Authorities are looking into possible online influence and prior planning behind the Tacloban City school shooting involving two minors, with investigators saying early findings suggest the attack may have been prepared as early as May based on recovered communications.
Philippine National Police (PNP) spokesperson Col. Allen Rae Co said investigators are still validating evidence, but initial analysis of messages and online activity between the two suspects indicates possible exposure to violent content and external influence.
“Hindi pa po tayo makapag-comment dito dahil hindi pa po natin fully verified,” Co said, adding that one of the minors was “heavily influenced by online content” based on preliminary findings.
He said investigators have also flagged the possibility that the suspect was engaged with online groups that may have encouraged or reinforced violent behavior, though these links remain under verification.
Authorities are also examining whether bullying may have played a role in the incident, as part of a broader effort to establish motive and contributing factors.
Based on the current timeline, one of the suspects reportedly arrived at school at around 7:30 am and attended the flag-raising ceremony before proceeding to a restroom inside the campus, where he later met the second suspect at around 8 am.
The two allegedly remained inside the restroom until around 9 am before moving around the campus and opening fire at approximately 9:20 am.
Co said investigators are also expanding the probe to include possible liability of the suspects’ parents and guardians, as well as any external groups—local or international—that may have influenced the attack.
Authorities are likewise examining whether the suspects had exposure to online communities linked to school-related violence incidents in other countries.
On the firearms used in the attack, police confirmed that one of the weapons belonged to a police officer who has since surrendered and been placed under preventive suspension pending dismissal proceedings. The officer may face administrative, criminal, and civil liability for alleged negligence in securing the firearm.
Investigators are also tracing responsibility for the second weapon, which was reportedly issued to a security guard under a licensed security agency.