Villareal

9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
ARTEMIOVILLAREAL,
Petitioner,
versus
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx
Petitioner,
versus
THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO
ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR.,
JUNEL
ANTHONY
AMA,
ERNESTO JOSE MONTECILLO,
VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO
GENERAL, SANTIAGO RANADA
III,NELSONVICTORINO,JAIME
MARIA FLORES II, ZOSIMO
MENDOZA, MICHAEL MUSNGI,
VICENTE
VERDADERO,
ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE
FERNANDEZ,
AMANTE
PURISIMAII,EULOGIOSABBAN,
PERCIVAL BRIGOLA, PAUL
ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS KARL
B. PEREZ, RENATO BANTUG,
JR., ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/151258.htm
G.R.No.151258
G.R.No.154954
1/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
LLEDO,
and
GUZMAN,
RONAN
DE
Respondents.
xx
FIDELITODIZON,
Petitioner,
versus
Respondent.
xx
GERARDAH.VILLA,
Petitioner,
versus
MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA

II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN
RAMOS,
CRISANTO
CRUZ
SARUCA, JR., and ANSELMO
ADRIANO,
Respondents.
G.R.No.155101
G.R. Nos. 178057 &

178080
Present:
CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO,and
REYES,JJ.
Promulgated:
February1,2012
xx
DECISION
SERENO,J.:
ThepublicoutrageoverthedeathofLeonardoLennyVillathevictiminthiscaseon10February
1991ledtoaverystrongclamortoputanendtohazing.
[1]
Dueinlargeparttothebraveefforts
of his mother, petitioner Gerarda Villa, groups were organized, condemning his senseless and
tragic death. This widespread condemnation prompted Congress to enact a special law, which
became effective in 1995, that would criminalize hazing.
[2]
The intent of the law was to
2/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
discourage members from making hazing a requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity,
organization, or association.
[3]
Moreover, the law was meant to counteract the exculpatory
implications of consent and initial innocent act in the conduct of initiation rites by making the
mereactofhazingpunishableormalaprohibita.
[4]
Sadly,theLennyVillatragedydidnotdiscouragehazingactivitiesinthecountry.
[5]
Withinayear
ofhisdeath,sixmorecasesofhazingrelateddeathsemergedthoseofFrederickCahiyangofthe
UniversityofVisayasinCebuRaulCamaliganofSanBedaCollegeFelipeNarneofPamantasan
ng Araullo in Cabanatuan City Dennis Cenedoza of the Cavite Naval Training Center Joselito
ManggaofthePhilippineMerchantMarineInstituteandJoselitoHernandezoftheUniversityof
thePhilippinesinBaguioCity.
[6]
Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this case the general
condemnationofahazingrelateddeath,theyarestillboundtoobserveafundamentalprinciplein
ourcriminaljusticesystem[N]oactconstitutesacrimeunlessitismadesobylaw.
[7]
Nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as
immoralorinjurious,itcannotbeconsideredacrime,absentanylawprohibitingitscommission.
Asinterpretersofthelaw,judgesarecalledupontosetasideemotion,toresistbeingswayedby
strongpublicsentiments,andtorulestrictlybasedontheelementsoftheoffenseandthefacts
allowedinevidence.
Before the Court are the consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 151258 (Villareal v.
People),G.R. No. 154954 (People v. Court of Appeals), G.R. No. 155101 (Dizon v. People),
andG.R.Nos.178057and178080(Villav.Escalona).
FACTS
[8]
[9]
Thepertinentfacts,asdeterminedbytheCourtofAppeals(CA) andthetrialcourt,
areasfollows:
InFebruary1991,sevenfreshmenlawstudentsoftheAteneodeManilaUniversitySchool
ofLawsignifiedtheirintentiontojointheAquilaLegisJurisFraternity(AquilaFraternity).They
were Caesar Bogs Asuncion, Samuel Sam Belleza, Bienvenido Bien Marquez III, Roberto
3/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Francis Bert Navera, Geronimo Randy Recinto, Felix Sy, Jr., and Leonardo Lenny Villa
(neophytes).
Onthenightof8February1991,theneophytesweremetbysomemembersoftheAquila
Fraternity (Aquilans) at the lobby of the Ateneo Law School. They all proceeded to Rufos
Restaurant to have dinner. Afterwards, they went to the house of Michael Musngi, also an
Aquilan,whobriefedtheneophytesonwhattoexpectduringtheinitiationrites.Thelatterwere
informed that there would be physical beatings, and that they could quit at any time. Their
initiationriteswerescheduledtolastforthreedays.Aftertheirbriefing,theywerebroughttothe
AlmedaCompoundinCaloocanCityforthecommencementoftheirinitiation.
Even before the neophytes got off the van, they had already received threats and insults
from the Aquilans. As soon as the neophytes alighted from the van and walked towards the
pelotacourtoftheAlmedacompound,someoftheAquilansdeliveredphysicalblowstothem.
The neophytes were then subjected to traditional forms of Aquilan initiation rites. These rites
includedtheIndianRun,whichrequiredtheneophytestorunagauntletoftwoparallelrowsof
Aquilans, each row delivering blows to the neophytes the Bicol Express, which obliged the
neophytestositonthefloorwiththeirbacksagainstthewallandtheirlegsoutstretchedwhilethe
Aquilanswalked,jumped,orranovertheirlegstheRounds,inwhichtheneophyteswereheldat
thebackoftheirpantsbytheauxiliaries(theAquilanschargedwiththedutyoflendingassistance
toneophytesduringinitiationrites),whilethelatterwerebeinghitwithfistblowsontheirarmsor
withkneeblowsontheirthighsbytwoAquilansandtheAuxiesPrivilegeRound,inwhichthe
auxiliariesweregiventheopportunitytoinflictphysicalpainontheneophytes.Duringthistime,
theneophyteswerealsoindoctrinatedwiththefraternityprinciples.Theysurvivedtheirfirstday
ofinitiation.
Onthemorningoftheirsecondday9February1991theneophytesweremadetopresent
comic plays and to play rough basketball. They were also required to memorize and recite the
Aquila Fraternitys principles. Whenever they would give a wrong answer, they would be hit on
their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the Aquilans revived the initiation rites proper and
proceededtotormentthemphysicallyandpsychologically.Theneophytesweresubjectedtothe
same manner of hazing that they endured on the first day of initiation. After a few hours, the
initiationforthedayofficiallyended.
After a while, accused nonresident or alumni fraternity members
[10]
Fidelito Dizon
(Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of
4/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and
Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity members, including Dizon and
Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to paddling and to additional rounds of physical pain.
Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the
ground. The neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain and difficulty in breathing. After
theirlastsessionofphysicalbeatings,Lennycouldnolongerwalk.Hehadtobecarriedbythe
auxiliariestothecarport.Again,theinitiationforthedaywasofficiallyended,andtheneophytes
startedeatingdinner.Theythensleptatthecarport.
After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys shivering and
incoherentmumblings.Initially,VillarealandDizondismissedtheserumblings,astheythoughthe
wasjustoveracting.Whentheyrealized,though,thatLennywasreallyfeelingcold,someofthe
Aquilansstartedhelpinghim.Theyremovedhisclothesandhelpedhimthroughasleepingbagto
keep him warm. When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny
waspronounceddeadonarrival.
Consequently,acriminalcaseforhomicidewasfiledagainstthefollowing35Aquilans:
InCriminalCaseNo.C38340(91)
1.FidelitoDizon(Dizon)
2.ArtemioVillareal(Villareal)
3.EfrendeLeon(DeLeon)
4.VincentTecson(Tecson)
5.JunelAnthonyAma(Ama)
6.AntonioMarianoAlmeda(Almeda)
7.RenatoBantug,Jr.(Bantug)
8.NelsonVictorino(Victorino)
9.EulogioSabban(Sabban)
10.JosephLledo(Lledo)
11.EtienneGuerrero(Guerrero)
12.MichaelMusngi(Musngi)
13.JonasKarlPerez(Perez)
14.PaulAngeloSantos(Santos)
15.RonandeGuzman(DeGuzman)
16.AntonioGeneral(General)
17.JaimeMariaFloresII(Flores)
18.DalmacioLim,Jr.(Lim)
19.ErnestoJoseMontecillo(Montecillo)
20.SantiagoRanadaIII(Ranada)
21.ZosimoMendoza(Mendoza)
22.VicenteVerdadero(Verdadero)
23.AmantePurisimaII(Purisima)
24.JudeFernandez(J.Fernandez)
5/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
25.AdelAbas(Abas)
26.PercivalBrigola(Brigola)
InCriminalCaseNo.C38340
1.ManuelEscalonaII(Escalona)
2.CrisantoSaruca,Jr.(Saruca)
3.AnselmoAdriano(Adriano)
4.MarcusJoelRamos(Ramos)
5.ReynaldoConcepcion(Concepcion)
6.FlorentinoAmpil(Ampil)
7.EnricodeVeraIII(DeVera)
8.StanleyFernandez(S.Fernandez)
9.NoelCabangon(Cabangon)
TwentysixoftheaccusedAquilansinCriminalCaseNo.C38340(91)werejointlytried.
[11]
Ontheotherhand,thetrialagainsttheremainingnineaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.C38340was
heldinabeyanceduetocertainmattersthathadtoberesolvedfirst.
[12]
On8November1993,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentinCriminalCaseNo.C38340(91),
holdingthe26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, penalized
withreclusiontemporalunderArticle249oftheRevisedPenalCode.
[13]
Afewweeksafterthe
trialcourtrendereditsjudgment,oron29November1993,CriminalCaseNo.C38340against
theremainingnineaccusedcommencedanew.
[14]
[15]
On10January2002,theCAin(CAG.R.No.15520)
setasidethefindingofconspiracy
by the trial court in Criminal Case No. C38340(91) and modified the criminal liability of
each of the accused according to individual participation. Accused De Leon had by then
passedaway,sothefollowingDecisionappliedonlytotheremaining25accused,viz:
1.NineteenoftheaccusedappellantsVictorino,Sabban,Lledo,Guerrero,Musngi,
Perez, De Guzman, Santos, General, Flores, Lim, Montecillo, Ranada, Mendoza,
Verdadero, Purisima, Fernandez, Abas, and Brigola (Victorino et al.) were
acquitted, as their individual guilt was not established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
6/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
2. Four of the accusedappellants Vincent Tecson, Junel Anthony Ama,Antonio

Mariano Almeda, and Renato Bantug, Jr. (Tecson et al.) were found guilty of the
crimeofslightphysicalinjuriesandsentencedto20daysofarrestomenor. They
were also ordered to jointly pay the heirs of the victim the sum of 30,000 as
indemnity.
3.TwooftheaccusedappellantsFidelitoDizonandArtemioVillarealwerefound
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the
RevisedPenalCode.Havingfoundnomitigatingoraggravatingcircumstance,theCA
sentencedthemtoanindeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprisionmayorto17years
ofreclusiontemporal.Theywerealsoorderedtoindemnify,jointlyandseverally,the
heirs of Lenny Villa in the sum of 50,000 and to pay the additional amount of
1,000,000bywayofmoraldamages.
On5August2002,thetrialcourtinCriminalCaseNo.38340dismissedthechargeagainst
accused Concepcion on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial.
[16]
Meanwhile, on
differentdatesbetweentheyears2003and2005,thetrialcourtdeniedtherespectiveMotionsto
DismissofaccusedEscalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdriano.
[17]
On25October2006,theCAin
[18]
CAG.R. SP Nos. 89060 & 90153
reversed the trial courts Orders and dismissed the
criminal case against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of violation of their
righttospeedytrial.
[19]
From the aforementioned Decisions, the five (5) consolidated Petitions were individually
broughtbeforethisCourt.
G.R.No.151258Villarealv.People
7/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
TheinstantcasereferstoaccusedVillarealsPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule
45.ThePetitionraisestworeversibleerrorsallegedlycommittedbytheCAinitsDecisiondated
10 January 2002 in CAG.R. No. 15520 first, denial of due process and, second, conviction
absentproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.
[20]
While the Petition was pending before this Court, counsel for petitioner Villareal filed a
NoticeofDeathofPartyon10August2011.AccordingtotheNotice,petitionerVillarealdiedon
13 March 2011. Counsel thus asserts that the subject matter of the Petition previously filed by
petitionerdoesnotsurvivethedeathoftheaccused.
G.R.No.155101Dizonv.People
Accused Dizon filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the CAs
Decision dated 10 January 2002 and Resolution dated 30 August 2002 in CAG.R. No. 15520.
[21]
Petitioner sets forth two main issues first, that he was denied due process when the CA
sustained the trial courts forfeiture of his right to present evidence and, second, that he was
deprivedofdueprocesswhentheCAdidnotapplytohimthesameratiodecidendithatserved
asbasisofacquittaloftheotheraccused.
[22]
As regards the first issue, the trial court made a ruling, which forfeited Dizons right to
present evidence during trial. The trial court expected Dizon to present evidence on an earlier
date since a coaccused, Antonio General, no longer presented separate evidence during trial.
According to Dizon, his right should not have been considered as waived because he was
justifiedinaskingforapostponement.Hearguesthathedidnotaskforaresettingofanyofthe
hearingdatesandinfactinsistedthathewasreadytopresent
evidenceontheoriginalpreassignedschedule,andnotonanearlierhearingdate.
Regarding the second issue, petitioner contends that he should have likewise been
acquitted,liketheotheraccused,sincehisactswerealsopartofthetraditionalinitiationritesand
werenottaintedbyevilmotives.
[23]
Heclaimsthattheadditionalpaddlingsessionwaspartof
theofficialactivityofthefraternity.Healsopointsoutthatoneoftheneophytesadmittedthatthe
chairpersonoftheinitiationritesdecidedthat[Lenny]wasfitenoughtoundergotheinitiationso
Mr. Villareal proceeded to do the paddling.
[24]
Further, petitioner echoes the argument of the
SolicitorGeneralthattheindividualblowsinflictedbyDizonandVillarealcouldnothaveresulted
8/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
inLennysdeath.
[25]
TheSolicitorGeneralpurportedlyaverredthat,onthecontrary,Dr.Arizala
testifiedthattheinjuriessufferedbyLennycouldnotbeconsideredfataliftakenindividually,but
iftakencollectively,theresultistheviolentdeathofthevictim.
[26]
PetitionerthencountersthefindingoftheCAthathewasmotivatedbyillwill.Heclaims
thatLennysfathercouldnothavestolentheparkingspaceofDizonsfather,sincethelatterdid
nothaveacar,andtheirfathersdidnotworkinthesameplaceoroffice.Revengeforthelossof
the parking space was the alleged ill motive of Dizon. According to petitioner, his utterances
regardingastolenparkingspacewereonlypartofthepsychologicalinitiation.Hethencitesthe
testimony of Lennys coneophyte witness Marquez who admitted knowing it was not true and
thathewasjustmakingitup.
[27]
Further,petitionerarguesthathisallegedmotivationofillwillwasnegatedbyhisshowof
concernforVillaaftertheinitiationrites.Dizonalludestothetestimonyofoneoftheneophytes,
whomentionedthattheformerhadkickedthelegoftheneophyteandtoldhimtoswitchplaces
with Lenny to prevent the latters chills. When the chills did not stop, Dizon, together with
Victorino, helped Lenny through a sleeping bag and made him sit on a chair. According to
petitioner, his alleged ill motivation is contradicted by his manifestation of compassion and
concernforthevictimswellbeing.
G.R.No.154954Peoplev.CourtofAppeals
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of the CAs Decision dated 10
January 2002 and Resolution dated 30 August 2002 in CAG.R. No. 15520, insofar as it
acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the accused Aquilans of the
lesser crime of slight physical injuries.
[28]
According to the Solicitor General, the CA erred in
holding that there could have been no conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity
initiationhadnotyetbeencriminalizedatthetimeLennydied.
Inthealternative,petitionerclaimsthattherulingofthetrialcourtshouldhavebeenupheld,
inasmuch as it found that there was conspiracy to inflict physical injuries on Lenny. Since the
injuries led to the victims death, petitioner posits that the accused Aquilans are criminally liable
for the resulting crime of homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
[29]
The
9/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
said article provides: Criminal liability shall be incurred [b]y any person committing a felony
(delito)althoughthewrongfulactdonebedifferentfromthatwhichheintended.
Petitioner also argues that the rule on double jeopardy is inapplicable. According to the
Solicitor General, the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, in setting aside the trial courts finding of conspiracy and in ruling that the criminal
liabilityof
alltheaccusedmustbebasedontheirindividualparticipationinthecommissionofthecrime.
G.R.Nos.178057and178080Villav.Escalona
PetitionerVillafiledtheinstantPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,prayingforthereversal
oftheCAsDecisiondated25October2006andResolutiondated17May2007inCAG.R.S.P.
Nos.89060and90153.
[30]
ThePetitioninvolvesthedismissalofthecriminalchargefiledagainst
Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdriano.
Due to several pending incidents, the trial court ordered a separate trial for accused
Escalona,Saruca,Adriano,Ramos,Ampil,Concepcion,DeVera,S.Fernandez,andCabangon
(Criminal Case No. C38340) to commence after proceedings against the 26 other accused in
CriminalCaseNo.C38340(91)shallhaveterminated.On8November1993,thetrialcourtfound
the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedings in Criminal Case
No. C38340 involving the nine other coaccused recommenced on 29 November 1993. For
variousreasons,theinitialtrialofthecasedidnotcommenceuntil28March2005,oralmost12
yearsafterthearraignmentofthenineaccused.
Petitioner Villa assails the CAs dismissal of the criminal case involving 4 of the 9 accused,
namely,Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdriano.Shearguesthattheaccusedfailedtoasserttheir
righttospeedytrialwithinareasonableperiodoftime.Shealsopointsoutthattheprosecution
cannotbefaultedforthedelay,astheoriginalrecordsandtherequiredevidencewerenotatits
disposal,butwerestillintheappellatecourt.
Weresolvehereinthevariousissuesthatwegroupintofive.
ISSUES
10/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
1.WhethertheforfeitureofpetitionerDizonsrighttopresentevidenceconstitutesdenialofdue
process
2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it dismissed the case against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano for
violationoftherightoftheaccusedtospeedytrial
3. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction,whenitsetasidethefindingofconspiracybythetrialcourtandadjudicatedthe
liabilityofeachaccusedaccordingtoindividualparticipation
4.WhetheraccusedDizonisguiltyofhomicideand
5. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it pronounced Tecson, Ama,
Almeda,andBantugguiltyonlyofslightphysicalinjuries.
DISCUSSION
ResolutiononPreliminaryMatters
G.R.No.151258Villarealv.People
In a Notice dated 26 September 2011 and while the Petition was pending resolution, this
CourttooknoteofcounselforpetitionersNoticeofDeathofParty.
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal
penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for
pecuniarypenaltiesisextinguishediftheoffenderdiespriortofinaljudgment.Thetermpersonal
penaltiesreferstotheserviceofpersonalorimprisonmentpenalties,
penalties(laspecuniarias)referstofinesandcosts,
[31]
whilethetermpecuniary
[32]
includingcivilliabilitypredicatedonthe
criminaloffensecomplainedof(i.e.,civilliabilityexdelicto).
[33]
However,civilliabilitybasedon
asourceofobligationotherthanthedelictsurvivesthedeathoftheaccusedandisrecoverable
throughaseparatecivilaction.
[34]
Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal liability for
both personal and pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability directly arising from the delict
11/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
complainedof.Consequently,hisPetitionisherebydismissed,andthecriminalcaseagainsthim
deemedclosedandterminated.
G.R.No.155101(Dizonv.People)
InanOrderdated28July1993,thetrialcourtsetthedatesforthereceptionofevidence
for accusedpetitioner Dizon on the 8th, 15th, and 22nd of September and the 5th and 12 of
October1993.
[35]
TheOrderlikewisestatedthatitwillnotentertainanypostponementandthat
alltheaccusedwhohavenotyetpresentedtheirrespectiveevidenceshouldbereadyatalltimes
downtheline,withtheirevidenceonallsaiddates.Failureontheirparttopresentevidencewhen
requiredshallthereforebeconstruedaswaivertopresentevidence.
[36]
However,on19August1993,counselforanotheraccusedmanifestedinopencourtthat
hisclientAntonioGeneralwouldnolongerpresentseparateevidence.Instead,thecounselwould
adopt the testimonial evidence of the other accused who had already testified.
[37]
Because of
this development and pursuant to the trial courts Order that the parties should be ready at all
timesdowntheline,thetrialcourtexpectedDizontopresentevidenceonthenexttrialdate25
August1993instead of his originally assigned dates. The original dates were supposed to start
two weeks later, or on 8 September 1993.
[38]
Counsel for accused Dizon was not able to
presentevidenceontheaccelerateddate.Toaddressthesituation,counselfiledaConstanciaon
25August1993,allegingthathehadtoappearinapreviouslyscheduledcase,andthathewould
be ready to present evidence on the dates originally assigned to his clients.
[39]
The trial court
denied the Manifestation on the same date and treated the Constancia as a motion for
postponement, in violation of the threedaynotice rule under the Rules of Court.
[40]
Consequently, the trial court ruled that the failure of Dizon to present evidence amounted to a
waiverofthatright.
[41]
Accusedpetitioner Dizon thus argues that he was deprived of due process of law when
thetrialcourtforfeitedhisrighttopresentevidence.Accordingtohim,thepostponementofthe
25August1993hearingshouldhavebeenconsideredjustified,sincehisoriginalpreassignedtrial
dates were not supposed to start until 8 September 1993, when he was scheduled to present
evidence.Hepositsthathewasreadytopresentevidenceonthedatesassignedtohim.Healso
12/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
points out that he did not ask for a resetting of any of the said hearing dates that he in fact
insisted on being allowed to present evidence on the dates fixed by the trial court. Thus, he
contends that the trial court erred in accelerating the schedule of presentation of evidence,
therebyinvalidatingthefindingofhisguilt.
TherightoftheaccusedtopresentevidenceisguaranteedbynolessthantheConstitution
itself.
[42]
Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accusedshall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel This constitutional right
includestherighttopresentevidenceinonesdefense,
[43]
aswellastherighttobepresentand
defendoneselfinpersonateverystageoftheproceedings.
InCrisostomov.Sandiganbayan,
[44]
[45]
the Sandiganbayan set the hearing of the defenses
presentationofevidencefor21,22and23June1995.The21June1995hearingwascancelled
due to lack of quorum in the regular membership of the Sandiganbayans Second Division and
upon the agreement of the parties. The hearing was reset for the next day, 22 June 1995, but
Crisostomoandhiscounselfailedtoattend.TheSandiganbayan,ontheverysameday,issued
anOrderdirectingtheissuanceofawarrantforthearrestofCrisostomoandtheconfiscationof
his surety bond. The Order further declared that he had waived his right to present evidence
becauseofhisnonappearanceatyesterdaysandtodaysscheduledhearings.Inrulingagainstthe
Order,weheldthus:
UnderSection2(c),Rule114andSection1(c),Rule115oftheRulesofCourt,Crisostomos
nonappearanceduringthe22June1995trialwasmerelyawaiverofhisrighttobepresent
fortrialonsuchdateonlyandnotforthesucceedingtrialdates
xxxxxxxxx
Moreover,Crisostomosabsenceonthe22June1995hearingshouldnothavebeendeemed
asawaiverofhisrighttopresentevidence.Whileconstitutionalrightsmaybewaived,suchwaiver
mustbeclearandmustbecoupledwithanactualintentiontorelinquishtheright.Crisostomo
did not voluntarily waive in person or even through his counsel the right to present evidence. The
Sandiganbayan imposed the waiver due to the agreement of the prosecution, Calingayan, and
Calingayan'scounsel.
Incriminalcaseswheretheimposablepenaltymaybedeath,asinthepresentcase,thecourtis
calledupontoseetoitthattheaccusedispersonallymadeawareoftheconsequencesofa
waiver of the right to present evidence. In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply
warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings. The court
must first explain to the accused personally in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of a
13/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
waiver. Crisostomo was not even forewarned. The Sandiganbayan simply went ahead to deprive
CrisostomoofhisrighttopresentevidencewithoutevenallowingCrisostomotoexplainhisabsenceon
the22June1995hearing.
Clearly,thewaiveroftherighttopresentevidenceinacriminalcaseinvolvingagrave
penalty is not assumed and taken lightly. The presence of the accused and his counsel is
[46]
indispensablesothatthecourtcouldpersonallyconductasearchinginquiryintothewaiverxxx.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thetrialcourtshouldnothavedeemedthefailureofpetitionertopresentevidenceon25
August 1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence. On the contrary, it should have
consideredtheexcuseofcounseljustified,especiallysincecounselforanotheraccusedGeneral
hadmadealastminuteadoptionoftestimonialevidencethatfreedupthesucceedingtrialdates
andsinceDizonwasnotscheduledtotestifyuntiltwoweekslater.Atanyrate,thetrialcourtpre
assignedfivehearingdatesforthereceptionofevidence.IfitreallywantedtoimposeitsOrder
strictly, the most it could have done was to forfeit one out of the five days set for Dizons
testimonialevidence.Strippingtheaccusedofallhispreassignedtrialdatesconstitutesapatent
denialoftheconstitutionallyguaranteedrighttodueprocess.
Nevertheless,asinthecaseofanimprovidentguiltyplea,aninvalidwaiveroftherightto
present evidence and be heard does not perse work to vacate a finding of guilt in the criminal
caseortoenforceanautomaticremandofthecasetothetrialcourt.
[47]
InPeoplev.Bodoso,
weruledthatwherefactshaveadequatelybeenrepresentedinacriminalcase,andnoprocedural
unfairness or irregularity has prejudiced either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the
invalid waiver, the rule is that a guilty verdict may nevertheless be upheld if the judgment is
supportedbeyondreasonabledoubtbytheevidenceonrecord.
[48]
Wedonotseeanymaterialinadequacyintherelevantfactsonrecordtoresolvethecase
at bar. Neither can we see any procedural unfairness or irregularity that would substantially
prejudice either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the invalid waiver. In fact, the
arguments set forth by accused Dizon in his Petition corroborate the material facts relevant to
decidethematter.Instead,whatheisreallycontestinginhisPetitionistheapplicationofthelaw
to the facts by the trial court and the CA. Petitioner Dizon admits direct participation in the
hazingofLennyVillabyalleginginhisPetitionthatallactionsofthepetitionerwerepartofthe
traditional rites, and that the alleged extension of the initiation rites was not outside the official
14/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
activityofthefraternity.
[49]
HeevenarguesthatDizondidnotrequestfortheextensionandhe
participatedonlyaftertheactivitywassanctioned.
[50]
For one reason or another, the case has been passed or turned over from one judge or
justice to another at the trial court, at the CA, and even at the Supreme Court. Remanding the
case for the reception of the evidence of petitioner Dizon would only inflict further injustice on
theparties.Thiscasehasbeengoingonforalmosttwodecades.Itsresolutionislongoverdue.
Sincethekeyfactsnecessarytodecidethecasehavealreadybeendetermined,weshallproceed
todecideit.
G.R.Nos.178057and178080(Villav.Escalona)
Petitioner Villa argues that the case against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano should not
have been dismissed, since they failed to assert their right to speedy trial within a reasonable
periodoftime.Shepointsoutthattheaccusedfailedtoraiseaprotestduringthedormancyof
the criminal case against them, and that they asserted their right only after the trial court had
dismissedthecaseagainsttheircoaccusedConcepcion.Petitioneralsoemphasizesthatthetrial
courtdeniedtherespectiveMotionstoDismissfiledbySaruca,Escalona,Ramos,andAdriano,
becauseitfoundthattheprosecutioncouldnotbefaultedforthedelayinthemovementofthis
casewhentheoriginalrecordsandtheevidenceitmayrequirewerenotatitsdisposalasthese
wereintheCourtofAppeals.
[51]
The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been enshrined in Sections 14(2) and 16,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
[52]
This right requires that there be a trial free from
vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays.
[53]
The right is deemed violated when the
proceedingisattendedwithunjustifiedpostponementsoftrial,orwhenalongperiodoftimeis
allowed to elapse without the case being tried and for no cause or justifiable motive.
[54]
In
determiningtherightoftheaccusedtospeedytrial,courtsshoulddomorethanamathematical
computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.
conduct of both the prosecution and the defense must be weighed.
[55]
The
[56]
Also to be considered
are factors such as the length of delay, the assertion or nonassertion of the right, and the
prejudicewroughtuponthedefendant.
[57]
15/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Wehaveconsistentlyruledinalonglineofcasesthatadismissalofthecasepursuantto
the right of the accused to speedy trial is tantamount to acquittal.
[58]
As a consequence, an
appeal or a reconsideration of the dismissal would amount to a violation of the principle of

doublejeopardy.
[59]
Aswehavepreviouslydiscussed,however,wherethedismissalofthecase
is capricious, certiorari lies.
[60]
The rule on double jeopardy is not triggered when a petition
challenges the validity of the order of dismissal instead of the correctness thereof.
[61]
Rather,
graveabuseofdiscretionamountstolackofjurisdiction,andlackofjurisdictionpreventsdouble
jeopardyfromattaching.
[62]
WedonotseegraveabuseofdiscretionintheCAsdismissalofthecaseagainstaccused
Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdrianoonthebasisoftheviolationoftheirrighttospeedytrial.
Thecourtheldthus:
An examination of the procedural history of this case would reveal that the following factors
contributedtotheslowprogressoftheproceedingsinthecasebelow:
xxxxxxxxx
5) The fact that the records of the case were elevated to the Court of Appeals and the
prosecutions failure to comply with the order of the court a quo requiring them to secure
certifiedtruecopiesofthesame.
xxxxxxxxx
While we are prepared to concede that some of the foregoing factors that contributed to the
delayofthetrialofthepetitionersarejustifiable,Wenonethelessholdthattheirrighttospeedytrialhas
beenutterlyviolatedinthiscasexxx.
xxxxxxxxx
[T]heabsence of the records in the trial court [was] due to the fact that the records of the case
wereelevatedtotheCourtofAppeals,andtheprosecutionsfailuretocomplywiththeorderof
thecourtaquorequiringittosecurecertifiedtruecopiesofthesame.Whatisglaringfromthe
records is the fact that as early as September 21, 1995, the court a quo already issued an Order
requiringtheprosecution,throughtheDepartmentofJustice,tosecurethecompleterecordsofthecase
from the Court of Appeals. The prosecution did not comply with the said Order as in fact, the same
directivewasrepeatedbythecourtaquoinanOrderdatedDecember27,1995.Still,therewasno
compliance on the part of the prosecution. It is not stated when such order was complied with. It
appears,however,thatevenuntilAugust5,2002,thesaidrecordswerestillnotatthedisposal
ofthetrialcourtbecausethelackofitwasmadethebasisofthesaidcourtingrantingthemotionto
dismissfiledbycoaccusedConcepcionxxx.
16/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
xxxxxxxxx
ItislikewisenoticeablethatfromDecember27,1995,untilAugust5,2002,orforaperiodof
almostsevenyears,therewasnoactionatallonthepartofthecourtaquo.Except for the
pleadingsfiledbyboththeprosecutionandthepetitioners,thelatestofwhichwasonJanuary29,
1996,followedbypetitionerSarucasmotiontosetcasefortrialonAugust17,1998whichthecourtdid
not act upon, the case remained dormant for a considerable length of time. This prolonged
[63]
inactivitywhatsoeverispreciselythekindofdelaythattheconstitutionfrownsuponxxx.
(Emphasis
supplied)
ThisCourtpointsoutthaton10January1992,thefinalamendedInformationwasfiledagainst
Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,Ampil,S.Fernandez,Adriano,Cabangon,Concepcion,andDeVera.
[64]
[65]
On29November1993,theywereallarraigned.
Unfortunately,theinitialtrialofthecase
didnotcommenceuntil28March2005oralmost12yearsafterarraignment.
[66]
AsillustratedinourrulinginAbardov.Sandiganbayan,theunexplainedintervalorinactivityof
the Sandiganbayan for close to five years since the arraignment of the accused amounts to an
unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases a clear violation of the right of the accused to a
speedydispositionofcases.
[67]
Thus,weheld:
The delay in this case measures up to the unreasonableness of the delay in the disposition of
cases in Angchangco, Jr. vs. Ombudsman, where the Court found the delay of six years by the
Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally
guaranteed right to a speedy disposition of cases similarly, in Roque vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, where the Court held that the delay of almost six years disregarded the
Ombudsman's duty to act promptly on complaints before him and in Cervantes vs.
Sandiganbayan,wheretheCourtheldthattheSandiganbayangravelyabuseditsdiscretioninnot
quashingtheinformationwhichwasfiledsixyearsaftertheinitiatorycomplaintwasfiledand
therebydeprivingpetitionerofhisrighttoaspeedydispositionofthecase.Soitmustbeinthe
instant case, where the reinvestigation by the Ombudsman has dragged on for a decade
[68]
already.
(Emphasissupplied)
Fromtheforegoingprinciples,weaffirmtherulingoftheCAinCAG.R.SPNo.89060
that accused Escalona et al.s right to speedy trial was violated. Since there is nothing in the
recordsthatwouldshowthatthesubjectofthisPetitionincludesaccusedAmpil,S.Fernandez,
Cabangon,andDeVera,theeffectsofthisrulingshallbelimitedtoaccusedEscalona,Ramos,
Saruca,andAdriano.
17/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
G.R.No.154954(Peoplev.CourtofAppeals)
The rule on double jeopardy is one of the pillars of our criminal justice system. It dictates that
when a person is charged with an offense, and the case is terminated either by acquittal or
convictionorinanyothermannerwithouttheconsentoftheaccusedtheaccusedcannotagain
bechargedwiththesameoranidenticaloffense.
reason,justiceandconscience.
