By Andrea Louise E. San Juan

TWO other respondents in the case of Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III’s death by alleged hazing filed their respective counter-affidavits at the Department of Justice (DoJ) on Thursday, Nov. 2.

The respondents, Nathaniel A. Anarna Jr. and Alex Bose, said they have not received a subpoena from the DoJ and copies of the Supplemental Complaint-Affidavits, which is the reason for the delay of their filing their respective counter-affidavits.

Mr. Anarna said he is not the Nathan Anarna included in the first Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit filed by Carmina T. Castillo and Horacio M. Castillo, Jr., parents of the deceased Mr. Castillo. Mr. Anarna said his name is Nathaniel Anarna Jr.

“Since the name Nathan Anarna seems to refer to me, my lawyer appeared before the Honorable Susan Villanueva (Lead Investigating Prosecutor) on Oct. 24,2017 to manifest that I have not received any subpoena and that my name is Nathaniel Anarna Jr.,” Mr. Anarna stated in his counter-affidavit.

“According to my lawyer, the Lead Investigating Prosecutor gave him until Nov. 2,2017 to submit my Counter-Affidavit. Hence,this compliance,” he added.

In addition, Mr. Anarna said: “The name Nathan Anarna was not included in the Complaint-Affidavit and other Affidavit. The name Nathan Anarna appeared only in the two Supplemental Complaint-Affidavits.”

“The first Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit which included the name Nathan Anarna is for violation of Presidential Decree 1829 (Obstruction of Justice); while the second is for Violation of Republic Act 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) and of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder),” Mr. Anarna said.

Mr. Anarna also argued that, “Obstruction of Justice is committed when a person knowingly or willfully obstructs,impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.”

“Considering that nothing was mentioned in the Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit of any obstructive act done by me, I respectfully request that the name Nathan Anarna be considered as not alluding to me (Nathaniel Anarna, Jr.) and I be not included in the complaint for violation of Presidential Decree 1829 (Obstruction of Justice),” he added.

A portion of Mr. Anarna’s counter-affidavit reads: “The Anti-Hazing Law provides that 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.”

“I did not and cannot inflict any physical harm against Atio as I was nowhere near U.S.T. (University of Santo Tomas) from Sept. 11 to 17, 2017,” Mr. Anarna said.

He added: “Specifically, at the night the alleged crime was committed until the next morning I never went near the alleged place of incident but was in our house in Silang, Cavite.”

Mr. Anarna emphasized that the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footages attached in his counter-affidavit are proofs of his whereabouts during the time Mr. Castillo was allegedly being beaten up by the suspected Aegis Juris Fraternity (AJF) members.

“CCTV Cameras would prove this. The CCTV footages from Sept. 16 to Sept. 17 are concrete proofs of my whereabouts on said dates. Copies of the CCTV screenshots are hereto attached as Annexes ’2’ to ’2-K’,” Mr. Anarna said.

“That the CCTV exhibits are clear and convincing evidence that would demonstrate the physical impossibility of me being anywhere near the scene of the alleged crime at the time the same was said to have been committed,” he added.

Regarding the now-widely circulated Facebook chat among the Aegis Juris members following Mr. Castillo’s death, Mr. Anarna said a “simple perusal of the screenshots does not show any name. Therefore, it is quite disturbing that a ’Respondent Anarna’ was mentioned in the complaint even if there was not an iota of indication that any of the conversations are attributable to me.”

“Complainant has neither shown that the said screenshots of conversation came from a lawful and legitimate source nor presented the consent of all alleged parties/participants in the said conversation as required under Section 31 Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Law,” he added.

Section 31 of Republic Act No. 8792 reads: “Access to an electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic data message or electronic document shall only be authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity having a legal right to the possession or the use of plaintext, electronic signature or file or solely for the authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or integrity shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful possession of that electronic key.”

Mr. Anarna said in sum the complainants failed to show any proof showing his involvement in the alleged murder, hazing and obstruction of justice.

In his counter-affidavit, Mr. Bose said in part: “I did not participate in any manner in the alleged planning, initiation rites, hazing, cover-up, meetings,robbery and/or other purported criminal activities against the person or property of the late Atio Castillo.”

“I was not at the alleged place of incident during the alleged final stages of the initiation, specifically, when the late Atio Castillo was allegedly paddled and subsequently died,” he added.

“The reported extra-judicial confession in the media of Mark Anthony Ventura is double hearsay,” Mr. Bose said.

“Respondent Ventura’s alleged Extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against his co-respondents on the basis of the res inter alios acta (transactions between other parties) rule,” he added.

“I did not participate in the privileged and highly confidential alleged FB chats among members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity. Moreover, the seizure of said alleged FB chats without any court order and without the consent of all the supposed participants in said purported chats is constitutionally proscribed,” Mr. Bose said.

“The exclusive Facebook chat messages among the members of Aegis Juris Fraternity are covered by the frat members’ constitutional rights to privacy, privileged communication and/or correspondence. Hence, inviolable in character,” Mr. Bose also noted.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR