A father-and-son police officers were charged before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court for allegedly firing their guns at a minor who was able to run for safety inside his house last year.

Charged with illegal discharge of firearms were SPO2 Serafin Castellano and his son, PO1 Michael Castellano, both reportedly members of the QC Police District and residents of 50 Freedom Park Road Freedom Park 5, Batasan Hills, QC

The filing of the case was based on the recommendation of Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Maria Teresa Lee-Rafols who found probable cause to indict the respondents in court.

Charges of attempted homicide was originally filed against the respondents but Rafols downgraded it to illegal discharge of firearms since the element of intent to kill in the attempted homicide case was not properly shown in the case at bar.

The case stemmed from the complaints of a 16-year old boy who claimed that the incident took place on the night of Jan. 7, 2011 while he was sitting at the gate of their compound in Freedom Park, Batasan Hills.

The complainant narrated that two of his teenage friends came running and told him that the respondents were chasing them since they were caught throwing stones in the basketball court.

When the respondents, allegedly armed with .45 caliber firearms, saw the complainant, they told him not to run and then shot him.

However, the complainant was not hit as he managed to run inside their house.

In their counter-affidavit, the respondents claimed that the filing of the case against them was only an afterthought and constitutes forum-shopping since the complainant has filed administrative case before the QCPD District Investigation and Detective Management Division (DIDM) but was dropped and closed for the latter’s failure to appear during the investigation.

The respondents further claimed that they were only lawfully performing their duty particularly respondent Serafin who stressed that he was duty-bound to resolve conflicts in their neighborhood being a purok leader.

They added that the complainant is a known troublemaker in their neighborhood and they tried to locate the latter after receiving report that he illegally discharged an improvised gun.

In her three-page resolution, Rafols ruled that there is no forum-shopping committed by the complainant because what he filed at the DIDM was an administrative case while the present case is a criminal case.

“Respondents already used “authority” as their defense in the administrative case when they took refuge in the principle of lawful performance of duty. It is noted that the respondents were off-duty when they chased and fired shots at the complainant,” Rafols added in her resolution.