[69]
Thisprincipleisfoundeduponthelawof
[70]
Itisembodiedinthecivillawmaximnonbisinidemfound
inthecommonlawofEnglandandundoubtedlyineverysystemofjurisprudence.
[71]
Itfound
expression in the Spanish Law, in the Constitution of the United States, and in our own
Constitutionasoneofthefundamentalrightsofthecitizen,
[72]
viz:
ArticleIIIBillofRights
Section21.Nopersonshallbetwiceputinjeopardyofpunishmentforthesameoffense.Ifanactis
punishedbyalawandanordinance,convictionoracquittalundereithershallconstituteabartoanother
prosecutionforthesameact.
Rule117,Section7oftheRulesofCourt,whichimplementsthisparticularconstitutional
[73]
right,providesasfollows:
SEC.7.Formerconvictionoracquittaldoublejeopardy.Whenanaccusedhasbeenconvictedor
acquitted,orthecaseagainsthimdismissedorotherwiseterminatedwithouthisexpressconsentbya
courtofcompetentjurisdiction,uponavalidcomplaintorinformationorotherformalchargesufficientin
form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
convictionoracquittaloftheaccusedorthedismissalofthecaseshallbeabartoanotherprosecution
fortheoffensecharged,orforanyattempttocommitthesameorfrustrationthereof,orforanyoffense
whichnecessarilyincludes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in theformercomplaintor
information.
Theruleondoublejeopardythusprohibitsthestatefromappealingthejudgmentinorder
toreversetheacquittalortoincreasethepenaltyimposedeitherthrougharegularappealunder
Rule41oftheRulesofCourtorthroughanappealbycertiorarionpurequestionsoflawunder
Rule45ofthesameRules.
[74]
Therequisitesforinvokingdoublejeopardyarethefollowing:(a)
there is a valid complaint or information (b) it is filed before a competent court (c) the
defendantpleadedtothechargeand(d)thedefendantwasacquittedorconvicted,orthecase
18/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
against him or her was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the defendants express
consent.
[75]
AswehavereiteratedinPeoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,[a]verdictofacquittalis
immediatelyfinalandareexaminationofthemeritsofsuchacquittal,evenintheappellatecourts,
will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense. The finalityofacquittal doctrine has
severalavowedpurposes.Primarily,itpreventstheStatefromusingitscriminalprocessesasan
instrument of harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated
trials. It also serves the additional purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal, from
successivelyretryingthedefendantinthehopeofsecuringaconviction.Andfinally,itprevents
the State, following conviction, from retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a
greater penalty.
[76]
We further stressed that an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of
reposeasadirectconsequenceofthefinalityofhisacquittal.
[77]
This prohibition, however, is not absolute. The state may challenge the lower courts
acquittal of the accused or the imposition of a lower penalty on the latter in the following
recognizedexceptions:(1)wheretheprosecutionisdeprivedofafairopportunitytoprosecute
[78]
andproveitscase,tantamounttoadeprivationofdueprocess
(2)wherethereisafindingof
[79]
[80]
mistrial
or(3)wheretherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretion.
ThethirdinstancereferstothisCourtsjudicialpowerunderRule65todeterminewhether
ornottherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionon
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
[81]
Here, the party asking for the
reviewmustshowthepresenceofawhimsicalorcapriciousexerciseofjudgmentequivalentto
lackofjurisdictionapatentandgrossabuseofdiscretionamountingtoanevasionofapositive
dutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformadutyimposedbylawortoactincontemplationoflaw
[82]
anexerciseofpowerinanarbitraryanddespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionandhostility
or a blatant abuse of authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive the court of its
verypowertodispensejustice.
riskofdoublejeopardy.
[83]
Insuchanevent,theaccusedcannotbeconsideredtobeat
[84]
19/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
The Solicitor General filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari, which seeks the reversal of
(1)theacquittalofVictorinoetal.and(2)theconvictionofTecsonetal.forthelessercrimeof
slightphysicalinjuries,bothonthebasisofamisappreciationoffactsandevidence.According
to the Petition, the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accordance with law because
private complainant and petitioner were denied due process of law when the public respondent
completelyignoredthea)PositionPaperxxxb)theMotionforPartialReconsiderationxxx
andc)thepetitionersCommentxxx.
[85]
Allegedly,theCAignoredevidencewhenitadopted
thetheoryofindividualresponsibilitysetasidethefindingofconspiracybythetrialcourtand
failed to applyArticle 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
[86]
The Solicitor General also assails the
finding that the physical blows were inflicted only by Dizon and Villareal, as well as the
appreciationofLennyVillasconsenttohazing.
[87]
In our view, what the Petition seeks is that we reexamine, reassess, and reweigh the
probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.
[88]
In People v. Maquiling, we held
that grave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court simply because it allegedly
misappreciated the facts and the evidence.
[89]
Mere errors of judgment are correctible by an
appealorapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,andnotbyanapplicationfor
awritofcertiorari.
[90]
Therefore,pursuanttotheruleondoublejeopardy,weareconstrainedto
denythePetitioncontraVictorinoetal.the19acquittedfraternitymembers.
We,however,modifytheassailedjudgmentasregardsTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantug
thefourfraternitymembersconvictedofslightphysicalinjuries.
Indeed,wehaveruledinalineofcasesthattheruleondoublejeopardysimilarlyapplies
when the state seeks the imposition of a higher penalty against the accused.
[91]
We have also
recognized, however, that certiorari may be used to correct an abusive judgment upon a clear
demonstrationthatthelowercourtblatantlyabuseditsauthoritytoapointsograveastodeprive
itofitsverypowertodispensejustice.
[92]
Thepresentcaseisoneofthoseinstancesofgrave
abuseofdiscretion.
InimposingthepenaltyofslightphysicalinjuriesonTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantug,
theCAreasonedthus:
20/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Basedonthemedicalfindings,itwouldappearthatwiththeexclusionofthefatalwounds
inflictedbytheaccusedDizonandVillareal,theinjuriessustainedbythevictimasaresultof
the physical punishment heaped on him were serious in nature. However, by reason of the
deathofthevictim,therecanbenoprecisemeanstodeterminethedurationoftheincapacityor
the medical attendance required. To do so, at this stage would be merely speculative. In a
prosecutionforthiscrimewherethecategoryoftheoffenseandtheseverityofthepenaltydependon
theperiodofillnessorincapacityforlabor,thelengthofthisperiodmustlikewisebeprovedbeyond
reasonabledoubtinmuchthesamemannerasthesameactcharged[Peoplev.Codilla,CAG.R.No.
4079R, June 26, 1950]. And when proof of the said period is absent, the crime committed
shouldbedeemedonlyasslightphysicalinjuries[Peoplev.DelosSantos,CA,59O.G.4393,
citingPeoplev.Penesa,81Phil.398].Assuch,thisCourtisconstrainedtorulethattheinjuriesinflicted
[93]
bytheappellants,Tecson,Ama,AlmedaandBantug,Jr.,areonlyslightandnotserious,innature.
(Emphasissuppliedandcitationsincluded)
The appellate court relied on our ruling in People v. Penesa
[94]
in finding that the four
accusedshouldbeheldguiltyonlyofslightphysicalinjuries.AccordingtotheCA,becauseof
thedeathofthevictim,therecanbenoprecisemeanstodeterminethedurationoftheincapacity
ormedicalattendancerequired.
[95]
TherelianceonPenesawasutterlymisplaced.Areviewof
that case would reveal that the accused therein was guilty merely of slight physical injuries,
becausethevictimsinjuriesneithercausedincapacityforlabornorrequiredmedicalattendance.
[96]
[97]
[98]
Furthermore, he did not die.
His injuries were not even serious.
Since Penesa
involved a case in which the victim allegedly suffered physical injuries and not death, the ruling
citedbytheCAwaspatentlyinapplicable.
Onthecontrary,theCAsultimateconclusionthatTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantugwere
liablemerelyforslightphysicalinjuriesgrosslycontradictsitsownfindingsoffact.Accordingto
the court, the four accused were found to have inflicted more than the usual punishment
undertakenduringsuchinitiationritesonthepersonofVilla.
[99]
ItthenadoptedtheNBImedico
legalofficersfindingsthattheantecedentcauseofLennyVillasdeathwasthemultipletraumatic
injurieshesufferedfromtheinitiationrites.
[100]
ConsideringthattheCAfoundthatthephysical
punishmentheapedon[Lenny Villa was] serious in nature,
[101]
it was patently erroneous
forthecourttolimitthecriminalliabilitytoslightphysicalinjuries,whichisalightfelony.
Article4(1)oftheRevisedPenalCodedictatesthattheperpetratorshallbeliableforthe
consequencesofanact,evenifitsresultisdifferentfromthatintended.Thus,onceapersonis
found to have committed an initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of physical
21/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
injuriesthatresultsinthedeathofthevictim,courtsarerequiredtoautomaticallyapplythelegal
frameworkgoverningthedestructionoflife.Thisruleismandatory,andnotsubjecttodiscretion.
The CAs application of the legal framework governing physical injuries punished under
Articles 262 to 266 for intentional felonies and Article 365 for culpable felonies is therefore
tantamount to a whimsical, capricious, and abusive exercise of judgment amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.AccordingtotheRevisedPenalCode,themandatoryandlegallyimposablepenalty
incasethevictimdiesshouldbebasedontheframeworkgoverningthedestructionofthelifeof
aperson,punishedunderArticles246to261forintentionalfeloniesandArticle365forculpable
felonies, and not under the aforementioned provisions. We emphasize that these two types of
feloniesaredistinctfromandlegallyinconsistentwitheachother,inthattheaccusedcannotbe
heldcriminallyliableforphysicalinjurieswhenactualdeathoccurs.
[102]
Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon as if only their acts, in and of
themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings. From proof
thatthedeathofthevictimwasthecumulativeeffectofthemultipleinjurieshesuffered,
[103]
the
onlylogicalconclusionisthatcriminalresponsibilityshouldredoundtoallthosewhohavebeen
proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. The
accumulationofbruisingonhisbodycausedhimtosuffercardiacarrest.Accordingly,wefind
that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries. As an
allowableexceptiontotheruleondoublejeopardy,wethereforegiveduecoursetothePetition
inG.R.No.154954.
ResolutiononUltimateFindings
According to the trial court, although hazing was not (at the time) punishable as a crime, the
intentional infliction of physical injuries on Villa was nonetheless a felonious act under Articles
263to266oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thus,inrulingagainsttheaccused,thecourtaquofound
that pursuant toArticle 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the accused fraternity members were
guilty of homicide, as it was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the physical injuries
theyhadintentionallyinflicted.
[104]
TheCAmodifiedthetrialcourtsfindingofcriminalliability.Itruledthattherecouldhave
beennoconspiracysincetheneophytes,includingLennyVilla,hadknowinglyconsentedtothe
22/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
conduct of hazing during their initiation rites. The accused fraternity members, therefore, were
liable only for the consequences of their individual acts. Accordingly, 19 of the accused
Victorino et al. were acquitted 4 of them Tecson et al. were found guilty of slight physical
injuriesandtheremaining2DizonandVillarealwerefoundguiltyofhomicide.
Theissueathanddoesnotconcernatypicalcriminalcasewhereintheperpetratorclearly
commitsafelonyinordertotakerevengeupon,togainadvantageover,toharmmaliciously,or
togetevenwith,thevictim.Rather,thecaseinvolvesanexantesituationinwhichamandriven
byhisowndesiretojoinasocietyofmenpledgedtogothroughphysicallyandpsychologically
strenuous admission rituals, just so he could enter the fraternity. Thus, in order to understand
howourcriminallawsapplytosuchsituationabsenttheAntiHazingLaw,wedeemitnecessary
tomakeabriefexpositionontheunderlyingconceptsshapingintentionalfelonies,aswellason
thenatureofphysicalandpsychologicalinitiationswidelyknownashazing.
IntentionalFelonyandConspiracy
Our Revised Penal Code belongs to the classical school of thought.
[105]
The classical
theory posits that a human person is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil.
[106]
It asserts that one should only be adjudged or held
accountableforwrongfulactssolongasfreewillappearsunimpaired.
[107]
Thebasicpostulate
of the classical penal system is that humans are rational and calculating beings who guide their
actionswithreferencetotheprinciplesofpleasureandpain.
[108]
Theyrefrainfromcriminalacts
if threatened with punishment sufficient to cancel the hope of possible gain or advantage in
committingthecrime.
oftheactor.
[109]
Here,criminalliabilityisthusbasedonthefreewillandmoralblame
[110]
Theidentityofmensreadefinedasaguiltymind,aguiltyorwrongfulpurpose
orcriminalintentisthepredominantconsideration.
prohibits.
[111]
Thus,itisnotenoughtodowhatthelaw
[112]
Inorderforanintentionalfelonytoexist,itisnecessarythattheactbecommitted
bymeansofdoloormalice.
[113]
Thetermdoloormaliceisacomplexideainvolvingtheelementsoffreedom,intelligence,
and intent.
[114]
The first element, freedom, refers to an act done with deliberation and with
23/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
powertochoosebetweentwothings.
[115]
Thesecondelement,intelligence,concernstheability
todeterminethemoralityofhumanacts,aswellasthecapacitytodistinguishbetweenalicitand
anillicitact.
[116]
Thelastelement,intent,involvesanaimoradeterminationtodoacertainact.
[117]
The element of intent on which this Court shall focus is described as the state of mind
accompanyinganact,especiallyaforbiddenact.
the resolve with which a person proceeds.
[118]
It refers to the purpose of the mind and
[119]
It does not refer to mere will, for the latter
pertainstotheact,whileintentconcernstheresultoftheact.
[120]
While motive is the moving
power that impels one to action for a definite result, intent is the purpose of using a particular
means to produce the result.
[121]
On the other hand, the term felonious means, inter alia,
malicious,villainous,and/orproceedingfromanevilheartorpurpose.
[122]
Withtheseelements
takentogether,therequirementofintentinintentionalfelonymustrefertomaliciousintent,which
is a vicious and malevolent state of mind accompanying a forbidden act. Stated otherwise,
intentionalfelonyrequirestheexistenceofdolusmalusthattheactoromissionbedonewillfully,
maliciously, with deliberate evil intent, and with malice aforethought.
[123]
The maxim is actus
nonfacitreum,nisimenssitreaacrimeisnotcommittedifthemindofthepersonperforming
the act complained of is innocent.
[124]
As is required of the other elements of a felony, the
existenceofmaliciousintentmustbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.
[125]
In turn, the existence of malicious intent is necessary in order for conspiracy to attach.
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that conspiracy exists when two or more
personscometoanagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommit
itistobeinterpretedtoreferonlytofeloniescommittedbymeansofdoloormalice.Thephrase
comingtoanagreementconnotestheexistenceofaprefacedintenttocauseinjurytoanother,an
elementpresentonlyinintentionalfelonies.Inculpablefeloniesorcriminalnegligence,theinjury
inflictedonanotherisunintentional,thewrongdonebeingsimplytheresultofanactperformed
withoutmaliceorcriminaldesign.
[126]
Here,apersonperformsaninitiallawfuldeedhowever,
duetonegligence,imprudence,lackofforesight,orlackofskill,thedeedresultsinawrongful
24/63
9/13/2016
act.
G.R.No.151258
[127]
Verily, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act, which is a requisite in conspiracy, is
inconsistentwiththeideaofafelonycommittedbymeansofculpa.
[128]
Thepresenceofaninitialmaliciousintenttocommitafelonyisthusavitalingredientin
establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide.
[129]
Being mala in se, the
[130]
felony of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo
immediately before or
simultaneouslywiththeinflictionofinjuries.
[131]
Intenttokilloranimusinterficendicannotand
should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent.
[132]
Furthermore, the victims death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or
suicide.
[133]
Ifdeathresultedfromanactexecutedwithoutmaliceorcriminalintentbutwithlack
of foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or simple

negligenceorimprudenceresultinginhomicide.
[134]
Hazingandotherformsofinitiationrites
The notion of hazing is not a recent development in our society.
[135]
It is said that,
throughout history, hazing in some form or another has been associated with organizations
rangingfrommilitarygroupstoindigenoustribes.
[136]
Somesaythatelementsofhazingcanbe
traced back to the Middle Ages, during which new students who enrolled in European
universitiesworkedasservantsforupperclassmen.
is rooted in ancient Greece,
[137]
Itisbelievedthattheconceptofhazing
[138]
where young men recruited into the military were tested with
painorchallengedtodemonstratethelimitsoftheirloyaltyandtopreparetherecruitsforbattle.
[139]
Modern fraternities and sororities espouse some connection to these values of ancient
Greek civilization.
[140]
According to a scholar, this concept lends historical legitimacy to a
25/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
traditionorritualwherebyprospectivemembersareaskedtoprovetheirworthinessandloyalty
totheorganizationinwhichtheyseektoattainmembershipthroughhazing.
