Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
City of Manila

CARMINA T. CASTILLO and

HORACIO M. CASTILLO, JR.,
Complainants-Appellants,

-versus- DOJ Case No. _________________

NPS No. XVI-INQ-171-00124
For: Violation of Republic Act
8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) and
Violation of Presidential Decree
1829 (Obstruction of Justice)

NATHANIEL A. ANARNA, JR.,

ARVIN A. BALAG,
MARCELINO BAGTANG,
ALEX BOSE,
MHIN WIE CHAN,
AXEL MUNDO HIPE,
LEO LALUSIS,
JOSHUA JORIEL MACABALI,
OLIVER JOHN AUDREY ONOFRE,
JOHN ZIMON PADRO,
ROBIN RAMOS,
JOSE MIGUEL SALAMAT,
MIZRAIM SIAZAR I,
JOHN PAUL SOLANO,
RALPH TRANGIA,
KARL MATTHEW VILLANUEVA,
NILO T. DIVINA,
ARTHUR B. CAPILI,
ROSEMARIE TRANGIA,
JANE DOES and
JOHN DOES,
Respondents-Appellees.
x------------------------------------------x
 VERIFIED COMMENT
Comes now NATHANIEL A. ANARNA, JR., by counsel
and unto this Honorable Department, respectfully submits
his COMMENT to the Petition for Review as follows:

A. TIMELINESS OF THE COMMENT

Copy of the Petition for Review, without any docket

number yet, was received by the herein Respondent-Appellee
(Anarna, Jr. for brevity and clarity) on April 25, 2018. Thus,
Anarna, Jr., has until May 10, 2018 within which to file his
COMMENT and the filing of the COMMENT on or before
said date, May 10, 2018, is timely.

B. COMMENT PROPER

The petition for review should be dismissed for being

patently without merit; for utter failure of the complainants-
appellants to show any reversible error; and that the issues
raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

1. The petition for review started with erroneous

allegation. It alleged that the Assailed Resolution rendered by
the Honorable Prosecutors Susan T. Villanueva, Wendell P.
Bendoval and Honeyrose E. Delgado, dismissed the charges
of (1) violation of Presidential Decree 1829 (Obstruction of
Justice) and (2) vioaltion of Republic Act 8049 (Hazing) against
Respondent-Appellees:

ARVIN A. BALAG,
MARCELINO BAGTANG,
MHIN WEI CHAN,
AXEL MUNRO HIPE,
JOSHUA JORIEL MACABALI,
OLIVER JOHN AUDREY ONOFRE,
ROBIN RAMOS,
JOSE MIGUEL SALAMAT,
JOHN PAUL SOLANO,
RALPH TRANGIA
 2. The RESOLUTION dated March 6, 2018 belies the
allegations in the next preceding paragraph. The Assailed
Resolution rendered by the Honorable Prosecutors Susan T.
Villanueva, Wendell P. Bendoval and Honeyrose E. Delgado,
dismissed the charges of (1) violation of Presidential Decree
1829 (Obstruction of Justice) and (2) violation of Republic Act
8049 (Hazing) against Respondent-Appellees, reads:

3. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and finding

probable cause, it is respectfully recommended that this
resolution be APPROVED and the attached Informations for
violation of of Republic Act 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) be filed in
court against the following respondents:

1. ARVIN A. BALAG,
2. RALPH TRANGIA
3. OLIVER JOHN AUDREY ONOFRE
4. MHIN WEI CHAN,
5. DANIELLE HANS MATTEW RODRIGO
6. JOSHUA JORIEL MACABALI,
7. AXEL MUNRO HIPE, ,
8. MARCELINO BAGTANG,
9. JOSE MIGUEL SALAMAT
10. ROBIN RAMOS,

4. Undeniably, the charges for violation of of Republic

Act 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law), were NOT DISMISSED as against
the above-named ten (10) Respondents-Appellees. On the
contrary, Informations were filed against them and no bail
was recommended. Thus, they are all detained at present;

5. In addition, the Honorable Prosecution panel

recommended the filing of informations against Respondent-
Appellee JOHN PAUL SOLANO, for Perjury and Obstruction of
Justice;

6. In this regard, the Petition for Review must fail

outright for utter lack of merit.
 7. In paragraph 5.21 of the petition, the Petitioners
mentioned about a chat thread which allegedly included
exchanges between members of Aegis Juris namely:

“xxxxxx
e) Nahtaniel A. Anarna, Jr.,
xxxxxx”

8. Herein Respondent-Appellee Anarna, Jr., was

flabbergasted by the inclusion of his name in the said chat
although nowhere in said chat can his name be found. At
most, this is a wild conjecture by the Complainants-
Appellants;

9. Moreover, the allegations in the Petition for

Review are mere rehash of the allegations in the complaint-
affidavit and in the Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit filed
before the Hon. Department of Justice.

