REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
2nd Floor, DOJ Bldg.,
DA Compound, M. Velez St., Guadalupe, Cebu City

NORBERTO D. RESTON III.,

Complainant,
NPS Docket No. VII-03-INV-24F-01369
- versus - For: VIOL. OF SEC 3, RA 11053
(ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018)
JOHN FRANCIS B. AGUILAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------/

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, JOHN FRANCIS B. AGUILAR, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident

of Fire Crash, Bankal, Lapu-lapu City, Cebu, under oath, state that:

1. I am the respondent in this criminal case filed by NORBERTO D. RESTON

III. for violation of Sec. 3, of the R.A. 11053, or Anti-Hazing Act;

2. On July 2, 2024, I received a copy of a Subpoena from this Honorable Office

in relation to this case filed against me, directing me within 10 days to file my counter
affidavit and supporting documents, hence, this Counter-Affidavit;

3. I vehemently deny the allegations of hazing against me by the complainant

and respectfully submit that this case be dismissed outright for being malicious and
impressed with palpable flaws;

4. As to the first flaw, in all criminal prosecution, venue is an essential element

of jurisdiction. Sec. 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that:

“Subject to existing laws, criminal action shall be instituted and

tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential occurred.”

5. In this case, complainant failed to state the place or the municipality where the
alleged crime was committed;

6. While complainant stated that the initiation rite allegedly took place outside
Cebu City, the same is of no moment as it is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction neither to
this honorable office nor to any court outside Cebu City. Outside Cebu City could mean,
Lapu-lapu City, Mandaue City, or any other places that is outside the jurisdiction of this
Prosecutor’s Office;

7. Moreover, complainant’s lack of knowledge of the place where the alleged

crime was committed is unconvincing. He neither stated that he was blindfolded,
hypnotized, sedated or suffering mental impairment for him not to remember, the place
where he was allegedly taken;

8. Consequently, there is no way to determine what court have the jurisdiction to

take cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant;
 RESTON, III. v. AGUILAR
NPS Docket No. VII-03-INV-24F-01369
Page 2 of 5

9. It is also notable that complainant could not even narrate how injuries were
inflicted upon him; what time did the alleged hazing took place; or if it was inflicted by
me or by someone else; or whether I was alone or not, or whether he was alone or not;

10. However, Complaint used the pronouns “them” and “they” in paragraph 6 of
his complaint, implying that there were more than one perpetrators which none of them
were named except me;

11. The fact that I am being singled out, only indicates that this case is not
founded on a genuine issue of hazing but on personal grudges of a different nature;

12. As to the second flaw, the complaint failed to establish two of three essential
elements of hazing;

13. Case law provides that the following are the elements of hazing under R.A.
No. 8049:

a. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a pre-requisite for

admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization;

b. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity,

sorority or organization; and

c. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing

or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do mental, silly,
foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting
him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

14. In this case, other than his self-serving statement, Complainant failed to show
the existence of the first element, that there was an initiation rite conducted, and that the
same was done as a pre-requisite for admission in a fraternity, sorority or organization;

15. Annexes “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” of the Complaint-Affidavit merely show that
the Complainant was invited to an online orientation, that he filled-out an application
form, and that he was invited to an initiation set on December 28, 2020, which he himself
admitted that it did not pushed through;

16. Subsequent to that date, Complainant failed to show that I invited him for
another initiation rite to which he joined;

17. Complainant also failed to show the existence of the third element of the
crime, or that he was placed in any embarrassing or humiliating situations … or
otherwise subjected him to physical or psychological suffering or injury;

18. Annexes “E-1” and “E-2” of the Complaint-Affidavit, does not prove such
element with conclusiveness;

19. It does not show that what appeared to be bruises are genuine, or that it was
acquired from the alleged initiation rite conducted to him, or that it was inflicted by me;

20. Simply put, the genuineness of the alleged bruises cannot be determined due
to lack of authentic medical certificate. And even if it is genuine, evidence does not show
how said bruises were acquired by the complainant, it could have been inflicted by
someone else as a punishment or for some other reasons;
 RESTON, III. v. AGUILAR
NPS Docket No. VII-03-INV-24F-01369
Page 3 of 5

21. Moreover, granting that it was inflicted by me, there is no evidence to show
that such alleged infliction was done as part of an initiation rite;

22. The alleged Lex Cervus ID card neither bears any evidentiary weight as its
authenticity could not be determined;

23. Case law provides that the two main tasks of the prosecutor during
preliminary investigation is (i) to determine if there is probability that a crime was
committed, and (ii) if the defendant is probably guilty thereof;