[141]
Thus, it is said that in the Greek fraternity system, custom requires a student wishing to
join an organization to receive an invitation in order to be a neophyte for a particular chapter.
[142]
[143]
The neophyte period is usually one to two semesters long.
During the program,
neophytes are required to interview and to get to know the active members of the chapter to
learn chapter history to understand the principles of the organization to maintain a specified
gradepointaveragetoparticipateintheorganizationsactivitiesandtoshowdignityandrespect
for their fellow neophytes, the organization, and its active and alumni members.
[144]
Some
chapters require the initiation activities for a recruit to involve hazing acts during the entire
neophytestage.
[145]
Hazing, as commonly understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that serves as

prerequisite for admission to an organization.
[146]
In hazing, the recruit, pledge, neophyte,
initiate, applicant or any other term by which the organization may refer to such a person is
generally placed in embarrassing or humiliating situations, like being forced to do menial, silly,
foolish,orothersimilartasksoractivities.
[147]
Itencompassesdifferentformsofconductthat
humiliate, degrade, abuse, or physically endanger those who desire membership in the
organization.
[148]
[149]
Theseactsusuallyinvolvephysicalorpsychologicalsufferingorinjury.
Theconceptofinitiationritesinthecountryisnothingnew.Infact,morethanacentury
ago, our national hero Andres Bonifacio organized a secret society named Kataastaasan
Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (The Highest and Most Venerable
AssociationoftheSonsandDaughtersoftheNation).
[150]
TheKatipunan,orKKK,startedas
a small confraternity believed to be inspired by European Freemasonry, as well as by

confraternities or sodalities approved by the Catholic Church.
[151]
The Katipunans ideology
was brought home to each member through the societys initiation ritual.
[152]
It is said that
initiateswerebroughttoadarkroom,litbyasinglepointofillumination,andwereaskedaseries
of
26/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
questions to determine their fitness, loyalty, courage, and resolve.
[153]
They were made to go
throughvigoroustrialssuchaspagsuotsaisanglunggaor[pagtalon]sabalon.
[154]
Itwould
seem that they were also made to withstand the blow of pangherong bakal sa pisngi and to
endure a matalas na punyal.
[155]
As a final step in the ritual, the neophyte Katipunero was
madetosignmembershippaperswiththehisownblood.
[156]
It is believed that the Greek fraternity system was transported by the Americans to the
Philippines in the late 19th century. As can be seen in the following instances, the manner of
hazingintheUnitedStateswasjarringlysimilartothatinflictedbytheAquilaFraternityonLenny
Villa.
Early in 1865, upperclassmen at West Point Academy forced the fourth classmen to do
exhausting physical exercises that sometimes resulted in permanent physical damage to eat or
drink unpalatable foods and in various ways to humiliate themselves.
[157]
In 1901, General
DouglasMacArthurgotinvolvedinacongressionalinvestigationofhazingattheacademyduring
hissecondyearatWestPoint.
[158]
InEaslerv.HejazTempleofGreenville,decidedin1985,thecandidatevictimwasinjured
during the shriners hazing event, which was part of the initiation ceremonies for Hejaz
membership.
[159]
[160]
Theritualinvolvedwhatwasknownasthemattressrotatingbarreltrick.
Itrequiredeachcandidatetoslidedownaneighttoninefoothighmetalboardontoconnected
mattressesleadingtoabarrel,overwhichthecandidatewasrequiredtoclimb.
[161]
Membersof
Hejazwouldstandoneachsideofthemattressesandbarrelandfunpaddlecandidatesenroute
tothebarrel.
[162]
In a video footage taken in 1991, U.S. Marine paratroopers in Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina,wereseenperformingaceremonyinwhichtheypinnedparatrooperjumpwingsdirectly
ontotheneophyteparatrooperschests.
[163]
Thevictimswereshownwrithingandcryingoutin
painasotherspoundedthespikedmedalsthroughtheshirtsandintothechestsofthevictims.
[164]
27/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
In State v. Allen, decided in 1995, the Southeast Missouri State University chapter of
Kappa Alpha Psi invited male students to enter into a pledgeship program.
[165]
The fraternity
memberssubjectedthepledgestorepeatedphysicalabuseincludingrepeated,openhandstrikes
atthenape,thechest,andthebackcaningofthebaresolesofthefeetandbuttocksblowsto
thebackwiththeuseofaheavybookandacookiesheetwhilethepledgeswereontheirhands
and knees various kicks and punches to the body and body slamming, an activity in which
activemembersofthefraternityliftedpledgesupintheairanddroppedthemtotheground.
[166]
The fraternity members then put the pledges through a sevenstation circle of physical abuse.
[167]
InExParteBarran,decidedin1998,thepledgevictimwentthroughhazingbyfraternity
members of the Kappa Alpha Order at the Auburn University in Alabama.
[168]
The hazing
includedthefollowing:(1)havingtodigaditchandjumpintoitafterithadbeenfilledwithwater,
urine, feces, dinner leftovers, and vomit (2) receiving paddlings on the buttocks (3) being
pushed and kicked, often onto walls or into pits and trash cans (4) eating foods like peppers,
hotsauce,butter,andyerks(amixtureofhotsauce,mayonnaise,butter,beans,andotheritems)
(5) doing chores for the fraternity and its members, such as cleaning the fraternity house and
yard,beingdesignatedasdriver,andrunningerrands(6)appearingregularlyat2a.m.meetings,
during which the pledges would be hazed for a couple of hours and (7) running the gauntlet,
during which the pledges were pushed, kicked, and hit as they ran down a hallway and
descendeddownaflightofstairs.
[169]
InLloydv.AlphaPhiAlphaFraternity,decidedin1999,thevictimSylvesterLloydwas
acceptedtopledgeattheCornellUniversitychapteroftheAlphaPhiAlphaFraternity.
[170]
He
participatedininitiationactivities,whichincludedvariousformsofphysicalbeatingsandtorture,
psychologicalcoercionandembarrassment.
[171]
In Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, decided in 2002, the initiatevictim suffered
injuries from hazing activities during the fraternitys initiation rites.
[172]
Kenner and the other
initiateswentthroughpsychologicalandphysicalhazing,includingbeingpaddledonthebuttocks
formorethan200times.
[173]
28/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
InMortonv.State,MarcusJonesa university student in Florida sought initiation into the

campuschapteroftheKappaAlphaPsiFraternityduringthe200506academicyear.
[174]
The
pledges efforts to join the fraternity culminated in a series of initiation rituals conducted in four
nights.Jones,togetherwithothercandidates,wasblindfolded,verballyharassed,andcanedon
his face and buttocks.
[175]
In these rituals described as preliminaries, which lasted for two
evenings,hereceivedapproximately60caningsonhisbuttocks.
thehazing,theritualsintensified.
fournightinitiation.
[176]
Duringthelasttwodaysof
[177]
Thepledgessustainedroughly210canestrikesduringthe
[178]
[179]
Jonesandseveralothercandidatespassedout.
Thepurportedraisondtrebehindhazingpracticesistheproverbialbirthbyfire,through
whichthepledgewhohassuccessfullywithstoodthehazingproveshisorherworth.
[180]
Some
organizations even believe that hazing is the path to enlightenment. It is said that this process
enablestheorganizationtoestablishunityamongthepledgesand,hence,reinforcesandensures
the future of the organization.
[181]
Alleged benefits of joining include leadership opportunities
improvedacademicperformancehigherselfesteemprofessionalnetworkingopportunitiesand
theespritdcorpassociatedwithclose,almostfilial,friendshipandcommoncause.
[182]
AntiHazinglawsintheU.S.
ThefirsthazingstatuteintheU.S.appearedin1874inresponsetohazinginthemilitary.
[183]
The hazing of recruits and plebes in the armed services was so prevalent that Congress
prohibited all forms of military hazing, harmful or not.
[184]
It was not until 1901 that Illinois
passedthefirststateantihazinglaw,criminalizingconductwherebyanyonesustainsaninjuryto
his[orher]persontherefrom.
[185]
However, it was not until the 1980s and 1990s, due in large part to the efforts of the
Committee to Halt Useless College Killings and other similar organizations, that states
increasinglybegantoenactlegislationprohibitingand/orcriminalizinghazing.
[186]
Asof2008,all
29/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
butsixstateshadenactedcriminalorcivilstatutesproscribinghazing.
[187]
Mostantihazinglaws
in the U.S. treat hazing as a misdemeanor and carry relatively light consequences for even the
mostseveresituations.
[188]
Onlyafewstateswithantihazinglawsconsiderhazingasafelonyin
casedeathorgreatbodilyharmoccurs.
[189]
UnderthelawsofIllinois,hazingisaClassAmisdemeanor,excepthazingthatresultsin
death or great bodily harm, which is a Class 4 felony.
[190]
In a Class 4 felony, a sentence of
imprisonment shall be for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years.
[191]
Indianacriminallawprovidesthatapersonwhorecklessly,knowingly,orintentionally
performshazingthatresultsinseriousbodilyinjurytoapersoncommitscriminalrecklessness,a
ClassDfelony.
[192]
TheoffensebecomesaClassCfelonyifcommittedbymeansofadeadlyweapon.
[193]
AsanelementofaClassCfelonycriminalrecklessnessresultinginseriousbodilyinjury,death
fallsunderthecategoryofseriousbodilyinjury.
[194]
ApersonwhocommitsaClassCfelonyis
imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence
beingfour(4)years.
[195]
PursuanttoMissourilaw,hazingisaClassAmisdemeanor,unlessthe
act creates a substantial risk to the life of the student or prospective member, in which case it
becomes a Class C felony.
exceedsevenyears.
[196]
A Class C felony provides for an imprisonment term not to
[197]
In Texas, hazing that causes the death of another is a state jail felony.
[198]
Anindividual
adjudgedguiltyofastatejailfelonyispunishedbyconfinementinastatejailforanytermofnot
morethantwoyearsornotlessthan180days.
[199]
UnderUtahlaw,ifhazingresultsinserious
bodilyinjury,thehazerisguiltyofathirddegreefelony.
[200]
Apersonwhohasbeenconvicted
ofathirddegreefelonymaybesentencedtoimprisonmentforatermnottoexceedfiveyears.
[201]
WestVirginia law provides that if the act of hazing would otherwise be deemed a felony,
the hazer may be found guilty thereof and subject to penalties provided therefor.
[202]
In
30/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Wisconsin,apersonisguiltyofaClassGfelonyifhazingresultsinthedeathofanother.
[203]
A
ClassGfelonycarriesafinenottoexceed$25,000orimprisonmentnottoexceed10years,or
both.
[204]
IncertainstatesintheU.S.,victimsofhazingwereleftwithlimitedremedies,astherewas
no hazing statute.
[205]
This situation was exemplified in Ballou v. Sigma Nu General
Fraternity,whereinBarryBallousfamilyresortedtoacivilactionforwrongfuldeath,sincethere
wasnoantihazingstatuteinSouthCarolinauntil1994.
[206]
The existence of animus interficendi or intent to kill not

provenbeyondreasonabledoubt
The presence of an ex ante situation in this case, fraternity initiation rites does not
automatically amount to the absence of malicious intent or dolusmalus. If it is proven beyond
reasonabledoubtthattheperpetratorswereequippedwithaguiltymindwhetherornotthereisa
contextualbackgroundorfactualpremisetheyarestillcriminallyliableforintentionalfelony.
The trial court, the CA, and the Solicitor General are all in agreement that with the
exception of Villareal and Dizon accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug did not have the
animus interficendi or intent to kill Lenny Villa or the other neophytes. We shall no longer
disturbthisfinding.
AsregardsVillarealandDizon,theCAmodifiedtheDecisionofthetrialcourtandfound
thatthetwoaccusedhadtheanimusinterficendiorintenttokillLennyVilla,notmerelytoinflict
physicalinjuriesonhim.ItjustifieditsfindingofhomicideagainstDizonbyholdingthathehad
apparentlybeenmotivatedbyillwillwhilebeatingupVilla.Dizonkeptrepeatingthathisfathers
parkingspacehadbeenstolenbythevictimsfather.
[207]
AstoVillareal,thecourtsaidthatthe
accusedsuspectedthefamilyofBienvenidoMarquez,oneoftheneophytes,tohavehadahand
inthedeathofVillarealsbrother.
[208]
TheCAthenruledasfollows:
ThetwohadtheirownaxestogrindagainstVillaandMarquez.Itwasveryclearthattheyacted
with evil and criminal intent. The evidence on this matter is unrebutted and so for the death of Villa,
appellantsDizonandVillarealmustandshouldfacetheconsequenceoftheiracts,thatis,to
[209]
beheldliableforthecrimeofhomicide.
(Emphasissupplied)
31/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Wecannotsubscribetothisconclusion.
TheappellatecourtreliedmainlyonthetestimonyofBienvenidoMarqueztodeterminethe
existence of animus interficendi. For a full appreciation of the context in which the supposed
utterancesweremade,theCourtdeemsitnecessarytoreproducetherelevantportionsofwitness
Marquezstestimony:
WitnessWewerebroughtupinto[MichaelMusngis]roomandwewerebriefedastowhattoexpect
duringthenextthreedaysandweweretoldthemembersofthefraternityandtheir
batchandwewerealsotoldaboutthefraternitysong,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessWewereescortedoutof[MichaelMusngis]houseandweweremadetorideavanandwe
werebroughttoanotherplaceinKalookanCitywhichIlaterfoundtobetheplace
ofMarianoAlmeda,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessUpon arrival, we were instructed to bow our head down and to link our arms and then the
driverofthevanandothermembersoftheAquilanswhowereinsideleftusinside
thevan,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessWeheardvoicesshoutedoutsidethevantotheeffect,Villaakinka,AsuncionPatay
kaandthepeopleoutsidepoundthevan,rockthevan,sir.
Atty.TadiarWillyoupleaserecallinwhattoneofvoiceandhowstrongavoicetheseremarksuttered
uponyourarrival?
WitnessSomewerealmostshouting,youcouldfeelthesenseofexcitementintheirvoices,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.TadiarDuringallthesetimesthatthevanwasbeingrockedthroughandthrough,whatwerethe
voicesorutterancesthatyouheard?
WitnessVillaakinka,Asuncionpatayka,Recintopataykasaamin,etc.,sir.
Atty.TadiarAndthoseutterancesandthreats,howlongdidtheycontinueduringtherockingofthevan
whichlastedfor5minutes?
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessEvenaftertheyrockedthevan,westillkeptonhearingvoices,sir.
32/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.TadiarDuring the time that this rounds [of physical beating] were being inflicted, was there any
utterancesbyanybody?
Witness Yes sir. Some were piercing, some were discouraging, and some were encouraging
others who were pounding and beating us, it was just like a fiesta
atmosphere,actuallysomeofthemenjoyedlookingusbeingpounded,sir.
Atty.TadiarDoyourecallwhatwerethosevoicesthatyouheard?
WitnessOneparticularutterancealwayssaidwas,theyaskeduswhethermatigaspayan,kayangkaya
paniyan.
Atty.TadiarDoyouknowwhoinparticularutteredthoseparticularwordsthatyouquote?
WitnessIcannotparticularlypointtobecausetherewereutterancessimultaneously,Icouldnotreallypin
pointwhoutteredthosewords,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.TadiarWerethereanyutterancesthatyouheardduringtheconductofthisBicolExpress?
WitnessYes,sirIheardutterances.
Atty. Tadiar Will you please recall to this Honorable Court what were the utterances that you
remember?
WitnessForexample,onepersonparticularlyBoyetDizonsteppedonmythigh,hewouldsaythat
and I quote ito, yung pamilya nito ay pinapatay yung kapatid ko, so that
wouldinturnsortofjustifyinghimininflictingmoreseriouspainonme.Soinsteadof
justwalking,hewouldjumponmythighsandthenafteronwasLennyVilla.He
wassayingtotheeffectthatthisguy,hisfatherstoletheparkingspaceof
myfather,sir.So,thatswhyheinflictedmorepainonVillaandthatwenton,sir.
Atty.TadiarAndyouwerereferringtowhichparticularaccused?
WitnessBoyetDizon,sir.
Atty.TadiarWhenBoyetDizonatthatparticulartimewasaccusingyouofhavingyourfamilyhavehis
brotherkilled,whatwasyourresponse?
WitnessOfcourse,Iknewsirthatitwasnottrueandthathewasjustmakingitupsir.Sohe
said that I knew nothing of that incident. However, he just in fact after the Bicol
Express,hekeptonutteringthosewords/statementssothatitwouldinturnjustify
himandtogivemeharderblows,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
33/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Atty.TadiarYoumentionedaboutDizoninparticularmentioningthatLennyVillasfatherstole
the parking space allotted for his father, do you recall who were within
hearingdistancewhenthatutterancewasmade?
WitnessYes,sir.Alloftheneophytesheardthatutterance,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessThereweredifferenttimesmadethisaccusationsothereweredifferentpeoplewhoheardfrom
timetotime,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.TadiarCanyoutelltheHonorableCourtwhenwasthenextaccusationagainstLennyVillasfather
wasmade?
