upon the accused to prove sufficiently the elements of self-defense, otherwise the conviction of the accused is inescapable,” it added.