5,763 guests

DoJ asked to indict law dean, 32 others

  • Written by Hector Lawas
  • Published in Nation
  • Read: 155

THE parents  of  Horacio Castillo III yesterday asked the Department of Justice (DoJ) to indict
University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law dean Nilo Divina and 32 other officers and members of
the Aegis Juris fraternity for violation of the Anti-Hazing Law, murder and several other criminal
offenses in connection with the fatal hazing of their son.

In their separate consolidated reply-affidavits submitted during continuation of the
preliminary investigation on the case, Castillo Jr. and his wife Carmina insisted that Atio’s death
was due to severe blunt traumatic injuries he sustained during his initiation rites and not because of
his supposed pre-existing heart condition as claimed by the respondents.
    
They also dismissed the claim of the respondents that the hazing injuries sustained by Atio’s
were not serious to lead to his death.
    
“The fact that Atio’s hazing resulted in his death evidently destroys the allegation of
respondents that Atio’s injuries were not serious,” Castillo’s parents said.
    
They said the histopathological report issued by the medico-legal division of the Philippine
National Police should be given credence as it was even confirmed by Dr. Maria Cecilia Lim, a forensic
pathologist from the University of the Philippines College of Medicine.
    
Based on the PNP medico-legal report, Castillo’s severe blunt traumatic injuries in both of
his upper arms resulted to skeletal breakdown which in turn resulted in acute kidney failure.
    
“Thus, it is beyond dispute that Atio’s injuries, which he sustained as a result of the hazing
inflicted upon him by Aegis Juris, is evidently serious in nature as to have been the proximate cause
of his death,” the complainants said.
    
They also noted that Divina, along with frat members John Paul Solano and Marc Anthony
Ventura, admitted during the various Senate hearings that hazing is part of the tradition in Aegis
Juris is sufficient circumstantial evidence that the respondents participated in the hazing.