Witness When we were line up against the wall, Boyet Dizon came near to us and when Lenny
Villasturn,Iheardhimutteredthosestatements,sir.
Atty.TadiarWhathappenedafterhemadethisaccusationtoLennyVillasfather?
WitnessHecontinuedtoinflictblowsonLennyVilla.
Atty.TadiarHowwerethoseblowsinflicted?
WitnessTherewereslapsandhekneltonLennyVillasthighsandsometimehestandupandhekicked
histhighsandsometimesjumpedatit,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.TadiarWewouldgoontotheseconddaybutnotrightnow.Youmentionedalsothataccusations
madebyDizonyouoryourfamilyhadhisbrotherkilled,canyouinformthis
Honorable Court what exactly were the accusations that were charged
againstyouwhileinflictingblowsuponyouinparticular?
WitnessWhilehewasinflictingblowsuponme,hetoldmeinparticularifIknewthathisfamilywhohad
hisbrotherkilled,andhesaidthathisbrotherwasanNPA,sirsoIknewthatit
wasjustastorythathemadeupandIsaidthatIknewnothingaboutitand
hecontinuedinflictingblowsonme,sir.Andanotherincidentwaswhenatalk
wasbeinggiven,DizonwasonanotherpartofthepelotacourtandIwassortof
lookingandwesawthathewasdrinkingbeer,andhesaidandIquote:Marquez,
Marquez, ano ang tinitingintingin mo diyan, ikaw yung pamilya mo ang
nagpapataysaakingkapatid,yarikasaakin,sir.
Atty.TadiarWhatelse?
WitnessThatsall,sir.
34/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Atty.TadiarAndonthatfirstnightofFebruary8,1991,dideveradoctororaphysiciancamearound
aspromisedtoyouearlier?
[210]
WitnessNo,sir.
(Emphasissupplied)
Oncrossexamination,witnessBienvenidoMarqueztestifiedthus:
JudgePurisimaWhenyoutestifiedondirectexaminationMr.Marquez,haveyoustatedthattherewasa
briefingthatwasconductedimmediatelybeforeyourinitiationasregardstowhatto
expectduringtheinitiation,didIhearyouright?
WitnessYes,sir.
JudgePurisimaWhodidthebriefing?
WitnessMr.MichaelMusngi,sirandNelsonVictorino.
Judge Purisima Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court what they told you to expect during the
initiation?
WitnessTheytoldusatthetimewewouldbebroughttoaparticularplace,wewouldbemockedat,
sir.
JudgePurisimaSo,youexpectedtobemockedat,ridiculed,humiliatedetc.,andthelikes?
WitnessYes,sir.
JudgePurisimaYouwerealsotoldbeforehandthattherewouldbephysicalcontact?
WitnessYes,siratthebriefing.
xxxxxxxxx
WitnessYes,sir,becausetheyinformedthatwecouldimmediatelygobacktoschool.Allthebruises
would be limited to our arms and legs, sir. So, if we wear the regular school
uniformslikelongsleeves,itwouldbecoveredactuallysowehavenothinkingthat
ourfacewouldbeslapped,sir.
JudgePurisimaSo,youmeantosaythatbeforehandthatyouwouldhavebruisesonyourbodybutthat
willbecovered?
WitnessYes,sir.
JudgePurisima So, what kind of physical contact or implements that you expect that would create
bruisestoyourbody?
35/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
WitnessAtthatpointIamalreadysurethattherewouldbehittingbyapaddlingorpaddle,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Judge Purisima Now, will you admit Mr. Marquez that much of the initiation procedures is
psychologicalinnature?
[211]
WitnessCombination,sir.
(Emphasissupplied)
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.JimenezTheinitiationthatwasconducteddidnotconsistonlyofphysicalinitiation,meaningbody
contact,isthatcorrect?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezPartoftheinitiationwasthesocalledpsychologicalinitiation,correct?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezAndthisconsistedofmakingyoubelieveofthingscalculatedtoterrifyyou,scare
you,correct?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezIn other words, the initiating masters made belief situation intended to, I repeat,
terrifyyou,frightenyou,scareyouintoperhapsquittingtheinitiation,isthis
correct?
WitnessSometimessir,yes.
Atty.JimenezYousaidondirectthatwhileMr.Dizonwasinitiatingyou,hesaidorhewassupposedto
have said according to you that your family were responsible for the killing of his
brotherwhowasanNPA,doyouremembersayingthat?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezYou also said in connection with that statement said to you by Dizon that you did not
believehimbecausethatisnottrue,correct?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezIn other words, he was only psychologizing you perhaps, the purpose as I have
mentionedbefore,terrifyingyou,scaringyouorfrighteningyouintoquitting
theinitiation,thisiscorrect?
WitnessNo,sir,perhapsitisonebutthemainreason,Ithink,whyhewassayingthosethings
wasbecausehewantedtoinflictinjury.
36/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
Atty.JimenezHedidnottellthattoyou.Thatisyouronlyperception,correct?
WitnessNo,sir,becauseatonepoint,whilehewastellingthistoVillareal,hewashittingme.
Atty.JimenezButdidyounotsayearlierthatyou[were]subjectedtothesameformsofinitiationbyall
theinitiatingmasters?Yousaidthatearlier,right?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezAre you saying also that the others who jumped on you or kicked you said something
similaraswastoldtoyoubyMr.Dizon?
WitnessNo,sir.
Atty.JimenezButthefactremainsthatintheBicolExpressforinstance,themasterswouldrunonyour
thighs,right?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezThiswastheregularprocedurethatwasfollowedbytheinitiatingmastersnotonlyonyou
butalsoontheotherneophytes?
WitnessYes,sir.
Atty.JimenezInotherwords,itisfairtosaythatwhateverformsofinitiationwasadministered
byonemaster,wasalsoadministeredbyonemasteronaneophyte,wasalso
administeredbyanothermasterontheotherneophyte,thisiscorrect?
[212]
WitnessYes,sir.
(Emphasissupplied)
According to the Solicitor General himself, the ill motives attributed by the CA to Dizon
and Villareal were baseless,
[213]
since the statements of the accused were just part of the
psychological initiation calculated to instill fear on the part of the neophytes that [t]here is no
element of truth in it as testified by Bienvenido Marquez and that the harsh words uttered by
PetitionerandVillarealarepartoftraditionconcurredandacceptedbyallthefraternitymembers
duringtheirinitiationrites.
[214]
WeagreewiththeSolicitorGeneral.
The foregoing testimony of witness Marquez reveals a glaring mistake of substantial
proportiononthepartoftheCAitmistooktheutterancesofDizonforthoseofVillareal.Such
37/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
inaccuracycannotbetolerated,especiallybecauseitwastheCAsprimarybasisforfindingthat
VillarrealhadtheintenttokillLennyVilla,therebymakingVillarealguiltyoftheintentionalfelony
of homicide. To repeat, according to Bienvenido Marquezs testimony, as reproduced above, it
wasDizonwhoutteredbothaccusationsagainstVillaandMarquezVillarealhadnoparticipation
whatsoeverinthespecificthreatsreferredtobytheCA.ItwasBoyetDizon [who] stepped on
[Marquezs]thighandwhotoldwitnessMarquez,[I]to,yungpamilyanitoaypinapatayyung
kapatidko. It was also Dizon who jumped on Villas thighs while saying, [T]his guy, his father
stole the parking space of my father. With the testimony clarified, we find that the CA had no
basisforconcludingtheexistenceofintenttokillbasedsolelythereon.
As to the existence of animus interficendi on the part of Dizon, we refer to the entire
factual milieu and contextual premise of the incident to fully appreciate and understand the
testimony of witness Marquez. At the outset, the neophytes were briefed that they would be
subjected to psychological pressure in order to scare them. They knew that they would be
mocked, ridiculed, and intimidated. They heard fraternity members shout, Patay ka, Recinto,
Yari ka, Recinto, Villa, akin ka, Asuncion, gulpi ka, Putang ina mo, Asuncion, Putang ina
nyo,pataykayosaamin,orsomeotherwordstothateffect.
[215]
Whilebeatingtheneophytes,
Dizon accused Marquez of the death of the formers purported NPA brother, and then blamed
Lenny Villas father for stealing the parking space of Dizons father. According to the Solicitor
General, these statements, including those of the accused Dizon, were all part of the
psychologicalinitiationemployedbytheAquilaFraternity.
[216]
Thus,toourunderstanding,accusedDizonswayofinflictingpsychologicalpressurewas
through hurling makebelieve accusations at the initiates. He concocted the fictitious stories, so
that he could justify giving the neophytes harder blows, all in the context of fraternity initiation
androleplaying.Evenoneoftheneophytesadmittedthattheaccusationswereuntrueandmade
up.
The infliction of psychological pressure is not unusual in the conduct of hazing. In fact,
during the Senate deliberations on the then proposed AntiHazing Law, former Senator Lina
spokeasfollows:
SenatorLina.soastocapturetheintentthatweconveyedduringtheperiodofinterpellationsonwhy
weincludedthephraseorpsychologicalpainandsuffering.
38/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
xxxxxxxxx
So that if no direct physical harm is inflicted upon the neophyte or the recruit but the recruit or
neophyte is made to undergo certain acts which I already described yesterday, like playing the
Russianrouletteextensivelytotestthereadinessandthewillingnessoftheneophyteorrecruitto
continuehisdesiretobeamemberofthefraternity,sororityorsimilarorganizationorplaying
andputtinganooseontheneckoftheneophyteorrecruit,makingtherecruitorneophytestandonthe
ledgeofthefourthfloorofthebuildingfacingoutside,askinghimtojumpoutsideaftermakinghimturn
around several times but the reality is that he will be made to jump towards the inside portion of the
buildingthesearethementalorpsychologicalteststhatareresortedtobytheseorganizations,
sororitiesorfraternities.Thedoctorswhoappearedduringthepublichearingtestifiedthatsuchacts
canresultinsomementalaberration,thattheycanevenleadtopsychosis,neurosisorinsanity.Thisis
[217]
whatwewanttoprevent.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,withoutproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,Dizonsbehaviormustnotbeautomatically
viewed as evidence of a genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny Villa. Rather, it must be taken
withinthecontextofthefraternityspsychologicalinitiation.ThisCourtpointsoutthatitwasnot
evenestablishedwhetherthefathersofDizonandVillareallyhadanyfamiliaritywitheachother
aswouldlendcredencetotheveracityofDizonsthreats.ThetestimonyofLennysconeophyte,
Marquez, only confirmed this view. According to Marquez, he knew it was not true and that
[Dizon]wasjustmakingitup.
[218]
Eventhetrialcourtdidnotgiveweighttotheutterancesof
Dizon as constituting intent to kill: [T]he cumulative acts of all the accused were not directed
towardkillingVilla,butmerelytoinflictphysicalharmaspartofthefraternityinitiationritesxxx.
[219]
TheSolicitorGeneralsharesthesameview.
Verily, we cannot sustain the CA in finding the accused Dizon guilty of homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence of intent to kill. Animus
interficendicannotandshouldnotbeinferredunlessthereisproofbeyondreasonabledoubtof
such intent.
[220]
Instead, we adopt and reinstate the finding of the trial court in part,
insofar as it ruled that none of the fraternity members had the specific intent to kill
[221]
LennyVilla.
The existence of animus iniuriandi or malicious intent to
injurenotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt
TheSolicitorGeneralargues,instead,thattherewasanintenttoinflictphysicalinjurieson
LennyVilla.EchoingtheDecisionofthetrialcourt,theSolicitorGeneralthenpositsthatsinceall
39/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
oftheaccusedfraternitymembersconspiredtoinflictphysicalinjuriesonLennyVillaanddeath
ensued, all of them should be liable for the crime of homicide pursuant to Article 4(1) of the
RevisedPenalCode.
In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 of the
Revised Penal Code,
[222]
the employment of physical injuries must be coupled with dolus
malus.Asanactthatismalainse,theexistenceofmaliciousintentisfundamental,sinceinjury
arisesfromthementalstateofthewrongdoeriniuriaexaffectufacientisconsistat.Ifthereisno
criminal intent, the accused cannot be found guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of
physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, there must be a specific animus iniuriandi or
maliciousintentiontodowrongagainstthephysicalintegrityorwellbeingofaperson,soasto
incapacitateanddeprivethevictimofcertainbodilyfunctions.Withoutproofbeyondreasonable
doubtoftherequiredanimusiniuriandi,theovertactofinflictingphysicalinjuriespersemerely
satisfiestheelementsoffreedomandintelligenceinanintentionalfelony.Thecommissionofthe
actdoesnot,initself,makeamanguiltyunlesshisintentionsare.
Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances
[223]
[224]
that the mere infliction of physical
injuries, absent malicious intent, does not make a person automatically liable for an intentional
felony.InBagajov.People,
[225]
theaccusedteacher,usingabamboostick,whippedoneofher
students behind her legs and thighs as a form of discipline. The student suffered lesions and
bruisesfromthecorporalpunishment.Inreversingthetrialcourtsfindingofcriminalliabilityfor
slight physical injuries, this Court stated thus: Independently of any civil or administrative
responsibility[w]earepersuadedthatshedidnotdowhatshehaddonewithcriminalintentthe
meanssheactuallyusedwasmoderateandthatshewasnotmotivatedbyillwill,hatredorany
malevolent intent. Considering the applicable laws, we then ruled that as a matter of law,
petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of whipping her pupil. In People v.
Carmen,
[226]
the accused members of the religious group known as the Missionaries of Our
LadyofFatimaundertheguiseofaritualortreatmentplungedtheheadofthevictimintoabarrel
ofwater,bangedhisheadagainstabench,poundedhischestwithfists,andstabbedhimonthe
sidewithakitchenknife,inordertocurehimofnervousbreakdownbyexpellingthroughthose
meansthebadspiritspossessinghim.Thecollectiveactsofthegroupcausedthedeathofthe
victim.Sincemaliciousintentwasnotproven,wereversedthetrialcourtsfindingofliabilityfor
40/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
murderunderArticle4oftheRevisedPenalCodeandinsteadruledthattheaccusedshouldbe
heldcriminallyliableforrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicideunderArticle365thereof.
Indeed,thethresholdquestioniswhethertheaccusedsinitialactsofinflictingphysicalpain
on the neophytes were attended by animusiniuriandi amounting to a felonious act punishable
under the Revised Penal Code, thereby making it subject to Article 4(1) thereof. In People v.
Regato,weruledthatmaliciousintentmustbejudgedbytheaction,conduct,andexternalacts
of the accused.
[227]
[228]
What persons do is the best index of their intention.
We have also
ruledthatthemethodemployed,thekindofweaponused,andthepartsofthebodyonwhich
theinjurywasinflictedmaybedeterminativeoftheintentoftheperpetrator.
[229]
TheCourtshall
thusexaminethewholecontextualbackgroundsurroundingthedeathofLennyVilla.
LennydiedduringAquilasfraternityinitiationrites.Thenightbeforethecommencementof
the rites, they were briefed on what to expect. They were told that there would be physical
beatings, that the whole event would last for three days, and that they could quit anytime. On
theirfirstnight,theyweresubjectedtotraditionalinitiationrites,includingtheIndianRun,Bicol
Express,Rounds,andtheAuxiesPrivilegeRound.Thebeatingswerepredominantlydirectedat
theneophytesarmsandlegs.
In the morning of their second day of initiation, they were made to present comic plays
and to play rough basketball. They were also required to memorize and recite the Aquila
Fraternitys principles. Late in the afternoon, they were once again subjected to traditional
initiationrituals.WhentheritualswereofficiallyreopenedontheinsistenceofDizonandVillareal,
theneophytesweresubjectedtoanothertraditionalritualpaddlingbythefraternity.
Duringthewholeinitiationrites,auxiliarieswereassignedtotheneophytes.Theauxiliaries
protected the neophytes by functioning as human barriers and shielding them from those who
were designated to inflict physical and psychological pain on the initiates.
[230]
It was their
regulardutytostopfoulorexcessivephysicalblowstohelptheneophytestopumptheirlegsin
order that their blood would circulate to facilitate a rest interval after every physical activity or
round to serve food and water to tell jokes to coach the initiates and to give them whatever
theyneeded.
41/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
These rituals were performed with Lennys consent.
[231]
A few days before the rites, he
asked both his parents for permission to join the Aquila Fraternity.
[232]
His father knew that
Lennywouldgothroughaninitiationprocessandwouldbegoneforthreedays.
