Legal Profession

G02
Atty. Dizon
Cedric Sean Ang
Hayden Allauigan
Benjamin Vincent V. Bueno
Andrei Dave Dancers Nebril
Adrian Kit Osorio

Hazing

Background and Context on Hazing Rites

The news about Atios death and the succeeding failure of the Philippine justice system to exact justice
upon his persecutors comes as no surprise to the initiated. To the uninitiated, clamors for justice and action
ring clear, whereas these words would only fall to deaf ears. It has been a struggle for the Philippine Community
to properly regulate hazing rites for the number of organizations one can seek to join. Most notably, young
men and women try their best to get into a prestigious fraternities in law schools in order to broaden their
horizons and better their chances at passing the bar.

We have lost countless men and women to hazing rites, some were as notorious as the Lenny Villa
case but some are recorded as just numbers in a statistics count. These hopeful young men and women tried
their best and put their faith into their initiators in the hopes of calling them brothers or sisters after their ordeal,
but these fated few ended up going home battered and bruised and left for dead.

Hazing is a product of Fraternities and Sororities. It is a process in which an order of people get to vet
and test new recruits before they are allowed to join their ranks. The earliest notion of Fraternities date back
to the 1775, in the United States, it is unclear however if this would be the earliest incident of hazing. The
earliest mention of hazing comes only in 1885, and it is coined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary and not by
the Blacks Law Dictionary. For all intents and purposes, the legal world did not take notice of hazing up until
substantial numbers of death were recorded. In the United States, hazing is illegal in several states, some
states have regulated them and some states remain in the dark with no definite stand for it.

The problem posed of having no state recognition or regulation of hazing rites is apparent when
neophytes die because of said rites and leaves the victims family powerless. The law lacks teeth in prosecuting
the people who were responsible for the death. This in turn leaves the bereaved, frustrated for there is no legal
recourse for their loss. This exact scenario is what prompted the advent of the Anti Hazing Law or R.A. 8049
in the Philippines. The rising cases of students namely those who were in enrolled in law schools prompted
congress to take action.

History of Act no. 8049: AN ACT REGULATING HAZING AND OTHER FORMS OF INITIATION RITES IN FRATERNITIES,
SORORITIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR

When Aquila Legis neophyte Lenny Villa died in 1991 due to sustaining multiple fatal injuries from his hazing
rites1, former senator Jose Joey Lina Jr. authored a bill that was eventually enacted as Republic Act no. 8049 also
known as Anti-Hazing Law.

The Anti-Hazing Law was enacted in 1995 to merely regulate the hazing rites, wherein a set of conditions and
strict requirements were implemented to allow the performance of hazing rites. Furthermore, it prescribes the penalty

1
People v. Villareal, G.R. 151258
imposed based on the state of health of the neophyte post-hazing, participation of the fraternity members, authorities
who consented, and other factors. 2

After its enactment, initiation rites were still performed throughout the country and numbers of injured or
dead neophytes were still arising. In 2012, Marvin Reglos and Marc Andre Marcos were killed in separate hazing rites
while the accused were acquitted due to lack of probable cause. In 2013, a sophomore at the Maritime Academy Asia
and Pacific, John Mark Dugan, died of hazing.3

In 2014, House Bill 4714 or the Servando Act was authored by Rep. Sherwin Gatchalian to repeal the RA no.
80494; prohibiting hazing rites and imposing strict regulations on non-violent initiation rites. It was filed as a response
to the death of Guillo Cesar Servando, a student of De La Salle University College of Saint Benilde, who died after a
hazing ritual of Tau Gamma Phi . The bill has passed readings from the congress yet still has not gone enactment.

Despite the existence of the Anti-Hazing Law, only one conviction was made; and that was in 2015, where
members of Alpha Phi Omega were found guilty of killing Marlon Villanueva, a student of University of the Philippines
Los Baos.5

The infectivity of the Anti-Hazing law during its 22 years of enactment prompted the filing of bills to repeal the
said law and ultimately eradicate the number of hazing-induced deaths. In 2016, Vicente Tito Castelo Sotto III,
majority leader of senate, passed the Senate Bill 2236, imposing the maximum penalty for violators under influence of
alcohol and illegal drugs. Sherwin Gatchalians Bill 1997 and Bernadette Herrera-Dys House Bill 3467 seek to ban all
forms of hazing, particularly those that inflict physical and psychological harm to the neophytes8.

A look at R.A. 8045

What is hazing?

