Facts Before Conclusions: Toboso Encounter Findings Must Rest on Full Evidence

May 8, 2026

The preliminary observations of Dr. Raquel Fortun deserve to be received with respect, but also with sobriety, context, and patience.

As a forensic expert, Dr. Fortun herself knows the rigor required before any responsible conclusion can be made in a mass-casualty incident: crime-scene processing, cadaver recovery, preservation, identification, autopsy, ballistic examination, chain-of-custody review, witness accounts, operational records, and medico-legal correlation.

These are not matters settled by partial findings on five bodies alone.

Her own reported findings do not establish a massacre. At most, they raise questions that must be answered through the official comprehensive report, which is expected to be released in due time. Questions on body condition, wounds, or identification do not automatically negate the existence of a legitimate encounter.

The alleged mishandling of evidence must also be viewed in the context of a difficult combat recovery operation. Troops and police exercised due diligence in a hazardous area covering a wide encounter radius, with the real possibility of IEDs, booby traps, and armed stragglers.

The later reported recovery of a firearm by an independent fact-finding group only underscores how dangerous and unsettled the area remained after the firefights.

The reported wrong turnover of one body, meanwhile, should not be weaponized as proof of bad faith. Based on available accounts, it stemmed from the identification and claiming process by relatives, not from any established intent to conceal evidence.

What is clear at this stage is that the April 19 Toboso incident was not a single, one-sided event.

The AFP has stated that it involved running firefights throughout the day, with armed elements attempting to evade pursuit, resulting in 19 fatalities and the recovery of 24 firearms.

Under international humanitarian law, persons directly participating in hostilities may be lawful targets unless they are captured, clearly surrender, or are otherwise hors de combat.

Deaths in armed conflict are always unfortunate. But unfortunate does not automatically mean unlawful.

Every lull in the fighting was an opportunity to surrender. None of them did. Instead, they were ordered by their commander to hold the line and fight as confessed by one of the four NPA combatants who escaped the firefights but later arrested by authorities.

The evidence at hand greatly supports the government position that the Toboso encounter was legitimate, and that the fatalities were armed combatants who bore arms and fought government troops.

The full scientific and official findings should be awaited. When released, they will allow the public to judge the facts—not speculation, not propaganda, and not premature conclusions.

Usec. Ernesto C. Torres Jr.

Executive Director

NTF-ELCAC