The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the validity of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the University of the Philippines-Student Disciplinary Tribunal (UP-SDT) against 13 of its students reportedly involved in the 2007 fatal hazing of Cris Anthony Mendez.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC dismissed the petition filed by Ariel Paolo A. Ante who challenged the 2015 Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that reversed the order of the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC).
The 2009 RTC order nullified the proceeding of the UP-SDT against Ante and his co-respondents in the administrative complaint.
The administrative proceedings against Ante and his co-respondents, who were members of the Sigma Rho fraternity, arose from their alleged participation in the initiation rites that led to the death of Mendez, a student of the National College of Public Administration and Governance.
The charges accused the respondents of leaving Mendez in the hospital and failing to give information to the authorities. They also allegedly failed to comply with the directives of UP’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs to give information on the circumstances surrounding Mendez’s death.
Ante told the SC that the preliminary inquiry violated Section 1, Rule III of the Rules Governing Fraternities which requires that the preliminary inquiry be conducted “by any member of the Tribunal.”
He said the preliminary inquiry was done by the University Prosecutor and not by the SDT as required under the Rules Governing Fraternities.
For its part, UP-SDT said the phrase “by any member of the Tribunal” should be construed as “through the means, act, agency or instrumentality of any member of the SDT.” Thus, it said, the preliminary inquiry complied with the provision and, therefore, valid.
In resolving Ante’s petition, the SC said: “The term ‘inquiry,’ which means ‘to request for information’ in its ordinary sense, necessarily implies that SDT took part in the conduct of such. This alone, satisfies the requirement that the preliminary inquiry be conducted ‘by a member of the SDT.’’’
“Moreover, we agree with the CA that it would be bordering absurdity if the statement be interpreted to mean that SDT ‘merely served as observers of the University Prosecutor, with themselves physically present thereat but meaning nothing at all.’
“Thus, contrary to Ante's assertion, to split hairs between the phrases ‘by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal’ and ‘before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal’ is actually a trifling matter.”
At the same time, the SC junked Ante’s allegation that his right to due process was violated when UP-SDT found prima facie case against him, although what was merely required by the school regulations is the determination of the sufficiency of a report or complaint.
The SC said Ante’s claim was “premature” since formal proceedings on the case have yet to start.
“SDT is in fact asking Ante to participate -- the very essence of due process -- but the latter so stubbornly refuses to do so and instead resorts to procedural devices meant to avoid the proceedings,” it said.
On Ante’s claim that the finding of a prima facie case against him amounts to prejudgment, the SC said: “We find the same lacking in merit. Neither does it shift the burden of proof to him, nor violate the presumption of innocence in his favor.”
The SC also said:
“As a final note, the Court takes this opportunity to remind litigants that, while perfectly within their rights, resort to procedural devices must be tempered, especially if the same results to unnecessary delays to the main proceedings where a more exhaustive and conclusive adjudication of the parties' rights and liabilities may be had.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Oct. 6, 2015 Decision and Sept. 27, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 120280 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”