Section 1. Hazing, as used in this Act, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into
membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

Are there allowed initiation rites?

The term "organization" shall include any club or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police,
Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army
Training.

The physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the
physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Philippine National Police as approved ny the Secretary of National Defense and the National Police
Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of
the Philippine National Police shall not be considered as hazing for the purposes of this Act.

Under Sec 2 and sec 3 of RA 8049, in order for hazing to be valid, the following conditions must be complied
with:

2
An Act Regulating Hazing And Other Forms Of Initiation Rites In Fraternities, Sororities, And Other Organizations And Providing Penalties Therefor,
Republic Act no. 8049
3
Cabico, G. (2017, September 21). Anti-hazing law: 22 years, 1 conviction. Philstar Global. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/09/21/1740694/anti-hazing-law-22-years-1-conviction
4
An Act Prohibiting Hazing And Regulating Other Forms Of Initiation Rites Of Fraternities, Sororities And Other Organizations, And Providing
Penalties For Violation Thereof, Repealing For The Purpose Republic Act No. 8049, House Bill no. 4714
5
Dungo v. People, G.R. 209464
6
An Act Amending Section 4 Of Republic Act No. 8049, Otherwise Known As An Act Regulating Hazing And Other Forms Of Initiation Rites In
Fraternities, Sororities And Other Organizations And Providing Penalties Therefor, Senate Bill no. 223
7
An Act Prohibiting Hazing And Regulating Other Forms Of Initiation Rites Of Fraternities, Sororities, And Other Organizations And Providing
Penalties For Violation Thereof, Repealing For The Purpose Republic Act No. 8049, Senate Bill no. 199
8
The Revised Anti-Hazing Law, House Bill No. 3467
 1. Prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the conduct
of such initiation
2. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three (3)
days, shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities.
3. The written notice shall contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites.
4. At least two (2) representatives of the school or organization should be present during the initiation.
It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon
a recruit, neophyte or applicant.

Who are liable as principals?

The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned
the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as
principals. A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed
and failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be liable as principal.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless
he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

Who are liable as accomplices?

The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. If
the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the
parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge
thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for
the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators.

Digests on Landmark and Leading Cases on Hazing

Villareal V. People

Facts:

February 1991- 7 freshmen law students of ADMU signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis fraternity. They
were met by members of AL at the lobby of Ateneo Law. They were informed that there will be physical beatings
and that they can quit anytime. The rites were scheduled to last 3 days. They were subjected to traditional Aquilan
initiation rites such as the Indian Run, Bicol Express, Rounds, Auxies Privilege Round, rough basketball,
comic plays, and other forms of paddling. Lenny received several blows, one of which was so strong that it sent
him sprawling to the ground. When they were already sleeping, the neophytes were roused by Lennys shivering
and mumblings. He was brought to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

ISSUE:

WON the accused are guilty and are penalized with a penalty of reclusion perpetua

Held:

No crime without a law punishing it.

Thus, having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and the core principle of mala in se
adhered to under the Revised Penal Code, Congress did not simply enact an amendment thereto.
Instead, it created a special law on hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. This dilemma
faced by Congress is further proof of how the nature of hazing unique as against typical crimes
cast a cloud of doubt on whether society considered the act as an inherently wrong conduct or mala
in se at the time.

Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to recklessness, which made
 the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It must be remembered that organizations owe to their
initiates a duty of care not to cause them injury in the process. With the foregoing facts, we rule that
the accused are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the NBI medico-legal officer
found that the victims death was the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility
redounds to all those who directly participated in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries

Our finding of criminal liability for the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall cover only accused
Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity
members would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua(life
imprisonment). Since there was no law prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule
according to existing laws at the time of his death.

RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH

Facts:

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was previously involved with a hazing incident, which caused the death of Raul
Camaligan, a neophyte, during fraternity initiation rights. He was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide. He was sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he applied for probation, which
was approved and granted by the court. He took the bar exam and passed but he was not able to take the lawyers
oath. He filed for a petition to allow him to take the lawyers oath and to admit him to the practice of law averring
that his probation was already terminated. The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period
before it was terminated.

Issue:

Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyers oath and be able to practice law?

Held:

Yes.

The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications
required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration o f justice. It is the sworn
duty of this Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law
but, also of equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s oath, thereby further tarnishing the
public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.

