A Manila court convicted the principal lawyer in the Horacio Castillo III hazing case of unjust vexation over a statement she made about the Civil Law Dean of the University of Santo Tomas (UST).

Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11 Judge Cicero Jurado, Jr. sentenced lawyer Lorna Kapunan to up to 30 days in prison and ordered her to pay lawyer Nilo Divina the sum of P2.5 million in damages.

On January 2, Manila Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 17 Judge Karla Funtilla-Abugan acquitted Kapunan in the same case.

But Jurado, in his decision dated July 24, nullified and set aside Funtilla-Abugan's decision after finding "merit" in the petition for certiorari filed by Divina.

"Contrary to the lower court's ruling, all the elements of unjust vexation under par. 2 of Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code are present," Jurado said in his four-page decision.

"To state that Dean Nilo Divina of UST College of Law as an obstructionist is to unjustly pester, harry, annoy or vex herein petitioner. The lower court should have convicted Atty. Lorna Kapunan of the crime charged," he added.

Ruling

The case stemmed from a statement that Kapunan said about Divina when she was interviewed by the Varsitarian, UST's official campus paper, in October 2017 about the Castillo hazing case.

Castillo was a 22-year-old freshman UST law student who died from injuries he allegedly sustained from hazing by members of the Aegis Juris fraternity.

Kapunan said, "The dean should come forward and not be an obstructionist to justice because no one is above the law."

In her ruling, Funtilla-Abugan said that because the word "obstructionist" was preceded by the words "not be," there is a possibility that Kapunan did not intend to put Divina in a bad light.

However, Jurado said this take was "grievously wrong" and stressed that "there is no other conclusion that there is indeed unjust vexation."

"It is apparent that the private responder's statement is annoying and vexations to petitioner Divina. The term 'obstructionist' is upsetting to him," he said.

"In effect, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, the lower court simply parroted private respondent's and her witnesses' testimonies. Then it went into a sweeping ruling that there was no unjust vexation," he added.

Jurado claimed that Funtilla-Abugan "disregarded the material prosecution's evidence."

He said it was not categorically shown that Castillo's parents denied knowing the Dean and that he was the one who recruited their son in the fraternity, and that the cases they filed against Divina were dismissed by the Department of Justice.

The judge also allegedly failed to show that Kapunan did not have evidence to back up her claim in an interview with ANC that Divina was "coddling" fraternity members allegedly involved in Castillo's initiation rites.

Jurado argued that although he reversed her acquittal and convicted her, Kapunan will not be put in double jeopardy because the lower court's ruling was "done with grave abuse of discretion" and "contravenes jurisprudence and the very definition of unjust vexation."

He also ruled that civil liability must be allowed because, by saying that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kapunan's statement was said with malice, it indicates that the lower court agreed that it was a vexatious statement.

‘Vindicated’

In a statement released Sunday, Divina said he feels "vindicated" by Jurado's decision.

"I have no hatred nor rancor for Atty. Lorna Kapunan. I have moved on. But, justice should be served," he said.

Kapunan, meanwhile, argued that this is a case of double jeopardy.

"This is clearly double jeopardy—you cannot appeal an acquittal," she said in a text message to reporters Sunday.

"My lawyers are studying my legal remedies against what clearly is grave abuse of discretion and/or ignorance of the law," she added.