Ateneo Drowning Investigation: Baldwin Among 11 Respondents

Tab Baldwin and 10 others have been identified as possible respondents as authorities evaluate homicide and anti-hazing complaints over the deaths of two Ateneo basketball players.

The Ateneo drowning investigation has entered a new stage after authorities identified former head coach Tab Baldwin and 10 others as possible respondents in connection with the deaths of student-athletes Rene Clert Baterbonia and Chukwuemeka Divine Adili.

The two Ateneo basketball players died during a team-building activity in Dipaculao, Aurora, on June 8, 2026.

Tab Baldwin Among Possible Respondents

Authorities publicly identified Tab Baldwin as one of the possible respondents in the case.

Investigators said Baldwin played a significant role during the training camp because several decisions involving the team and its activities reportedly fell under his authority.

The complete identities of the other 10 possible respondents have not yet been publicly released. They are reportedly connected to the basketball team’s coaching or support staff.

Their inclusion in the investigation does not mean they have already been found guilty. Any complaint must still be reviewed by prosecutors, who will determine whether there is enough evidence to file charges in court.

Homicide and Anti-Hazing Complaints Considered

The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group has been evaluating possible complaints for homicide and violation of Republic Act No. 11053, also known as the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018.

The investigation initially treated the deaths as drowning incidents, but authorities later examined whether the players were subjected to a dangerous or compulsory activity during the team-building program.

Investigators are looking into who ordered the activity, who supervised the players, what safety measures were provided, and whether those responsible responded properly once the players were in danger.

Conflicting Statements Examined

DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla previously said investigators found inconsistencies in statements from the players and members of the coaching staff.

He explained that some differences may have resulted from their positions during the incident. The players were reportedly in the water, while coaches and other staff members were onshore.

Authorities have not publicly disclosed all of the inconsistencies because the investigation and evidence review are still ongoing.

What the Investigation Is Trying to Establish

Investigators are examining whether the activity was voluntary or required, whether the participants could safely refuse, and whether the team had adequate emergency and rescue measures.

They are also determining whether the conditions of the activity placed the players at unnecessary risk.

These details will help establish whether the deaths resulted from negligence, an unlawful hazing-related activity, or another criminal violation.

What Happens to the Possible Respondents?

The CIDG is expected to submit its findings and recommended complaints to the Department of Justice.

DOJ prosecutors will conduct a preliminary investigation and evaluate the evidence presented by police.

The possible respondents will be allowed to answer the allegations through counter-affidavits and supporting evidence.

If prosecutors find probable cause, formal charges may be filed in court. If the evidence is found insufficient, the complaint may be dismissed.

Separate Investigations and School Accountability

Other government agencies have also examined possible violations involving student safety, off-campus activities, and institutional responsibility.

These administrative or regulatory investigations are separate from the criminal complaints being evaluated by the CIDG and DOJ.

Ateneo de Manila University has said it is cooperating with authorities while supporting the families and members of its community affected by the tragedy.

Case Remains Unresolved

The investigation has moved beyond describing the deaths as a simple accident, but no court has yet ruled that any person is criminally liable.

For now, Tab Baldwin and the other possible respondents remain under investigation and are entitled to due process.

The final outcome will depend on the evidence submitted, the findings of prosecutors, and any case eventually brought before the courts.

For more updates, visit our Philippine news and sports section.

Author’s take, honest opinion, or personal insight.

The Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 explicitly includes “exposure to the weather” among the acts that may constitute hazing. It also covers forced physical activity, brutal treatment, and other acts that cause or are likely to cause physical or psychological harm.

However, difficult weather or physically demanding training is not automatically hazing by itself. Investigators must still determine whether the activity was imposed as part of initiation, admission, acceptance, or continued membership in an organization.

They must also examine whether participants could genuinely refuse, whether authority or peer pressure was involved, and whether the organizers knowingly placed them in danger.

That distinction is important in this case. Team-building should develop discipline and trust, but those words should never be used to excuse coercion, unsafe conditions, or preventable harm.

When young athletes are under the authority of coaches and staff, the people in charge carry a responsibility to protect them—not simply to push them beyond their limits.

Hazing Can Go Beyond Physical Beatings