The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good moral character of all bar members, keeping in mind that
such is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned.
Hence, he was asked by the court to to produce evidence to prove that he has reformed and has become a
responsible member of the community.

In compliance with the above resolution, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters
executed by among
others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise
submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing
victim, through joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

Digests:

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472

Judge Martonino R. Marcos, Petitioner

Vs

Hon. Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmarinas City, Cavite, Respondent
Facts:

It stemmed from the death of the complainants grandson Marc Andrei Marcos during the initiation rites of Lex Leonum.
An investigation was conducted by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) and issued a resolution recommending the
prosecution of the several members of the fraternity. Thereafter, Violation of Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8409) was filed
against the accused before the RTC.

Respondent Judge Cabrera-Faller initially issued an Order directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest and archiving of
the record of the case until the arrest of the accused. When an Omnibus Motion was filed by the accused, the
respondent judge issued another Order directing the recall of the warrants of the arrest of three of the accused, claiming
it was issued inadvertently. Respondent Judge also issued the Omnibus Order, quashing, lifting and setting aside the
warrants for their arrest and dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. She stated that the testimony of Cornelio
Marcelo, the buddy of the deceased during the initiation rites, failed to show that the accused conspired to inflict injuries
on the deceased. She brushed aside the admission of the accused that the initiation rites were conducted and simply
believed that it was Marcelo who inflicted the fatal blows, causing Marc Andreis death.

The dismissal ordered the complainant to file an administrative case against the respondent judge claiming her
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the actions of the respondent Judge constituted gross ignorance and incompetence.

Ruling:

YES. The Court stated that the respondent Judge demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic rules
of procedure. The Court provides that not applying laws which are basic constitutes gross ignorance of law. Respondent
judge was dismissed from her service.

A. On the immediate archiving of the criminal case

The Respondent Judge violated Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 in her immediate archiving of the case. A.C. No. 7-A-
92 enumerated the circumstances when a judge may order the archiving the cases:

(a) If after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months from the
delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer, and the latter has explained the reason why the accused was not
apprehended; or

(b) When proceedings are ordered suspended for an indefinite period because:

(1) the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him
unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently, or to undergo trial, and he
has to be committed to a mental hospital;
(2) a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the pendency of the criminal case unless the
civil and the criminal cases are consolidated; and
(3) an interlocutory order or incident in the criminal case is elevated to, and is pending
resolution/ decision for an indefinite period before a higher court which has issued a
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; and
(4) when the accused has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his
bondsman.

In the case at bar, the respondent Judge did not cite any ground for the suspension of proceedings. She also did not
bother to wait for the return of the warrants or wait the six-month period. This was a case of grave abuse of discretion
on her.

B. On the recall of the warrants of arrest that were allegedly issued inadvertently
The Court provides that the respondent Judge showed bias in advertently recalling the warrants of arrest. In the judicial
determination of probable cause, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution and Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that a judge should personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant
of arrest.

In the case at bar, she failed to comply with the constitutional mandate as she failed to explain why the she issued the
warrants inadvertently. She merely wrote that the warrants of arrest were "inadvertently issued" without any
explanation why there was such inadvertence in the issuance. The action constitutes a failure of considering a basic or
elemental rule or law which was deemed incompetent.

C. On the hasty dismissal of the Criminal Case No. 11862-13

The Court ruled that the judge is grossly ignorant of the law and incompetent for hastily dismissing the case. The Court
ruled that it cannot ignore her lack of prudence for it is the Courts duty to protect and preserve public confidence in
our judicial system.

In the case at bar, the respondent judge did not take into consideration the resolution by the OCP and failed to evaluate
the evidence in support thereof. The action of the respondent judge dismissing the case due to lack of probable cause
is questionable considering the strong and overwhelming evidence.

Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049, if the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical
injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually
participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals, and the officers and members present during
the hazing are prima facie presumed to have actually participated, unless it can be shown that he or she prevented the
commission of the punishable acts. This disputable presumption arises from the mere presence of the offender during
the hazing. Thereafter, the respondent judge should have found a probable cause as it is enough that the believed act
or omission constitutes the offense charged.

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH BY ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.

Facts:

Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. passed the 1996 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyers oath due
to his involvement in a hazing incident. He was involved in the death of Raul Camaligan during the initiation rites of the
Lex Talionis Fraternitas. He was one of other members who were convicted of Reckless Imprudence resulting to
Homicide. Thereafter, he filed and was granted a probation by the court. He was later discharged from probation and
his case was considered closed and terminated. He filed a petition which prayed that he be allowed to take the lawyers
oath.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Arthur Cuevas is allowed to take the lawyers oath,

Ruling:

Yes.