[233]
The CA
foundasfollows:
Itisworthpointingoutthattheneophyteswillinglyandvoluntarilyconsentedtoundergophysical
initiationandhazing.Ascanbegleanedfromthenarrationoffacts,theyvoluntarilyagreedtojointhe
initiationritestobecomemembersoftheAquilaLegisFraternity.Priortotheinitiation,theyweregiven
briefings on what to expect. It is of common knowledge that before admission in a fraternity, the
neophyteswillundergoariteofpassage.Thus,theyweremadeawarethattraditionalmethodssuch
asmocking,psychologicaltestsandphysicalpunishmentwouldtakeplace.Theyknewthatthe
initiation would involve beatings and other forms of hazing. They were also told of their right
andopportunitytoquitatanytimetheywantedto.Infact,prosecutionwitnessNaveratestifiedthat
accused Tecson told him that after a week, you can already play basketball. Prosecution witness
Marquez for his part, admitted that he knew that the initiates would be hit in the arms and
legs,thatawoodenpaddlewouldbeusedtohitthemandthatheexpectedbruisesonhisarms
[234]
and legs. Indeed, there can be no fraternity initiation without consenting neophytes.
(Emphasissupplied)
Even after going through Aquilas grueling traditional rituals during the first day, Lenny
continuedhisparticipationandfinishedtheseconddayofinitiation.
Basedontheforegoingcontextualbackground,andabsentfurtherproofshowingclearmalicious
intent,weareconstrainedtorulethatthespecificanimusiniuriandiwasnotpresentinthiscase.
Even if the specific acts of punching, kicking, paddling, and other modes of inflicting physical
pain were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence, thereby satisfying the elements of
freedomandintelligenceinthefelonyofphysicalinjuries,thefundamentalingredientofcriminal
intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, all that was proven was that
the acts were done pursuant to tradition. Although the additional rounds on the second night
wereheldupontheinsistenceofVillarealandDizon,theinitiationswereofficiallyreopenedwith
theconsentoftheheadoftheinitiationritesandtheaccusedfraternitymembersstillparticipated
intherituals,includingthepaddling,whichwereperformedpursuanttotradition.Otherthanthe
paddle, no other weapon was used to inflict injuries on Lenny. The targeted body parts were
predominantly the legs and the arms. The designation of roles, including the role of auxiliaries,
which were assigned for the specific purpose of lending assistance to and taking care of the
neophytesduringtheinitiationrites,furtherbeliedthepresenceofmaliciousintent.Allthosewho
wished to join the fraternity went through the same process of traditional initiation there is no
42/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
proof that Lenny Villa was specifically targeted or given a different treatment. We stress that
Congress itself recognized that hazing is uniquely different from common crimes.
[235]
The
totalityofthecircumstancesmustthereforebetakenintoconsideration.
The underlying context and motive in which the infliction of physical injuries was rooted
may also be determined by Lennys continued participation in the initiation and consent to the
methodusedevenafterthefirstday.Thefollowingdiscussionoftheframersofthe1995Anti
HazingLawisenlightening:
SENATORGUINGONA.Mostoftheseacts,ifnotall,arealreadypunishedundertheRevised
PenalCode.
SENATORLINA.Thatiscorrect,Mr.President.
SENATORGUINGONA.Ifhazingisdoneatpresentanditresultsindeath,thechargewould
bemurderorhomicide.
SENATORGUINGONA.Ifitdoesnotresultindeath,itmaybefrustratedhomicideorserious
physicalinjuries.
SENATOR GUINGONA. Or, if the person who commits sexual abuse does so it can be
penalizedunderrapeoractsoflasciviousness.
SENATOR GUINGONA. So, what is the rationale for making a new offense under this
definitionofthecrimeofhazing?
SENATOR LINA. To discourage persons or group of persons either composing a sorority,

fraternityoranyassociationfrommakingthisrequirementofinitiationthathasalreadyresultedinthese
specificactsorresults,Mr.President.
That is the main rationale. We want to send a strong signal across the land that no group or
associationcanrequiretheactofphysicalinitiationbeforeapersoncanbecomeamemberwithoutbeing
heldcriminallyliable.
xxxxxxxxx
SENATORGUINGONA.Yes,butwhatwouldbetherationaleforthatimposition?Because
the distinguished Sponsor has said that he is not punishing a mere organization, he is not seeking the
43/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
punishmentofaninitiationintoaclubororganization,heisseekingthepunishmentofcertainactsthat
resultedindeath,etceteraasaresultofhazingwhicharealreadycoveredcrimes.
Thepenaltyisincreasedinone,becausewewouldliketodiscouragehazing,abusivehazing,but
itmaybealegitimatedefenseforinvokingtwoormorechargesoroffenses,becausetheseverysame
actsarealreadypunishableundertheRevisedPenalCode.
Thatismydifficulty,Mr.President.
SENATORLINA.xxx
Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a very telling difference: When a person or
groupofpersonsresorttohazingasarequirementforgainingentryintoanorganization,the
intenttocommitawrongisnotvisibleorisnotpresent,Mr.President.Whereas,inthesespecific
crimes,Mr.President,letussaythereisdeathorthereishomicide,mutilation,ifonefilesacase,then
theintentiontocommitawronghastobeproven.Butifthecrimeofhazingisthebasis,what
isimportantistheresultfromtheactofhazing.
To me, that is the basic difference and that is what will prevent or deter the sororities or
fraternitiesthattheyshouldreallyshunthisactivitycalledhazing.Because,initially,thesefraternities
or sororities do not even consider having a neophyte killed or maimed or that acts of
lasciviousnessareevencommittedinitially,Mr.President.
So,whatwewanttodiscourageisthesocalledinitialinnocentact.Thatiswhythereisneed
toinstitutethiskindofhazing.Ganiyanpoangnangyari.Angfraternityoangsororityaymagrerecruit.
Walatalagasilangintensiyongmakamatay.Hindikonababanggitinatbuhaypaiyongkaso.Pero
ditosaanimopitonanamataynitongnakaraangtaon,walangintensiyongpatayintalagaiyongneophyte.
So,kungmaghihintaypatayo,nasakalamangnatinisasakdalngmurderkungnamatayna,ayafterthe
facthoiyon.Pero,kungsasabihinnatinsamgakabataanna:Huwagninyonggagawiniyonghazing.Iyan
aykasalananatkungmamataydiyan,mataasangpenaltysainyo.
xxxxxxxxx
SENATORGUINGONA.Ijointheloftymotives,Mr.President,ofthedistinguishedSponsor.
ButIamagaindisturbedbyhisstatementthattheprosecutiondoesnothavetoprovetheintent
thatresultedinthedeath,thatresultedintheseriousphysicalinjuries,thatresultedintheactsof
lasciviousnessorderangedmind.Wedonothavetoprovethewillfulintentoftheaccusedinproving
or establishing the crime of hazing. This seems, to me, a novel situation where we create the
special crime without having to go into the intent, which is one of the basic elements of any
crime.
Ifthereisnointent,thereisnocrime.Iftheintentweremerelytoinitiate,thenthereis
no offense. And even the distinguished Sponsor admits that the organization, the intent to
initiate,theintenttohaveanewsocietyoranewclubis,perse,notpunishableatall.What
are punishable are the acts that lead to the result. But if these results are not going to be
provenbyintent,butjustbecausetherewashazing,Iamafraidthatitwilldisturbthebasic
conceptsoftheRevisedPenalCode,Mr.President.
44/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, the act of hazing, precisely, is being criminalized
because in the context of what is happening in the sororities and fraternities, when they
conduct hazing, no one will admit that their intention is to maim or to kill. So, we are already
criminalizingthefactofinflictingphysicalpain.Mr.President,itisacriminalactandwewantitstopped,
deterred,discouraged.
Ifthatoccurs,underthislaw,thereisnonecessitytoprovethatthemastersintendedtokillor
the masters intended to maim. What is important is the result of the act of hazing. Otherwise, the
mastersorthosewhoinflictthephysicalpaincaneasilyescaperesponsibilityandsay,Wedid
nothavetheintentiontokill.Thisispartofourinitiationrites.Thisisnormal.Wedonothave
anyintentiontokillormaim.
Thisisthelusot,Mr.President.Theymightaswellhavebeenchargedthereforewiththe
ordinarycrimeofhomicide,mutilation,etcetera,wheretheprosecutionwillhaveadifficulty
provingtheelementsiftheyareseparateoffenses.
xxxxxxxxx
SENATOR GUINGONA. Mr. President, assuming there was a group that initiated and a
person died. The charge is murder. My question is: Under this bill if it becomes a law, would the
prosecutionhavetoproveconspiracyornotanymore?
SENATORLINA.Mr.President,ifthepersonispresentduringhazingxxx
SENATORGUINGONA.Thepersonsarepresent.First,wouldtheprosecutionhavetoprove
conspiracy?Second,wouldtheprosecutionhavetoproveintenttokillornot?
SENATORLINA.Nomore.Astothesecondquestion,Mr.President,ifthatoccurs,thereis
noneedtoproveintenttokill.
SENATORGUINGONA.Butthechargeismurder.
SENATOR LINA. That is why I said that it should not be murder. It should be hazing, Mr.
[236]
President.
(Emphasissupplied)
DuringadiscussionbetweenSenatorBiazonandSenatorLinaontheissueofwhetherto
include sodomy as a punishable act under the AntiHazing Law, Senator Lina further clarified
thus:
SENATORBIAZON. Mr. President, this Representation has no objection to the inclusion of
sodomyasoneoftheconditionsresultingfromhazingasnecessarytobepunished.However,theactof
sodomycanbecommittedbytwopersonswithorwithoutconsent.
Tomakeitclearer,whatisbeingpunishedhereisthecommissionofsodomyforcedintoanother
individualbyanotherindividual.Imove,Mr.President,thatsodomybemodifiedbythephrasewithout
45/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
consentforpurposesofthissection.
SENATORLINA.Iamafraid,Mr.President,thatifwequalifysodomywiththeconceptthatit
isonlygoingtoaggravatethecrimeofhazingifitisdonewithoutconsentwillchangealotofconcepts
here.Becausetheresultsfromhazingaggravatetheoffensewithorwithoutconsent.Infact,
whenapersonjoinsafraternity,sorority,oranyassociationforthatmatter,itcanbewithor
withouttheconsentoftheintendedvictim.Thefactthatapersonjoinsasororityorfraternity
withhisconsentdoesnotnegatethecrimeofhazing.
Thisisaproposedlawintendedtoprotectthecitizensfromthemalpracticesthatattendinitiation
which may have been announced with or without physical infliction of pain or injury, Mr. President.
Regardless of whether there is announcement that there will be physical hazing or whether
thereisnone,andtherefore,theneophyteisdupedintojoiningafraternityisofnomoment.
Whatisimportantisthatthereisaninflictionofphysicalpain.
Thebottomlineofthislawisthatacitizenevenhastobeprotectedfromhimselfifhejoinsa
fraternity,sothatatacertainpointintime,theState,theindividual,ortheparentsofthevictimcan
runaftertheperpetratorsofthecrime,regardlessofwhetherornottherewasconsentonthe
partofthevictim.
xxxxxxxxx
SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, I understand the position taken by the distinguished
Gentleman from Cavite and Metro Manila. It is correct that society sometimes adopts new mores,
traditions,andpractices.
Inthisbill,wearenotgoingtoencroachintotheprivateproclivitiesofsomeindividualswhen
theydotheiractsinprivateaswedonottakeapeekintotheprivateroomsofcouples.Theycando
theirthingiftheywanttomakeloveinwaysthatarenotconsideredacceptablebythemainstreamof
society.ThatisnotsomethingthattheStateshouldprohibit.
Butsodomyinthiscaseisconnectedwithhazing,Mr.President.Suchthattheactmayevenbe
enteredintowithconsent.Itisnotonlysodomy.Theinflictionofpainmaybedonewiththeconsent
of the neophyte. If the law is passed, that does not make the act of hazing not punishable
becausetheneophyteacceptedtheinflictionofpainuponhimself.
If the victim suffers from serious physical injuries, but the initiator said, Well, he
allowed it upon himself. He consented to it. So, if we allow that reasoning that sodomy was
donewiththeconsentofthevictim,thenwewouldnothavepassedanylawatall.Therewillbe
nosignificanceifwepassthisbill,becauseitwillalwaysbeadefensethatthevictimallowed
theinflictionofpainorsuffering.Heaccepteditaspartoftheinitiationrites.
But precisely, Mr. President that is one thing that we would want to prohibit. That the
defense of consent will not apply because the very act of inflicting physical pain or
psychologicalsufferingis,byitself,apunishableact.Theresultoftheactofhazing,likedeathor
physical injuries merely aggravates the act with higher penalties. But the defense of consent is not
goingtonullifythecriminalnatureoftheact.
46/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
So,ifweaccepttheamendmentthatsodomycanonlyaggravatetheoffenseifitiscommitted
withoutconsentofthevictim,thenthewholefoundationofthisproposedlawwillcollapse.
SENATORBIAZON.Thankyou,Mr.President.
SENATORLINA.Thankyouverymuch.
THEPRESIDENT.Isthereanyobjectiontothecommitteeamendment?(Silence.)TheChair
[237]
hearsnonethesameisapproved.
(Emphasissupplied)
Realizing the implication of removing the states burden to prove intent, Senator Lina, the
principalauthoroftheSenateBill,said:
IamveryhappythatthedistinguishedMinorityLeaderbroughtouttheideaofintentorwhether
thereitismalainseormalaprohibita.Therecanbearadicalamendmentifthatisthepointthathewants
togoto.
Ifweagreeontheconcept,then,maybe,wecanjustmakethisaspeciallawonhazing.
WewillnotincludethisanymoreundertheRevisedPenalCode.Thatisapossibility.Iwillnot
[238]
foreclosethatsuggestion,Mr.President.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus, having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and the core
principleofmalainseadheredtoundertheRevisedPenalCode,Congressdidnotsimplyenact
anamendmentthereto.Instead,itcreatedaspeciallawonhazing,foundedupontheprincipleof
malaprohibita. This dilemma faced by Congress is further proof of how the nature of hazing
uniqueasagainsttypicalcrimescastacloudofdoubtonwhethersocietyconsideredtheactas
aninherentlywrongconductormalainseatthetime.ItissafetopresumethatLennysparents
would not have consented
[239]
to his participation in Aquila Fraternitys initiation rites if the
practiceofhazingwereconsideredbythemasmalainse.
Furthermore, in Vedaa v. Valencia (1998), we noted through Associate Justice (now
retired Chief Justice) Hilario Davide that in our nations very recent history, the people have
spoken, through Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, [an] act[] previously
considered harmless by custom, as criminal.
[240]
Although it may be regarded as a simple
obiter dictum, the statement nonetheless shows recognition that hazing or the conduct of
initiation rites through physical and/or psychological suffering has not been traditionally
criminalized. Prior to the 1995 AntiHazing Law, there was to some extent a lacuna in the law
47/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
hazing was not clearly considered an intentional felony. And when there is doubt on the
interpretationofcriminallaws,allmustberesolvedinfavoroftheaccused.Indubioproreo.
Fortheforegoingreasons,andasamatteroflaw,theCourtisconstrainedtoruleagainst
thetrialcourtsfindingofmaliciousintenttoinflictphysicalinjuriesonLennyVilla,therebeingno
proofbeyondreasonabledoubtoftheexistenceofmaliciousintenttoinflictphysicalinjuriesor
animusiniuriandiasrequiredinmalainsecases,consideringthecontextualbackgroundofhis
death,theuniquenatureofhazing,andabsentalawprohibitinghazing.
The accused fraternity members guilty of reckless
imprudenceresultinginhomicide
The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean, however, that the accused
fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also
punishesfeloniesthatarecommittedbymeansoffault(culpa).According to Article 3 thereof,
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
lackofskill.
Recklessimprudenceornegligenceconsistsofavoluntaryactdonewithoutmalice,from
whichanimmediatepersonalharm,injuryormaterialdamageresultsbyreasonofaninexcusable
lack of precaution or advertence on the part of the person committing it.
dangerisvisibleandconsciouslyappreciatedbytheactor.
[241]
In this case, the
[242]
Incontrast,simpleimprudence
or negligence comprises an act done without grave fault, from which an injury or material
damageensuesbyreasonofamerelackofforesightorskill.
notimmediate,andthedangerisnotopenlyvisible.
[243]
Here,thethreatenedharmis
[244]
[245]
The test
for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an act is as
follows: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued?Ifso,thelawimposesonthedoerthedutytotakeprecautionagainstthemischievous
resultsoftheact.Failuretodosoconstitutesnegligence.
[246]
AsweheldinGaidv.People,forapersontoavoidbeingchargedwithrecklessness,the
degreeofprecautionanddiligencerequiredvarieswiththedegreeofthedangerinvolved.
[247]
If,
48/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
onaccountofacertainlineofconduct,thedangerofcausingharmtoanotherpersonisgreat,
the individual who chooses to follow that particular course of conduct is bound to be very
careful,inordertopreventoravoiddamageorinjury.
muchcareisrequired.
[248]
Incontrast,ifthedangerisminor,not
[249]
Itisthuspossiblethattherearecountlessdegreesofprecautionor
diligence that may be required of an individual, from a transitory glance of care to the most
vigilanteffort.
[250]
The duty of the person to employ more or less degree of care will depend
uponthecircumstancesofeachparticularcase.
[251]
TherewaspatentrecklessnessinthehazingofLennyVilla.
