^

Nation

Saint Benilde Hazing: CA rules trial to proceed

Edu Punay - The Philippine Star
Saint Benilde Hazing: CA rules trial to proceed
In a 25-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Cruz and Luisa Quijano-Padilla, the CA’s Special Fifth Division reversed the orders issued by Judge Honorio Guanlao of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 57 on Dec. 22, 2015 dismissing the hazing case and the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on Feb. 19, 2016, according to a PTV report last night.
File photo

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has revived the case against five Tau Gamma Phi fraternity members charged with the fatal hazing of De La Salle University-College of Saint Benilde student Guillo Cesar Servando four years ago.

In a 25-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Cruz and Luisa Quijano-Padilla, the CA’s Special Fifth Division reversed the orders issued by Judge Honorio Guanlao of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 57 on Dec. 22, 2015 dismissing the hazing case and the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on Feb. 19, 2016, according to a PTV report last night.

Servando, a culinary arts student, died in July 2014 during the fraternity’s initiation rights held at the condominium unit of a fraternity member.

The CA ordered the Makati court to proceed with the trial of Daniel Paul Martin Bautista, Vic Angelo Dy, Michael David Castaneda, Francisco Joel Villegas, and Justin Francis Reyes, who allegedly participated in the hazing.

A closed-circuit television footage of the condominium showed Servando collapsing along the hallway and being carried away by fraternity members.

The judge, citing the respondents’ right to a speedy trial, junked the case filed by the National Bureau of Investigation after the prosecution failed to present witnesses during the pretrial hearings – all scheduled within one week – of the case.

“How can there be denial of private respondents’ right to speedy trial when we only speak of no more than seven days of supposed delay?” the CA said.

The appellate court said “while courts recognize the accused’s right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, the State may not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.”

The Supreme Court, the CA said, “has invariably held that delay per se does not offend one’s right to speedy trial. It is the unjustified delay which does.”

vuukle comment

GUILLO CESAR SERVANDO

Philstar
x
  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with