THE Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the Manila Regional Trial Court to exclude most of the evidence presented by the prosecution against 10 members of the University of Sto. Tomas-based Aegis Juris fraternity in connection with the 2017 death of freshman law student Horacio “Atio” Castillo III in an alleged fraternity hazing incident.
In a 74-page decision dated November 7, the appellate court’s 8th Division ruled that the items seized by the Manila police at the Aegis Juris Law Resource Center in Sampaloc Manila that were not included in the search warrant issued by Branch 20 of the Manila RTC were inadmissible.
“The Branch of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, City of Manila where Criminal Case No. RML-18-01545-CR is presently pending is accordingly ordered to suppress and exclude all evidence obtained from the Aegis Juris Law Resources Center (AJLRC) which are not covered by Search Warrant No. 17- 27746, including evidence derived therefrom, and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to this order,” the CA ruling penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Susana Atal-Pano said.
Associate Justices Manuel Barrios and Maximo De Leon concurred with the ruling.
Among the prosecution evidence ordered excluded from presentation are the results of fingerprint examinations and the DNA samples lifted from miscellaneous objects at the AJLRC.
“The exclusion extends to any and all evidence derived from the inadmissible objects such as the reports on the dactyloscopy examinations of the latent fingerprints lifted from miscellaneous objects in AJLRC, and the DNA examinations on the buccal swabs, in so far as these derivative evidence are ‘fruits of the poisonous tree,” the CA added.
The CA said the pieces of prosecution evidence seized from the AJLRC which can be considered admissible as evidence since they are listed in the search warrant are three paddles, the guitar case where the paddles are found and the two pairs of socks.
In ruling against the presentation of evidence not included in the search warrant, the appellate court stressed that the ambiguity of the warrant must be resolved in favor of the accused.
“In order to give life to the constitutional guarantee to protect all persons, including the accused in this case, against unreasonable searches and seizures, the ambiguity in SW No. 17-27746 must be resolved in their favor,” the ruling said.
“Conformably, most of the evidence collected by the MPD Scene of the Crime Operatives on September 28 and 29 2017 should be excluded as evidence,” it added.
Despite this, the CA in the same ruling upheld the Manila RTC order which declared the search warrant is valid, contrary to the allegation of the accused.
The appellate court noted that the evidence presented by investigators in seeking the issuance of a search warrant were sufficient to establish that the crime of hazing had occurred at the AJLRC and that evidence of the crime may be found at the said place.
“There was never any doubt that the search warrant sought by the PNP was for its investigation into the possibility that the crime of hazing, as defined and punished by Sections 1 and 4 of R.A. No. 8049, respectively, was committed at the AJLRC,” the CA said.
The accused argued that the search warrant should be declared invalid for failure of the police to identify the exact address of AJLRC.
But the CA stressed it was a clerical error immaterial to invalidate the search warrant.
On another issue that is of the accused’ plea seeking to overturn the Manila RTC’s denial of their petition for bail, the CA said the former did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it junked their bail petition on December 10, 2019.
