Human rights body to probe slay of Kerwin’s alleged cohort
THE slay of an alleged cohort of suspected drug lord Rolando “Kerwin” Espinosa Jr. in Cebu City has caught the attention of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
Leo Villarino, CHR-7 chief investigator, said they are looking into the manner that Julito Prak was killed by operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA-7) last Thursday.
While the CHR could conduct an investigation by itself, Villarino encouraged Prak’s family to help them to speed up the probe.
“If the family can see us soonest, the better. They can at least help us identify witnesses,” he told CDN.
Prak, the alleged right-hand man of Kerwin, was reportedly supposed to help authorities find the suspected drug lord but he allegedly shot at the PDEA operatives first, prompting the latter to kill him in Barangay Hipodromo, Cebu City.
Prak, who suffered multiple gunshot wounds, was brought to the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, but he did not make it alive.
His wife, in a radio interview, accused PDEA-7 operatives of overkill.
She said her husband lost three teeth, an indication that Prak could have been mauled or hit with a hard object before he was shot in the head.
The bullet exited from his face.
She claimed that their child also allegedly heard his father plead for his life.
PDEA-7 Director Yogi Filemon Ruiz said Prak was allegedly tasked by Kerwin to transport illegal drugs from Cebu to Leyte.
Ruiz said Prak could have known the whereabouts of Kerwin.
He said Prak was among the top four of the PDEA-7 list of drug personalities, but he had no pending warrant of arrest.
When PDEA Director General Isidro Lapeña visited the PDEA-7 office yesterday, he lauded the local operatives for killing Prak.
“Operatives have to protect themselves or other people in the vicinity,” he said in a media conference.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
