The Manila regional trial court (RTC) has junked the motion to dismiss filed separately by 10 accused in the hazing case involving the 2017 death of University of Santo Tomas (UST) law student Horacio Tomas “Atio” Castillo III.
“The prosecution having established that Horacio died of hazing and that all the accused were present during the commission of the crime, it is now incumbent upon the accused to adduce evidence to controvert that of the prosecution or that they prevented the commission of the crime of hazing,” the RTC ruled in an order issued last Feb. 24 by Judge Judge Shirley L. Magsipoc-Pagalilauan.
Denied were the demurrers to evidence filed by Jose Miguel Salamat, Joriel Macabali, Robin Ramos, John Audrey Onofre, Marcelino Bagtang Jr., Axel Munro Hipe, Mhin Wei Chan, Arvin Balag, Ralph Trangia, and Dannielle Hans Matthew Rodrigo – all members of the Aegis Juris fraternity.
They were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 8049, the Anti-Hazing Law.
A demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by an accused in a criminal case to dismiss the charge on account of alleged weakness of the prosecution’s evidence to sustain a verdict of conviction. If it is granted, the accused is acquitted of the charge. If denied, the accused will present his evidence to rebut the charge.
The court order stated that the 10 accused assailed the credibility of prosecution witness Mark Anthony Ventura, also a member of the Aegis Juris fraternity, for being “unreliable and not a credible witness because he has a motive to implicate the accused to save himself from the prosecution and his testimony is inconsistent with physical evidence.”
But the court said: “The court finds Mark Anthony Ventura to be credible. He was able to provide a detailed, direct and straightforward narration of the events that transpired during the hazing. Evidence do not show that Mark Anthony Ventura has improper motive to falsely testify against the accused, his ‘brods’ in the Aegis Juris Fraternity.”
It also said: “While there may be some inconsistencies in the testimony of Mark Anthony Ventura, these were just minors and do not affect his credibility. It is accepted that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims but that these were minors and did not affect their credibility. It rules that such inconsistencies, and even probabilities, are not unusual ‘for there is no person with perfect faculties or senses.’”
The 10 accused insisted that Castillo did not die from hazing but from hyperthophic cardiomyopathy or enlargement of the heart.
But the court said:
“No less than Dr. Mesalyn Probadora, the medico-legal officer, who conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Horacio and Dr. Joseph Palmero, the pathologist who conducted histopathological examination of the internal organs of Horacio concluded that the latter’s cause of death is severe blunt traumatic physical injuries.
“As against the opinion of the expert witnesses presented by the accused, the court finds the testimonies of Dr. Probadora and Dr. Palmero more credible. It should not be forgotten that it was Dr. Probadora and Dr. Palmero who actually saw and examined the cadaver and tissues of Horacio while the expert witnesses of the accused were merely relying on a so-called secondhand information which is the written report of Dr. Probadora and Dr. Pamero.”
The RTC has yet to schedule the presentation of the evidence of the 10 accused during the trial of the case.