The Court is willing to give the petitioner a chance, same as Al Argosino, to take the lawyers oath. The Court noted that
the petitioners deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte which resulted to the
latters untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar. And as the practice
of law is a privilege extended only to the few who possess the high standards of intellectual and moral qualifications the
Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted
but have become a disgrace to the profession.

The Court also stressed that the lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing
cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. He is expected to be a lawyer according to the oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

IN RE: MATTER OF ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING OF SUCCESFUL BAR APPLICANT TULIAO et al.
Facts:

Petitioner Blas Antonio M. Tuliao is also involved in the hazing incident which left neophyte Raul Camaligan dead during
the initiation rites of the Lex Talionis Fraternitas. He, like his co-fraternity members Al Argosino and Arthur Cuevas, was
convicted of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide and imposed with a penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years
and four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.

He later applied for probation and was granted by the Court. Thereafter, he was discharged from the probation and his
case was closed. Eventually, he passed the 1996 Bar Examinations but he was not allowed to take his oath due to the
hazing incident. Hence, Blas Tuliao filed a petition to allow him to take the lawyers oath.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Blas Antonio Tuliao is allowed to take the lawyers oath and be admitted to the bar.

Ruling:

Yes.

The Deputy Clerk and Committee on Legal Education recommended that he be allowed to take the lawyers oath.

The Court provides that the petitioners discharge from probation, together with various certifications showing his good
moral character, shows that he is morally fit to be admitted in the Bar. The Court also noted that this case arose out
from the same hazing incident involving Al Argosino and Arthur Cuevas. With these, the Court noted that the justice
should be even-handed and consistent.

The Court again stressed that the lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing
cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. He is expected to be a lawyer according to the oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

A band-aid solution to a terrible wound

It is clear from the foregoing that the current version of the Anti - Hazing law fails to impress. It allows
fraternities and sororities alike to get away without any accountability towards hazing incidents. The newest case to
spark public outrage is the death of Horacio Castillo III. It would be of paramount interest if Congress would use this
case as an impetus to revise and remake the law at hand. How does the current law scale to things? How does it handle
itself with prosecuting powers?
Horacio Castillo III Case

Background and Facts

The 22-year-old freshman law student at the University of Santo Tomas died after a supposed "welcoming
party" of the Aegis Juris Fraternity (AJF) on September 16, 2017. As it turned out, what happened that night
was a hazing rite.

AJF is based at the UST Faculty of Civil Law. Its current dean, Atty. Nilo Divina, along with Civil Law Faculty
Secretary General Atty. Arthur Capili, are both alumnus of the fraternity. Atio brought this up to assuage his
parents' apprehensions when he asked permission to join the fraternity. He also assured them that the
fraternity does not conduct hazing.

His parents said Atio promised to come back on September 17, Sunday.

He didn't.

Below is a brief timeline of key events following the most recent fraternal killing:

September 18, Monday

Atio's parents received an anonymous text, saying their son was brought to the Chinese General Hospital
(CGH). However, the hospital told them that the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) took their son to
the Arcangel Funeral Homes in Sampaloc, Manila.

The father said a bystander found his son, wrapped in a thick blanket, on a pavement in Balut, Tondo on
Sunday. He brought Atio to CGH, where he was declared dead on arrival at 9:21 a.m.

The police report said Atio had hematoma or bruises on both upper arms, as well as marks of candle wax drips
all over his body.

The UST Civil Law Dean issued a preventive suspension order on AJF members that same day.

September 19, Tuesday

The police identified six "persons of interest" in the case. The list includes fellow Thomasian John Paul Solano,
the supposed bystander who found Atio in Tondo. It was later learned that Solano was an AJF member.

Authorities said no one from the fraternity had surfaced to cooperate in the police investigation.

Meanwhile, Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri filed Senate Resolution No. 504, calling for an investigation into
Castillo's death.

September 20, Wednesday

Manila Police District (MPD) Director Superintendent Joel Coronel said the police were on the lookout for John
Paul Solano, as well as father-and-son Antonio and Ralph Trangia, possible suspects in the case.

The Uber driver, who was one of the last people to see Castillo before he died, also talked to the police. MPD
Spokesperson Superintendent Erwin Margarejo said the driver picked up an anxious Atio on Saturday
afternoon.