24. In this case, evidence presented by the complainant does not establish that a
crime of hazing was committed. The proof merely shows that complainant (1) was
invited to an online orientation, (2) filled out application form and (3) was invited to an
initiation scheduled December 28, 2020, which complainant himself admits that it did not
push through;

25. Further, there is no proof showing that the initiation to which Complainant
was allegedly invited involved any embarrassing or humiliating situations … or
otherwise subjected him to physical or psychological suffering or injury;

26. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to show that I am the one who
inflicted such injury to the Complainant;

27. In the end, the complaint does not engender a well-founded belief that the
crime of hazing was committed, and that I committed the crime that I am being accused
of;

28. Finally, the filing of this criminal action is not founded upon a genuine issue
of hazing. Complainant’s ulterior motive in filing this case is to inflict emotional damage,
mental anxiety and to prevent me from taking and passing the bar exams;

29. This whole thing started with a girl in the law school named “Anne Klein
Aquino” to whom complainant was in love with. Though he may not admit it, his past
actions prove otherwise;

30. As far as my knowledge is concerned Complainant and Ms. Aquino dated for
a while. However, when their relationship turned sour, Complainant became hostile;

31. Complainant then started ranting and posting hate messages in law school
group chats and in Facebook, stating among others that he was used, deceived and so on.
He also sent Ms. Aquino countless of emails, text messages, and Facebook messages
effectively harassing the latter. To corroborate this, attached here and marked as ANNEX
“____” is the Judicial Affidavit of Anne Klein Aquino;

32. At that time, because I considered them both as my friends, I made several
attempts to reconcile them. I gave them advices and constructive criticisms;

33. I also asked the Complainant to refrain from publishing their issues in group
chats and in Facebook, and to divert his attention to his studies instead. To prove these,
attached here and marked as ANNEX “____” and series are the exchange of messages
showing me giving some friendly advices to the Complainant;

34. However, because of the Complainant’s unbreakable ego and self-righteous

character, he took my advices and constructive criticisms as an attack against him. He
became hostile. He insistently accused me of spreading rumors against him and being
romantically involved with Ms. Aquino;
 RESTON, III. v. AGUILAR
NPS Docket No. VII-03-INV-24F-01369
Page 4 of 5

35. Since then, Complainant became obsessed with taking revenge against me. He
started sending hate message against me in group chats and private messages from time
to time. He also filed a complaint against me and Ms. Aquino in the Dean’s Office.
Attached here and marked as ANNEX “____” is a copy of the Complainant’s letter sent
to the Dean’s Office, and ANNEX “____” and series are screenshots of Complainant’s
messages against me;

36. About a week after we settled in the Dean’s Office, Complainant still doesn’t
seem to have satisfied his ego. He once again caused a scene;

37. While I was inside a classroom waiting for our professor in Taxation II,
Complainant suddenly arrived, banged the door and yelled at me uttering hate speeches
while pointing his fingers at me in front of other students. To corroborate this, attached
here and marked as ANNEX “____” is the Judicial Affidavit of ___________________;

38. At that time, I chose to remain silent and calm. Then, I reported the incident to
the Office of the School of Law. After the incident, I kept my silence and decided to
divert my attention to my studies;

39. Several months later just when I thought that he finally moved on,
Complainant again published another hate message against me. This time I was already
on my fourth year in law school, so I responded to him saying that I have better problems
to deal with than his irrelevant issues, and then ignored him. Attached here as ANNEX
“____” is the screenshot of those messages;

40. And then, to my biggest surprise, after another several months, he finally took
his personal grudge against me to another level by filing this instant case;

41. Apparently this case is Complainant’s desperate attempt to ruin my hard work
to get to where I am, and put my life in jeopardy to his satisfaction, considering that
hazing allegedly took place in 2021, yet he only filed this case on June 14, 2024, more
than 3 years later; a few days after my graduation in law school; while in the middle of
review and while the bar exams is fast approaching;

42. Consequently, I humbly ask the indulgence of the Honorable Provincial

Prosecutor to dismiss this case outright, for being a malicious attempt of the Complainant
to jeopardize the hard work and sacrifices I’ve put into in pursuit of the legal profession,
as well as a pure waste of the government’s resources to pursue complainant’s vile
motives.

SIGNED this ________________ at _________________, Philippines.

JOHN FRANCIS B. AGUILAR

Affiant
____________________ ID No. ____________________
Issued on __________________
Issued at __________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________ at

________________, Philippines. Affiant personally appeared before me and presented
his above proof of identity.
 RESTON, III. v. AGUILAR
NPS Docket No. VII-03-INV-24F-01369
Page 5 of 5