According to the NBI medicolegal officer, Lenny died of cardiac failure secondary to
multipletraumaticinjuries.
[252]
The officer explained that cardiac failure refers to the failure of
thehearttoworkasapumpandaspartofthecirculatorysystemduetothelackofblood.
[253]
Inthepresentcase,thevictimsheartcouldnolongerworkasapumpingorgan,becauseitwas
deprived of its requisite blood and oxygen.
[254]
The deprivation was due to the channeling of
the blood supply from the entire circulatory system including the heart, arteries, veins, venules,
andcapillariesto the thigh, leg, and arm areas of Lenny, thus causing the formation of multiple
hematomas or blood clots.
[255]
[256]
The multiple hematomas were wide, thick, and deep,
indicating that these could have resulted mainly from injuries sustained by the victim from fist
blows,kneeblows,paddles,orthelike.
[257]
Repeatedblowstothoseareascausedthebloodto
graduallyoozeoutofthecapillariesuntilthecirculatingbloodbecamesomarkedlydiminishedas
toproducedeath.
[258]
Theofficeralsofoundthatthebrain,liver,kidney,pancreas,intestines,
andallotherorgansseenintheabdominals,aswellasthethoracicorganinthelungs,werepale
duetothelackofblood,whichwasredirectedtothethighsandforearms.
[259]
Itwasconcluded
that there was nothing in the heart that would indicate that the victim suffered from a previous
cardiacarrestordisease.
[260]
ThemultiplehematomasorbruisesfoundinLennyVillasarmsandthighs,resultingfrom
repeated blows to those areas, caused the loss of blood from his vital organs and led to his
eventualdeath.Thesehematomasmustbetakeninthelightofthehazingactivitiesperformedon
49/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
him by the Aquila Fraternity. According to the testimonies of the coneophytes of Lenny, they
werepunched,kicked,elbowed,kneed,stampedonandhitwithdifferentobjectsontheirarms,
legs, and thighs.
[261]
[262]
They were also paddled at the back of their thighs or legs
and
slapped on their faces.
[263]
[264]
They were made to play rough basketball.
Witness Marquez
testified on Lenny, saying: [T]inamaan daw sya sa spine.
[265]
The NBI medicolegal officer
explainedthatthedeathofthevictimwasthecumulativeeffectofthemultipleinjuriessufferedby
thelatter.
[266]
Therelevantportionofthetestimonyisasfollows:
Atty.TadiarDoctor,therewas,rather,itwasyourtestimonyonvariouscrossexaminationsofdefense
counsels that the injuries that you have enumerated on the body of the deceased
Lenny Villa previously marked as Exhibit G1 to G14 individually by themselves
wouldnotcausethedeathofthevictim.ThequestionIamgoingtopropoundtoyou
iswhatisthecumulativeeffectofalloftheseinjuriesmarkedfromExhibitG1toG
14?
WitnessAlltogethernothinginconcerttocausetothedemiseofthevictim.So,itisnotfairforusto
isolate such injuries here because we are talking of the whole body. At the same
mannerthatasacarwouldnotrunminusone(1)wheel.No,themorehumanein
[267]
humanapproachistointerpretallthoseinjuriesinwholeandnotinpart.
Thereisalsoevidencetoshowthatsomeoftheaccusedfraternitymembersweredrinking
duringtheinitiationrites.
[268]
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to

recklessness,whichmadetheresultingdeathofLennyaculpablefelony.Itmustberemembered
that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of care not to cause them injury in the process.
[269]
With the foregoing facts, we rule that the accused are guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. Since the NBI medicolegal officer found that the victims death was the
cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who
directlyparticipatedinandcontributedtotheinflictionofphysicalinjuries.
Itappearsfromtheaforementionedfactsthattheincidentmayhavebeenprevented,orat
least mitigated, had the alumni of Aquila Fraternity accused Dizon and Villareal restrained
themselves from insisting on reopening the initiation rites. Although this point did not matter in
theend,
as records would show that the other fraternity members participated in the reopened initiation
50/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
rites having in mind the concept of seniority in fraternities the implication of the presence of
alumnishouldbeseenasapointofreviewinfuturelegislation.Wefurthernotethatsomeofthe
fraternitymemberswereintoxicatedduringLennysinitiationrites.Inthislight,theCourtsubmits
toCongress,forlegislativeconsideration,theamendmentoftheAntiHazingLawtoincludethe
factofintoxicationandthepresenceofnonresidentoralumnifraternitymembersduringhazing
asaggravatingcircumstancesthatwouldincreasetheapplicablepenalties.
Itistrulyastonishinghowmenwouldwittinglyorunwittinglyimposethemiseryofhazing
andemployappallingritualsinthenameofbrotherhood.Theremustbeabetterwaytoestablish
kinship. A neophyte admitted that he joined the fraternity to have more friends and to avail
himselfofthebenefitsitoffered,suchastipsduringbarexaminations.
[270]
Anotherinitiatedid
notgiveup,becausehefearedbeinglookeddownuponasaquitter,andbecausehefelthedid
not have a choice.
[271]
Thus, for Lenny Villa and the other neophytes, joining the Aquila
Fraternity entailed a leap in the dark. By giving consent under the circumstances, they left their
fates in the hands of the fraternity members. Unfortunately, the hands to which lives were
entrustedwerebarbaricastheywerereckless.
Ourfindingofcriminalliabilityforthefelonyofrecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicide
shall cover only accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon. Had the AntiHazing Law
beenineffectthen,thesefiveaccusedfraternitymemberswouldhaveallbeenconvictedofthe
crime of hazing punishable by reclusionperpetua(lifeimprisonment).
[272]
Since there was no
law prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to
existinglawsatthetimeofhisdeath.TheCAfoundthattheprosecutionfailedtoprove,beyond
reasonabledoubt,
Victorino et al.s individual participation in the infliction of physical injuries upon Lenny Villa.
[273]
As to accused Villareal, his criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his
death,pursuanttoArticle89oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Furthermore,ourrulinghereinshallbeinterpretedwithoutprejudicetotheapplicabilityof
theAntiHazingLawtosubsequentcases.Furthermore,themodificationofcriminalliabilityfrom
slightphysicalinjuriestorecklessimprudenceresultinginhomicide shall apply only with
respecttoaccusedAlmeda,Ama,Bantug,andTecson.
Theaccusedliabletopaydamages
51/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
TheCAawardeddamagesinfavoroftheheirsofLennyVillaintheamountsof50,000
ascivilindemnityexdelictoand1,000,000asmoraldamages,tobejointlyandseverallypaidby
accused Dizon and Villareal. It also awarded the amount of 30,000 as indemnity to be jointly
andseverallypaidbyaccusedAlmeda,Ama,Bantug,andTecson.
Civilindemnityexdelictoisautomaticallyawardedforthesolefactofdeathofthevictim.
[274]
[275]
Inaccordancewithprevailingjurisprudence,
wesustaintheCAsawardofindemnity
intheamountof50,000.
Theheirsofthevictimareentitledtoactualorcompensatorydamages,includingexpenses
incurredinconnectionwiththedeathofthevictim,solongastheclaimissupportedbytangible
documents.
[276]
Thoughwearepreparedtoawardactualdamages,theCourtispreventedfrom
granting them, since the records are bereft of any evidence to show that actual expenses were
incurred or proven during trial. Furthermore, in the appeal, the Solicitor General does not
interposeanyclaimforactualdamages.
[277]
Theheirsofthedeceasedmayrecovermoraldamagesforthegriefsufferedonaccountof
the victims death.
[278]
This penalty is pursuant to Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code, which
provides that the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and the ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased.
[279]
Thus, we hereby we affirm the CAs award of moral damages in the amount of
1,000,000.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 155101 finding petitioner Fidelito
Dizon guilty of homicide is hereby MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART. The appealed
Judgment in G.R. No. 154954 finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato
Bantug,Jr.,andVincentTecsonguiltyofthecrimeofslightphysicalinjuriesisalsoMODIFIED
andSETASIDEINPART.Instead,Fidelito Dizon, Antonio MarianoAlmeda, Junel Anthony
Ama,RenatoBantug,Jr.,andVincentTecsonarefoundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtof
recklessimprudenceresultinginhomicidedefinedandpenalizedunderArticle365inrelationto
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
prisontermoffour(4)monthsandone(1)dayofarrestomayor,asminimum,tofour(4)years
andtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Inaddition,accusedareORDERED
jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Lenny Villa civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of
52/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
50,000, and moral damages in the amount of 1,000,000, plus legal interest on all damages
awarded at the rate of 12% from the date of the finality of this Decision until satisfaction.
[280]
Costsdeoficio.
The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954, acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby
AFFIRMED.TheappealedJudgmentsinG.R.Nos.178057&178080,dismissingthecriminal
case filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano, are likewise AFFIRMED. Finally,
pursuanttoArticle89(1)oftheRevisedPenalCode,thePetitioninG.R.No.151258ishereby
dismissed, and the criminal case against Artemio Villareal deemed CLOSED and
TERMINATED.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Senate President and the Speaker of the
HouseofRepresentativesforpossibleconsiderationoftheamendmentoftheAntiHazingLaw
toincludethefactofintoxicationandthepresenceofnonresidentoralumnifraternitymembers
duringhazingasaggravatingcircumstancesthatwouldincreasetheapplicablepenalties.
SOORDERED.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
53/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheOpinionoftheCourtsDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,Icertifythattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
[1]
SponsorshipSpeechofformerSenatorJoeyLina,SenateTranscriptofSessionProceedingsNo.34(08October1992)9th Congress,
1st RegularSess.at2122[hereinafterSenateTSPNo.34].
[2]
Id.
[3]
SenateTranscriptofSessionProceedingsNo.47(10November1992)9th Congress,1st RegularSess.at2021,2427[hereinafter
SenateTSPNo.47].
[4]
Id.SenateTranscriptofSessionProceedingsNo.62(14December1992)9th Congress,1st RegularSess.at15[hereinafterSenate
TSPNo.62].
[5]
SenateTSPNo.34,supranote1.
[6]
Id.
[7]
U.S.v.Taylor,28Phil599(1914).TheCourtdeclared,InthePhilippineIslandsthereexistnocrimessuchasareknownintheUnited
StatesandEnglandascommonlawcrimesid.at604.
[8]
CADecision(Peoplev.Dizon,CAG.R.CRNo.15520),pp.15rollo(G.R.No.151258),pp.6266.
[9]
RTCDecision[Peoplev.Dizon,CriminalCaseNo.C38340(91)],pp.157rollo(G.R.No.151258),pp.109167.
54/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[10]
AsexplainedinthePetitionforReviewofVillareal,residentbrodsarethosefraternitymemberswhoarecurrentlystudentsofthe
Ateneo Law School, while alumni brods are those fraternity members who are graduates or former students of the law school see
VillarealsPetitionforReview(Villarealv.People,G.R.No.151258),pp.57rollo(G.R.No.151258),pp.1719.
[11]
RTCDecision[Crim.CaseNo.C38340(91)],p.2,supranote9rollo,p.110.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.at6667rollo,pp.175176.
[14]
CADecision(Escalonav.RTC,CAG.R.SPNo.89060),p.4rollo(G.R.No.178057),p.131.
[15]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEubuloG.VerzolaandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRodrigoV.CosicoandEliezerR.delos
Santos(withConcurringOpinion).
[16]
RTCDecision(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.38340),p.21rollo(G.R.No.178057),p.1114.
[17]
CADecision(Escalonav.RTC),pp.1214,supranote14rollo,pp.139141.
[18]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeMariflorP.PunzalanCastilloandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesAndresB.Reyes,Jr.andHakim
S.Abdulwahid.
[19]
[20]
VillarealsPetitionforReview(Villarealv.People,G.R.No.151258),p.13rollo,p.25.
[21]
DizonsPetitionforReview(Dizonv.People,G.R.No.155101),p.1rollo,p.3.
[22]
Id.at17rollo,p.19.
[23]
Id.at10rollo,p.12.
[24]
Id.at22rollo,p.24.
[25]
Id.at23rollo,p.25.
[26]
[27]
Id.at26rollo,p.28.
[28]
PeoplesPetitionforCertiorari(Peoplev.CA,G.R.No.154954),p.2rollo,p.13.
[29]
Id.at167rollo,p.118.
[30]
VillasPetitionforReviewonCertiorari(Villav.Escalona,G.R.Nos.178057and178080),p.1rollo,p.84.
[31]
Petralbav.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.81337,16August1991,200SCRA644.
[32]
Peoplev.Badeo,G.R.No.72990,21November1991,204SCRA122,citingJ.AquinosConcurringOpinioninPeoplev.Satorre,G.R.
No.L26282,August27,1976,72SCRA439.
[33]
Peoplev.Bayotas,G.R.No.102007,2September1994,236SCRA239Peoplev.Bunay,G.R.No.171268,14September2010,630
SCRA445.
[34]
Peoplev.Bunay,supra,citingPeoplev.Bayotas,supra.
[35]
CADecision(Peoplev.Dizon),p.7,supranote8rollo,p.68.
[36]
Id.
[37]
Id.
[38]
Id.
[39]
[40]
Id.at8rollo,p.69.
[41]
Id.
55/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[42]
Peoplev.Banihit,393Phil.465(2000)Peoplev.Hernandez,328Phil.1123(1996),citingPeoplev.Dichoso,96SCRA957(1980)
andPeoplev.Angco,103Phil.33(1958).
[43]
Peoplev.Hapa,413Phil.679(2001),citingPeoplev.Diaz,311SCRA585(1999).
[44]
Peoplev.Hapa,supra,citingParadav.Veneracion,336Phil.354,360(1997).
[45]
Crisostomov.Sandiganbayan,495Phil.718(2005).
[46]
Id.
[47]
Peoplev.Bodoso,446Phil.838(2003).
[48]
Id.
[49]
DizonsPetitionforReview,supranote21at20rollo,p.22.
[50]
Id.at23rollo,p.25.
[51]
VillasPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,supranote30at19rollo,p.102.
[52]
Peoplev.Hernandez,G.R.Nos.154218&154372,28August2006,499SCRA688.
[53]
Peoplev.Tampal,314Phil.35(1995),citingGonzalesv.Sandiganbayan,199SCRA298(1991)Acebedov.Sarmiento,146Phil.820
(1970).
[54]
Peoplev.Tampal,supraAcebedov.Sarmiento,supra.
[55]
Peoplev.Tampal,supra.
[56]
Id.
[57]
Id.
[58]
Peoplev.Hernandez,supranote52,citingPeoplev.Tampal,supraPhilippineSavingsBankv.SpousesBermoy,471SCRA94,
107(2005)Peoplev.Bans,239SCRA48(1994)Peoplev.Declaro,170SCRA142(1989)andPeoplev.Quizada,160SCRA516(1988).
[59]
SeePeoplev.Hernandez,supranote52.
[60]
Id.
[61]
Id.
[62]
Id.
[63]
[64]
Id.at4rollo,p.131.
[65]
Id.
[66]
Id.
[67]
Abardov.Sandiganbayan,407Phil.985(2001).
[68]
Id.
[69]
Melov.People,85Phil.766(1950).
[70]
Id.
[71]
Id.
[72]
Id.
[73]
Peoplev.Nazareno,G.R.No.168982,5August2009,595SCRA438.
[74]
Id.Peoplev.Maquiling,368Phil.169(1999).
[75]
Peoplev.Velasco,394Phil.517(2000),citingRulesonCriminalProcedure,Rule117,Sec7Paulinv.Gimenez,G.R.No.103323,21
January1993,217SCRA386Comelecv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.108120,26January1994,229SCRA501Peoplev.Maquiling,
supranote74.
56/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[76]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,G.R.No.159261,21February2007,516SCRA383,397,citingPeoplev.Serrano,315SCRA
686,689(1999).
[77]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supra,citingPeoplev.Velasco,340SCRA207,240(2000).
[78]
Galmanv.Sandiganbayan,228Phil.42(1986),citingPeoplev.Bocar,138SCRA166(1985)Combatev.SanJose,135SCRA693
(1985)Peoplev.Catolico,38SCRA389(1971)andPeoplev.Navarro,63SCRA264(1975).
[79]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supranote76[citingPeoplev.TriaTirona,463SCRA462,469470(2005)andPeoplev.
Velasco,340SCRA207(2000)]Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandFrancisco,468Phil.1(2004)Galmanv.Sandiganbayan,supra,citing
Peoplev.Bocar,supra.
[80]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supranote76,citingPeoplev.Serrano,supranote76at690Peoplev.DeGrano,G.R.
No.167710,5June2009,588SCRA550.
[81]
Peoplev.Nazareno,supranote73DeVerav.DeVera,G.R.No.172832,7April2009,584SCRA506.
[82]
Peoplev.Nazareno,supranote73DeVerav.DeVera,supra.
[83]
Peoplev.DeGrano,supranote80,citingPeoplev.Maquiling,supranote74at704.
[84]
Id.
[85]
PeoplesPetitionforCertiorari,p.8,supranote28rollo,p.19.