Atio asked the driver to bring his bag containing school supplies to his home, Margarejo said. The driver agreed
on one condition: that Castillo show him the contents of the bag.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II issued an Immigration Lookout Bulletin Order for the persons
of interest in Castillo's case.

Quezon City Representative Winston Castelo also filed a resolution calling for an investigation into the
Castillo's death at the House of Representatives.

September 25, Monday

The MPD filed cases of perjury, murder, robbery, obstruction of justice, and violation of Republic Act 8049 or
the Anti-Hazing Law, against Solano.

Meanwhile, 16 others were included in the murder, robbery, and anti-hazing law charges.

Police filed the same charges against "several unidentified members" of the fraternity and its sister
organization, the Regina Legis et Juris Sorority.

Ralph Trangia's mother, Rosemarie, who flew out of the country with her son was also charged with obstruction
of justice.

Solano, through his lawyer Paterno L. Esmaquel, said the complaint of murder, obstruction of justice, perjury,
robbery and violation of the Anti-Hazing Law filed against him were not appropriate. Esmaquel said there is
no complex crime of murder and violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

The lawyer argued that Solano cannot undergo inquest proceeding because he voluntarily surrendered and
was not arrested. He said the DOJ should immediately order his client's release.

At 6 p.m., the Senate, led by the Committee on Public Order, conducted its first hearing on Atio's case.
In addition to his prior statements, Solano said he was not alone when he brought Atio to the hospital. He said
he followed a black Fortuner and a red pickup on board a motorcycle, but refused to name the people in the
two vehicles.

Authorities confirmed this with footage from closed circuit television (CCTV).

Solano said he was told to lie in his account of how he found Atio. He added he was willing to tell everything
he knew, but changed his mind because of the charges filed against him.

At first, Solano said he would tell everything in his affidavit instead, but later agreed to an executive session
proposed by some senators.

Senator Panfilo Lacson, chairman of the Committee on Public Order, said it is possible to grant Solano
legislative immunity so that his testimony will not be used against him.

September 26, Tuesday

The House Subcommittee on Prosecutorial Reforms of the Committee on Justice approved House Bill
3467, prohibiting hazing and regulating other forms of initiation rites of fraternities, sororities and other
organizations, as the current anti-hazing law only regulates the practice.

October 9, Monday

Divina and UST Law Faculty Secretary Arthur Capili were named respondents in the supplemental complaint
filed by Atio's parents with the Justice Department.

October 12, Thursday

Divina filed a libel case against lawyer Lorna Kapunan over her claims he was liable for Atio's death.

October 20, Friday

UST stresses commitment to the hazing case.

The institution slams the "inaccurate portrayal" of it being indifferent to the Castillo case, and claims it has
done its part in looking into it.

October 22, Sunday

Primary suspect Solano in his counter-affidavit says Atio died due to a pre-existing heart condition and not
hazing.

His statement angers senators, with Senator Joel Villanueva calling it "mockery of justice."

October 25, Wednesday

The Justice Department reveals that hazing suspect and Aegis Juris Fraternity member Marc Ventura willingly
went to the department to receive protection as he revealed details on Atio's killing.

According to Aguirre, Ventura said Atio lost consciousness when he was hit by a paddle for the fifth time during
the initiation rites. More than 10 fratmen tortured Atio, Aguirre quotes Ventura as saying.

Aguirre says Ventura gave the names of those involved.

October 27, Friday

John Paul Solano insists Atio Castillo died of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM).

He presents a copy of Castillo's death certificate, which shows the cause of Atio's death was due to HCM, an
inherited disease where the heart muscle thickens.
October 30, Monday

UST Law Dean Nilo Divina files at the Department of Justice (DOJ) a counter-affidavit refuting the two
complaints filed by Atio's parents.

The Castillo couple is accusing the dean of knowing about Atio's hazing, concealing their's son's death, and
protecting frat men responsible for the crime.

Divina wants "baseless charges" against him junked. He adds, the allegations linking him to Atio's death are
part of a "smear campaign."

Alleged Aegis Juris President Arvin Balag also submits his 12-page counter affidavit calling for the dismissal
of charges against him.

He says charges for murder and violation of the anti-hazing law lacked merit and probable cause.

November 7, Tuesday

The Supreme Court (SC) en banc ordered the Senate to answer the petition of Aegis Juris fratman Arvin Balag
questioning his detention inside the premises of the upper chamber.

