After NBI Recommendation on Ateneo-Aurora, What’s Next?

The National Bureau of Investigation’s recommendation on the deaths of Ateneo basketball players Rene Baterbonia and Divine Adili is a major development. We should also remember that, for now, it is not a finding of guilt and does not, by itself, result in the filing of criminal charges in court.

On July 13, the NBI submitted its findings to the Department of Justice. According to multiple reports, it recommended complaints against 12 people connected to the Ateneo men’s basketball program and the Aurora resort where the student-athletes drowned on June 8.

The NBI recommended reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against former head coach Tab Baldwin and seven members of the program’s coaching, conditioning, and medical staff: Dean Castaño, Sandro Soriano, Jon Jacinto, Buboy Domingo, Caesar Vincent Elumba, Grant Dearns, and Jerick Rueca.

It separately recommended simple negligence resulting in homicide against Ateneo athletic director Em Fernandez, Hermanos resort owners Francisco Zubia III and Fredrick Zubia, and resort manager Yedda Rubio.

These are recommendations from investigators. No court has ruled that any of the 12 is criminally responsible. Government prosecutors must first evaluate the evidence.

What does the recommendation mean?

The word “homicide” can sound like an allegation of intentional killing, but the law distinguishes homicide under Article 249 from reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365.

Homicide under Article 249 is an intentional felony committed with criminal intent, or dolo. Intent to kill is an essential element. In reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365, intent to kill is not an element. What is punished is the alleged imprudence or negligence—known as culpa—that results in another person’s death.

Simple negligence is Article 365’s lower category, covering situations in which the danger was not immediate or clearly manifest.

That is why the use of “homicide” in the NBI’s reported recommendation describes the fatal consequence of the alleged negligence. It does not, by itself, accuse the respondents of intentionally killing Baterbonia or Adili.

The DOJ now reviews the evidence

The NBI investigated the incident and proposed complaints. The DOJ does not have to accept its conclusions.

Prosecutors will examine the affidavits, medical findings, official records, and evidence connecting each person to a specific decision or failure to act. They can require further case-building if the submission is incomplete.

Under current DOJ rules, prosecutors must find prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. Put simply, they must believe the evidence is credible, usable in court, and strong enough to establish every element of an offense if not successfully contradicted.

The DOJ must also decide how to handle the NBI findings alongside the police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group’s separate referrals. The CIDG earlier proposed Anti-Hazing Act complaints against Baldwin and 10 others. It later recommended intentional homicide under Article 249 against Baldwin and reckless imprudence against several people.

The NBI’s publicly reported theory is based on negligence. That does not mean it formally rejected the CIDG’s theories. The DOJ may evaluate the referrals together and accept, reject, or modify particular allegations.

Can the respondents answer?

Depending on the procedure used, prosecutors may issue subpoenas and direct respondents to submit counter-affidavits and evidence. Some lower-penalty allegations can be handled through a faster review of the written record.

The previously reported defenses will also matter. Baldwin and his counsel have said they cooperated with investigators. Ateneo says Fernandez did not organize or attend the activity. Resort management says it warned the group about dangerous water and identified a designated area.

Those positions have not been tested in court. For each person, prosecutors must still identify a personal responsibility, the precaution allegedly missed, and how that conduct contributed to the deaths. A job title or mere presence is not enough on its own.

What can the DOJ decide?

Prosecutors can dismiss the complaints, proceed against only some people, approve or change the proposed offenses, or require further investigation.

There is no reliable date for a resolution. The number of respondents, volume of evidence, and competing allegations could lengthen the process.

What happens if the DOJ approves filing charges?

If prosecutors find sufficient evidence, they will prepare an Information—the formal charging document—and file it in the proper court.

A judge will then make an independent assessment of probable cause. The court may issue the appropriate process, ask for more evidence, or dismiss a case lacking sufficient basis. An NBI recommendation alone does not produce an arrest warrant.

If the case proceeds, the accused will be arraigned and enter a plea. Pretrial and trial would follow, with prosecutors required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The essential timeline

Baterbonia and Adili died by drowning on June 8 during an Ateneo team activity in Dipaculao, Aurora. Two days later, the DOJ directed the NBI to conduct an independent investigation. The CIDG recommended Anti-Hazing Act complaints against Baldwin and 10 others on June 26, followed by additional recommendations involving homicide and reckless imprudence on July 1.

A Senate inquiry on July 9 examined the activity’s safety measures, prior incidents, resort warnings, and questions of responsibility. On July 13, the NBI submitted its separate negligence-based recommendations to the DOJ.

Another deadline is approaching: The UAAP has given Ateneo until July 15 to submit its official findings. That process may affect league action and safety reforms, but it will not decide whether the DOJ files a criminal case.

What should the public watch next?

The key developments will be whether the DOJ coordinates the NBI and CIDG referrals, asks for more evidence, and identifies a specific act or omission for each person it may charge. Ateneo’s findings and any permanent athlete-safety reforms will also matter regardless of the criminal cases’ outcome.

The surviving players are important witnesses as well as young athletes grieving two teammates. Their accounts should be evaluated through the legal process, not selectively leaked or turned into online contests over guilt.

Public scrutiny is justified when two student-athletes die during a team activity. But scrutiny is not a verdict. What happens next will determine whether the NBI’s theory is supported strongly and specifically enough to be brought before a court.

Special thanks to Attorney Antonio T. Rebosa Jr. for the legal consultation.