“SECTION 7. Action on the petition. The

Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition outright
if he finds the same to be patently without merit
or manifestly intended for delay, or when the
issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to
require consideration”.

SECTION 12. Disposition of the appeal. The

Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the
appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon
motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of the
following grounds:

• That the petition was filed beyond the period

prescribed in Section 3 hereof;
• That the procedure or any of the requirements
herein provided has not been complied with;
• That there is no showing of any reversible
error;
 • That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in
nature, except when it suspends the proceedings based
on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question;
• That the accused had already been arraigned
when the appeal was taken;
• That the offense has already prescribed;
and
• That other legal or factual grounds exist to
warrant a dismissal.

10. Moreover, Anarna, Jr., was never impleaded in the

complaint-affidavit of the Spouses Castillo. It was only in the
Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit that the name NATHAN
was mentioned by them;

11. Thus, in his Counter-Affidavit, Anarna, Jr., stated

that his name, is NATHANIEL ANARNA, JR., and that he is
not the NATHAN referred to in the Supplemental Complaint-
Affidavit;

12. Anarna, Jr., was nowhere near the UST from

September 11 to 17, 2017 and this fact is conclusively
proven by the CCTV Footage screenshots attached to his
Counter-Affidavit taken from his home at No. 327 Aguinaldo
Highway, Barangay Lalaan I, Silang, Cavite;

13. It is of great importance to state that Anarna, Jr.,

was never an Officer of the Aegis Juris Fraternity. He is a
student of the Arellano University at present and is taking
up law;

14. Furthermore, the alleged chat thread claims to

have included Anarna, Jr., but the allegations of the
Complainants-Appellants never showed any iota of evidence
that Nathaniel A. Anarna, Jr. ever participated in the said
chat thread;

15. Thus, the subsequent paragraphs alluding to

Anarna, Jr., deserve scant considration as the said chat
thread, never mentioned of the name Nathaniel Anarna, Jr.;
 16. The Hon. Department of Justice is correct in
dismissing the complaint against Anarna, Jr., for lack of
probable cause;

17. The Resolution of Dismissal was arrived at, after a

thorough, judicious, impartial and careful evaluation of the
Affidavits and evidence submitted by the parties;

18. The other legal or factual grounds that exist to

warrant a dismissal of the petition is that the complainants-
appellants lied in their verification and certification on non-
forum shopping when they did not disclose that they had
also filed similar case at the Regional Trial Court of Manila
Court involving the same facts;

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing and on the

grounds stated herein, it is respectfully prayed that the
petition for review be dismissed for failure of the
complainants-appellants to show any reversible error; on the
ground of prescription of the offense and on the existence
of other legal or factual grounds to warrant a dismissal. Other
reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are also prayed
for.
Silang, Cavite for the City of Manila. May 10, 2018.

Atty. IRINEO A. ANARNA

Counsel for Anarna, Jr.
No. 4 Madlansacay Street,
Barangay Poblacion II,
Silang 4118, Cavite
Roll of Attorneys No. 32080/5/10/82
IBP LIFETIME ROLL NO. 0001666
IBP Main Office, March 25, 1997
PTR No. 9948307/ 01-03-18?TMC
MCLE No. Vi------0001264/12-05-2016

Copy furnished:
PANEL OF PROSECUTORS Reg. Receipt No. __________
Thru Hon. SUSAN VILLANUEVA Silang, Cavite Post Office
Department of Justice May ______, 2018
Padre Faura St., Manila

KAPUNAN & CASTILLO Reg. Receipt No. ________

LAW OFFICES Silang, Cavite Post Office
Counsel for Complainants- May _______, 2018
Appellants
Units 301to 306, 32nd and
Fifth Building
32nd Street corner 5th Avenue
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing COMMENT was furnished to

the above-named addressees by registered mail, personal
service not being practical due to time, distance and
manpower constraints.

Atty. IRINEO A. ANARNA

Republic of the Philippines)

Silang, Cavite ) S.S.
x----------------------------------x

VERIFICATION
 I, NATHANIEL A. ANARNA,Jr., of legal age, Filipino,
single and with address at No. 327 Aguinaldo Highway,
Barangay Lalaan I, Silang, Cavite, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that:

1. I am of one of the Respondents-Appellees in the

above-entitled Petition for Review . A copy of the petition
which has no docket number yet, was received by me on
April 25, 2018 and I have until May 10, 2018 to file my
verified Comment;

2. I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Comment;
3. I have read and understood the contents thereof,
which, of my personal knowledge are true and correct;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed below,

this 10th day of May, 2018.