"The Court directed the respondents to comment on both the petition for certiorari and the application for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice of the order," SC
Spokesperson Theodore Te said during a news briefing

In his petition, Balag said there are "serious constitutional questions" surrounding his detention.

He claimed that the Senate inquiry was not done in aid of legislation but "in aid of prosecution."

He also argued that the contempt order violated the constitutional right of persons appearing in legislative
probes, right to fair trial and that the investigation was not in aid of legislation but in aid of prosecution.

Balag also claimed he was denied equal protection of the law, claiming other resource persons who refused
to answer incriminating questions of senators were not cited in contempt.

Named respondents to the petition were the Senate committees on public order and dangerous drugs, justice
and human rights, constitutional amendments and revision of codes and Senate sergeant-at-arms Jose
Balajadia Jr.

The Law: Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 80490)

Another life wasted. However, looking to the brighter side of reality, we can all hope that such unfortunate
incident will serve as an awareness to students, mostly those who are members of fraternity and sorority, that
they should promote brotherhood and sisterhood instead of doing senseless act such as violence as a part of
tradition. Surely, there were multiple hazing cases that has been reported prior to Horacio Castillo III case, but
failed to bring awareness to the members of fraternity as it is evident to this instant. It seems that this hazing
case has reached its climax, considering the severity of this case and the actions done for prevention, and this
should bring awareness and make a change to the traditions of fraternities and sororities.

In line, there should be appropriate measures to strictly prevent this from happening again. One is an improved
anti-hazing law. Clearly, there has been a violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 80490, otherwise known as
The Anti-Hazing Law. Reality says otherwise that this case has yet another long legal battle ahead of it. So,
instead of focusing on technical legal terminologies and arguments, why dont we just take into consideration
the basics.

Is the law enough?

First, is there really a thing called Anti-Hazing Law? Is the law really anti in itself? A myriad of legal intellects
may frown upon such question considering all the legal and constitutional presumption of regularities preceding
the passing of bills into laws but does the law really prohibit hazing in its pure sense? Clearly, yes, however,
does it in reality refrain fraternities and sororities from doing such monstrous act? It does not. It lacks teeth in
its operation. For the past 20 years, weve all seen numerous lives lost to this so-called fraternal act of
initiation. Not to mention the undocumented ones. Obvious. 22 long years of existence and R.A. 80490 only
got one conviction out of the long pile of dead bodies caused by hazing.

Second, theres a law which, ideally, should have enough fearing effect so as to prevent incidents as mentioned
yet still schools, colleges and universities allow, even at times promote, fraternities/sororities to exist inside
their venerable walls. It is noteworthy to say that only when people die that this law is ever invoked. Reality
speaks for this. So, is it safe to say that this law is only operational when someone dies due to hazing?

Third, why do young individuals, particularly students, despite the obvious danger, still join
fraternities/sororities? Textbooks answers would be peer-pressure, to look cool, to be one of the guys, to be
famous, etc But, lets talk about law school. Its a world renowned fact that law school is a tough place to be.
It can even be synonymous to torment. So, why do young individuals aiming to be future vanguards of justice,
knowing theres a law about such prohibited activities, already in a hellish place, still would want to join
fraternities? A lot of answers. One is security, the fear of being left behind. Its very tempting for a freshman to
join an organization knowing for a fact that some professors or even higher school officials are members of a
fraternity. In short, the entitlement and benefits of being brods. Another one, for connections sake. Senator
lawyers recently even admitted their membership to certain organizations or fraternities. Is it not enticing to
have brods seated in power? To have future connections in short. Also, a freshman law student may find it
beneficial to join a fraternity who promises smooth sailing in law school, with tons of benefits such as book
and financial allowances. Clearly, there are a lot of possible answers, but only one question - what are the
universities doing about these so called false prophets? A law would be nice barring universities from allowing
well known murderous fraternities to exist inside their premises obviously. But, is there really a need for such
law? Why do fraternities still exist? Is it because of the lack of teeth on the part of universities in barring such
organizations? Is there a mutual bond between universities and fraternities? One can only speculate but to
say the least, universities have to do something about this. Benefits and other scholarly and charitable acts
should be speerheaded by universities not by organizations. Ultimately, the promotion of fraternities especially
of some of their so-called brighter hopes should not be tolerated in all aspects. Fortunately, there are
universities who are already enforcing strict guidelines about fraternity involvements. We can all just hope for
a better Philippines not only for law students but for all the members of the student sector.