NATHANIEL A. ANARNA, JR.

Affiant

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Province

of Cavite, this _____ day of May, 2018, appeared the person
of NATHANIEL A. ANARNA, JR., with his Non-Professional
Driver’s License No._____________, issued at the Land
Transportation Office (LTO) in Tagaytay City and expiring on
___________, identified by me to be the Affiant pursuant to the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he swore to me that this
Verification is his true act and deed. WITNESS MY HAND AND
SEAL ON THE DATE AND PLACE ABOVE-WRITTEN,
July 3, 2000

DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 70

SUBJECT : 2000 NPS RULE ON APPEAL

In the interest of expeditious and efficient administration of

justice and in line with recent
jurisprudence, the following Rule governing appeals from
resolutions of prosecutors in the
National Prosecution Service, to be known as the 2000 NPS Rule
on Appeal, is hereby
adopted.

SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from

resolutions of the Chief State
Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutors and Provincial/City
Prosecutors in cases subject of preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.

SECTION 2. Where to appeal. An appeal may be brought to the

Secretary of Justice within the period and in the manner herein
provided.

SECTION 3. Period to appeal. The appeal shall be taken within

fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the denial of
the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation if one has been
filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed
resolution. Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.

SECTION 4. How appeal taken. An aggrieved party may appeal by

filing a verified petition
for review with the Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice,
and by furnishing copies
thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office issuing
the appealed resolution.

SECTION 5. Contents of petition. - The petition shall contain or

state: (a) the names and
addresses of the parties; (b) the Investigation Slip number (I.S.
No.) and criminal case
number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense
charged in the complaint; (c) the
venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material
dates showing that it was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise
statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the reasons
or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f)
proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party and
the Prosecution Office concerned. The petition shall be
accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of
the resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of
the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other evidence
submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.
If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed
resolution, a copy of the
motion to defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany
the petition. The investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor
shall not be impleaded as party respondent in the petition. The
party taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition as
either "Complainant-Appellant" or "Respondent- Appellant".

SECTION 6. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The

failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall constitute sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition.

SECTION 7. Action on the petition. The Secretary of Justice may

dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be patently
without merit or manifestly intended for delay, or when the
issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration. If an information has been filed in court pursuant
to the appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due
course if the accused had already been arraigned. Any
arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not bar the
Secretary of Justice from exercising his power of review.

SECTION 8. Comment.
Within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from
receipt of a copy of the petition, the adverse party may file a
verified comment, indicating therein the date of such
receipt and submitting proof of service of his comment to
the petitioner and the Prosecution Office concerned.

Except when directed by the Secretary of Justice, the

investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor need not
submit any comment.

If no comment is filed within the prescribed period,

the appeal shall be resolved on the basis of the petition.
SECTION 9. Effect of the appeal. Unless the Secretary of Justice
directs otherwise, the appeal shall not hold the filing of the
corresponding information in court on the basis of the
finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution.
The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that, pending
resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court are held in
abeyance.

SECTION 10. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding the

perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same at
any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the appealed
resolution shall stand as though no appeal has been taken.

SECTION 11. Reinvestigation. If the Secretary of Justice finds it

necessary to reinvestigate the case, the reinvestigation shall be
held by the investigating prosecutor, unless, for compelling
reasons, another prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.

SECTION 12. Disposition of the appeal. The Secretary may

reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. He may, motu
proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of
the following grounds:
• That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in
Section 3 hereof;
• That the procedure or any of the requirements herein provided
has not been complied with;
• That there is no showing of any reversible error;
• That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except
when it suspends the proceedings based on the alleged existence
of a prejudicial question;
• That the accused had already been arraigned when the appeal
was taken;
• That the offense has already prescribed; and
• That other legal or factual grounds exist to warrant a dismissal.

SECTION 13. Motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party may

file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing
the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with
copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or
further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

SECTION 14. Repealing clause. This Circular supersedes

Department Order No. 223 dated June 30, 1993 and all other
Department issuances inconsistent herewith.

SECTION 15. Effectivity. This Circular shall be published once in

two (2) newspapers of general circulation, after which it shall
take effect on September 1, 2000.

(signed)ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO
Secretary of Justice