[86]
[87]
[88]
SeeFranciscov.Desierto,G.R.No.154117,2October2009,602SCRA50,citingFirstCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.
171989,4July2007,526SCRA564,578.
[89]
Peoplev.Maquiling,supranote74,citingTeknikaSkillsandTradeServicesv.SecretaryofLaborandEmployment,273SCRA10
(1997).
[90]
Peoplev.Maquiling, supra note 74, citing Medina v. City Sheriff of Manila, 276 SCRA 133, (1997) Jamer v. National Labor
RelationsCommission,278SCRA632(1997)andAzoresv.SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,252SCRA387(1996).
[91]
DeVerav.DeVera,supranote81Peoplev.DelaTorre,430Phil.420(2002)Peoplev.Leones,418Phil.804(2001)Peoplev.Ruiz,
171Phil.400(1978)Peoplev.Pomeroy,97Phil.927(1955),citingPeoplev.AngChoKio,95Phil.475(1954).
[92]
SeegenerallyPeoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supranote76andPeoplev.CourtofAppealsandFrancisco,supranote
79.
[93]
CADecision(Peoplev.Dizon),pp.2122,supranote8rollo,pp.8283.
[94]
Peoplev.Penesa,81Phil.398(1948).
[95]
[96]
Peoplev.Penesa,supranote94.
[97]
Id.
[98]
Id.
[99]
[100]
Id.at21rollo,p.82.
[101]
Id.
[102]
Seefootnote1ofCorpusv.Paje,139Phil.429(1969).
[103]
[104]
Id.at58rollo,p.167.
[105]
RAMONC.AQUINO,THEREVISEDPENALCODEVOLUMEONE3(1961)seePeoplev.Estrada,389Phil.216(2000)Peoplev.
Sandiganbayan,341Phil.503(1997).
57/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[106]
VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: ANNOTATED AND COMMENTED BOOKONE4(3rd ed. 1958) see
Peoplev.Estrada,supra.
[107]
FRANCISCO,supraat4Peoplev.Estrada,supra.
[108]
AQUINO,supranote105at3.
[109]
Id.
[110]
GUILLERMOB.GUEVARA,PENALSCIENCESANDPHILIPPINECRIMINALLAW6(1974).
[111]
Peoplev.Sandiganbayan,341Phil.503(1997).
[112]
FRANCISCO,supranote106at33.
[113]
Id.at3334.
[114]
MARIANOA.ALBERT,THEREVISEDPENALCODE(ACTNO.3815)2124(1946).
[115]
Id.at21.
[116]
Id.at21.
[117]
Guevarrav.Almodovar,251Phil.427(1989),citing46CJSIntent1103.
[118]
BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY670(8th abr.ed.2005)seePeoplev.Regato,212Phil.268(1984).
[119]
Guevarrav.Almodovar,supranote117.
[120]
ALBERT,supranote114at23.
[121]
Peoplev.Ballesteros,349Phil.366(1998)Bagajov.Marave,176Phil.20(1978),citingPeoplev.Molineux,168N.Y.264,29761
N.E.286,29662L.R.A.193.
[122]
BLACKSLAWDICTIONARY,supranote118at520.
[123]
SeeFRANCISCO,supranote106at34ALBERT,supranote114at2325.
[124]
U.S.v.Catolico,18Phil.504(1911)U.S.v.AhChong,15Phil.488(1910).
[125]
U.S.v.Barnes, 8 Phil. 59 (1907) Dadov.People, 440 Phil. 521 (2002), citing Mondragon v. People, 17 SCRA 476, 481 (1966)
Peoplev.Villanueva,51Phil.488(1928)U.S.v.Reyes,30Phil.551(1915)U.S.v.Mendoza,38Phil.691(1918)Peoplev.Montes,53Phil.
323(1929)Peoplev.Pacusbas,64Phil.614(1937)andPeoplev.Penesa,supranote94.
[126]
Peoplev.Fallorina,468Phil.816(2004),citingPeoplev.Oanis,74Phil.257(1943)FRANCISCO,supranote106at5152,citing
Peoplev.Sara,55Phil.939(1931).
[127]
SeegenerallyFRANCISCO,supranote106at51.
[128]
Id.at52Peoplev.Oanis,74Phil.257(1943),citingPeoplev.Nanquil,43Phil.232(1922)Peoplev.Bindoy,56Phil.15(1931).
[129]
Mahawanv.People,G.R.No.176609,18December2008,574SCRA737,citingRiverav.People,G.R.No.166326,25January2006,
480SCRA188,196197.
[130]
Peoplev.Quijada,328Phil.505(1996).
[131]
Mahawanv.People,supranote129,citingRiverav.People,supranote129.
[132]
Dadov.People,supranote125.
[133]
Peoplev.Delim,444Phil.430,450(2003),citingWHARTON,CRIMINALLAWVOL.1,473474(12T HED.,1932).
[134]
SeePeoplev.Garcia, 467 Phil. 1102 (2004), citing People v. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 267 U.S. v.
Tayongtong,21Phil.476(1912)seegenerallyU.S.v.Maleza,14Phil.468(1909).
[135]
A.CatherineKendrick,ExParteBarran:InSearchofStandardLegislationforFraternityHazingLiability,24AM.J.TRIAL
ADVOC.407(2000)
[136]
Id.
[137]
InreKhalilH.,No.08110,2010WL4540458(N.Y.App.Div.Nov.9,2010)(U.S.)[citingKuzmich, Comment, In Vino Mortuus:
FraternalHazingandAlcoholRelatedDeaths,31MCGEORGELREV.1087,10881089(2000)andSYMPOSIUM, THE WORKS OF
58/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
PLATO(THEMODERNLIBRARY1956)]GregoryE.Rutledge,HellNightHathNoFuryLikeaPledgeScorned...andInjured:Hazing
LitigationinU.S.CollegesandUniversities,25J.C.&U.L.361,3689(1998)Kendrick,24AM.J.TRIALADVOC.
[138]
InreKhalilH.,supraRutledge,supra.
[139]
Jamie Ball, This Will Go Down on Your Permanent Record (But We'll Never Tell): How the Federal Educational Rights and
PrivacyActMayHelpCollegesandUniversitiesKeepHazingaSecret,33SW.U.L.REV.477,480(2004),citingRutledge,supra.
[140]
Id.
[141]
Id.
[142]
Kendrick,supranote135,citingScottPatrickMcBride,Comment,FreedomofAssociationinthePublicUniversitySetting:How
BroadistheRighttoFreelyParticipateinGreekLife?,23U.DAYTONL.REV.133,1478(1997).
[143]
Id.
[144]
Id.
[145]
Id.,citingExparteBarran,730So.2d203(Ala.1998)(U.S.).
[146]
SeegenerallySec.1,RepublicActNo.8049(1995),otherwiseknownastheAntiHazingLaw.
[147]
Id.
[148]
InreKhalilH.,supranote137,citingWEBSTER'STHIRDINTERNATIONALDICTIONARY,1041(1986)andPeoplev.Lenti,44
Misc.2d118,253N.Y.S.2d9(N.Y.NassauCountyCt.1964)(U.S.).
[149]
SeegenerallyRepublicActNo.8049(1995),Sec.1,otherwiseknownastheAntiHazingLawSusanLipkins,Hazing: Defining
andUnderstandingPsychologicalDamages,2ANN.2007AAJCLE2481(2007).
[150]
REYNALDOC.ILETO,THEDIORAMAEXPERIENCE:AVISUALHISTORYOFTHEPHILIPPINES84(2004).
[151]
Id.
[152]
Id.
[153]
Id.seePhilippineInsurrectionRecords,Reel31,Folder514/10CartilladelKatipunan,quotedinLUISCAMARADERY,ALAYSA
INANGBAYAN:PANIBAGONGPAGBIBIGAYKAHULUGANSAKASAYSAYANNGHIMAGSIKANNG1896,1624(1999).
[154]
PhilippineInsurrectionRecords,supra,quotedinDERY,supraat17.
[155]
PhilippineInsurrectionRecords,supra,quotedinDERY,supraat18.
[156]
ILETO,supranote150.
[157]
STEPHENE.AMBROSE,DUTY,HONOR,COUNTRY:AHISTORYOFWESTPOINT222(1999).
[158]
Id.
[159]
Easlerv.HejazTempleofGreenville,285S.C.348,329S.E.2d753(S.C.1985)(U.S.).(TheSouthCarolinaSupremeCourtheld,inter
alia,that(1)evidencesupportedthejuryfindingthatthemannerinwhichtheassociationcarriedoutmattressrotatingbarreltrick,a
hazingevent,washazardousandconstitutedactionablenegligenceand(2)thecandidatewasnotbarredfromrecoverybythedoctrine
ofassumptionofrisk.Id.)
[160]
Id.
[161]
Id.
[162]
Id.
[163]
CNNU.S.,PentagonBrassDisgustedbyMarineHazingCeremony,January31,1997,availableat<http://articles.cnn.com/1997
0131/us/9701_31_hazing_1_hazingincidentcamplejeunemarines?_s=PM:US> (visited 3 December 2010) see also Gregory E.
Rutledge,HellNightHathNoFuryLikeaPledgeScorned...andInjured:HazingLitigationinU.S.CollegesandUniversities,25J.C.
&U.L.361,364(1998).
[164]
CNNU.S.,supraseealsoRutledge,supra.
[165]
State v. Allen, 905 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Mo. 1995) (U.S.). (One of the pledges Michael Davis blacked out and never regained
consciousness.Hediedthefollowingafternoon.TheSupremeCourtofMissouriaffirmedthetrialcourtsconvictionofhazing.Id.)
[166]
Id.
59/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[167]
Id.
[168]
ExparteBarran,730So.2d203(Ala.1998)(U.S.).(TheAlabamaSupremeCourtruledthatthe(1)pledgeknewandappreciatedthe
risksinherentinhazingand(2)pledgevoluntarilyexposedhimselftohazing,supportingthefraternity'sassumptionoftheriskdefense.
Consequently,theCourtreversedthejudgmentoftheCourtofCivilAppealsandreinstatedtherulingofthetrialcourt,whichentered
thesummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantswithrespecttothevictimsnegligenceclaims.Thecasewasremandedastotheother
matters.Id.)
[169]
Id.
[170]
Lloydv.AlphaPhiAlphaFraternity,No.96CV348,97CV565,1999WL47153(Dist.Ct.,N.D.N.Y.,1999)(U.S.).(Theplaintifffiled
alawsuitagainstCornellUniversityforthelattersliabilityresultingfromtheinjuriestheformersustainedduringtheallegedhazingby
thefraternity.TheNewYorkdistrictcourtgranteddefendantCornellsmotiontodismisstheplaintiffscomplaint.Id.)
[171]
Id.
[172]
Kennerv.KappaAlphaPsiFraternity,Inc.,808A.2d178(Pa.Super.Ct.2002).(ThePennsylvaniaSuperiorCourtheldthat:(1)the
fraternityowedthedutytoprotecttheinitiatefromharm(2)breachofdutybyfraternitywasnotestablished(3)individualfraternity
membersowedthedutytoprotecttheinitiatefromharmand(4)theevidenceraisedthegenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherthe
fraternity'schapteradvisorbreachedthedutyofcaretoinitiate.Id.)
[173]
Id.
[174]
Mortonv.State,988So.2d698(Flo.Dist.Ct.App.2008)(U.S.).(TheDistrictCourtofAppealofFloridareversedtheconvictionfor
felonyhazingandremandedthecaseforanewtrialbecauseoferroneousjuryinstruction.Id.)
[175]
Id.
[176]
Id.
[177]
Id.
[178]
Id.
[179]
Id.
[180]
Rutledge,supranote137.
[181]
Rutledge,supranote137,citingFraternityHazing:IsthatAnywaytoTreataBrother?,TRIAL,September1991,at63.
[182]
Rutledge,supranote137,[citingRobertD.Bickel&PeterF.Lake,ReconceptualizingtheUniversity'sDutytoProvideASafe
LearningEnvironment:ACriticismoftheDoctrineofInLocoParentisandtheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,20 J.C. & U.L. 261
(1994)JenniferL.Spaziano,It'sAllFunandGamesUntilSomeoneLosesanEye:AnAnalysisofUniversityLiabilityforActionsof
StudentOrganizations,22PEPP.L.REV.213(1994)FraternityHazing:IsthatAnywaytoTreataBrother?,TRIAL,Sept.1991,at63
and Byron L. Leflore, Jr., Alcohol and Hazing Risks in College Fraternities: Reevaluating Vicarious and Custodial Liability of
NationalFraternities,7REV.LITIG.191,210(1988)].
[183]
DarryllM.HalcombLewis,TheCriminalizationofFraternity,NonFraternityandNonCollegiateHazing,61MISS.L.J.111,117
(1991),citingBenjamin,TheTroubleattheNavalAcademy,60TheIndependent154,155(1906).AccordingtoLewis,the1874statute
outlawinghazingwasdirectedspecificallyattheUnitedStatesNavalAcademy.
[184]
GregoryL.Acquaviva,ProtectingStudentsfromtheWrongsofHazingRites:AProposalforStrengtheningNewJersey'sAnti
HazingAct,26QUINNIPIACL.REV.305,311(2008),citingLewis,supranote183at118.
[185]
Acquaviva,supra,citingLewis,supranote183at118119.
[186]
Acquaviva,supra,citingLewis,supranote183at119.
[187]
Acquaviva,supraat313.
[188]
AmiePelletier,Note,RegulationofRites:TheEffectandEnforcementofCurrentAntiHazingStatutes,28NEWENG.J.ONCRIM.
&CIV.CONFINEMENT377,377(2002).
[189]
Id.
[190]
Id.,citing720Ill.Comp.Stat.Ann.120/10(1992)(U.S.).
[191]
730ILCS5/582(West,WestlawthroughP.A.961482ofthe2010Sess.)(U.S.).
60/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[192]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingInd.CodeAnn.354222(U.S.).
[193]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingInd.CodeAnn.354222(U.S.).
[194]
Ind.CodeAnn.354222(West,Westlawthrough2010Sess.)(U.S.)citingStatev.Lewis,883N.E.2d847(Ind.App.2008)(U.S.).
[195]
Ind.CodeAnn.355026(West,Westlawthrough2010Sess.)(U.S.).
[196]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingMo.Rev.Stat.578.365(2001)(U.S.).
[197]
Mo.Stat.Ann.558.011(West,Westlawthrough2010FirstExtraordinaryGen.Ass.Sess.).
[198]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingTex.Educ.CodeAnn.37.152(Vernon1996)(U.S.).
[199]
Tex.Stat.CodeAnn.,PenalCode12.35(Vernon,Westlawthrough2009Legis.Sess.)(U.S.).
[200]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingUtahCodeAnn.765107.5(1999)(U.S.).
[201]
UtahCodeAnn.1953763203(Westlawthrough2010Gen.Sess.)(U.S.).
[202]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingW.Va.Code18163(1999)(U.S.).
[203]
SeePelletier,supranote188,citingWis.Stat.948.51(1996)(U.S.).
[204]
Wis.Stat.Ann.939.50(Westlawthrough2009Act406)(U.S.).
[205]
Pelletier,supranote188at381.
[206]
Id.
[207]
[208]
Id.
[209]
Id.
[210]
TSN,21April1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.6872,9091,100102,108109,127134.
[211]
TSN,26May1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.2932,43.
[212]
TSN,3June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.2428.
[213]
PeoplesComment(Dizonv.People,G.R.No.155101),p.131rollo,p.626PeoplesComment(Villarealv.People,G.R.No.151258),
p.1203rollo,pp.727730.
[214]
PeoplesComment(Dizonv.People,G.R.No.155101),pp.130131rollo,pp.625626PeoplesComment(Villarealv.People,G.R.
No.151258),pp.120123rollo,pp.727730.
[215]
RTCDecision[Crim.CaseNo.C38340(91)],pp.1835,supranote9rollo,pp.127144.
[216]
PeoplesComment(Dizonv.People,G.R.No.155101),pp.130131rollo,pp.625626PeoplesComment(Villarealv.People,G.R.
No.151258),pp.120123rollo,pp.727730.
[217]
SenateTSPNo.51(17November1992)9th Congress,1st RegularSess.,pp.1213.
[218]
TSN,21April1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.6872,9091,100102,108109,127134seeTSN,26May1992
(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.2932,43andTSN,3June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.2428.
[219]
[220]
Dadov.People,supranote125.
[221]
[222]
TheaforementionedarticlesrefertotheRevisedPenalCodeprovisionsonPhysicalInjuries.Thesearethefollowing:(a)Art.262
Mutilation (b) Art. 263 Serious Physical Injuries (c) Art. 264 Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages (d) Art. 265 Less
SeriousPhysicalInjuriesand,(e)Art.266SlightPhysicalInjuriesandMaltreatment.
[223]
Cf.UnitedStatesv.AhChong,15Phil.488(1910)andCalimutanv.People,517Phil.272(2006).
[224]
Cf.Calimutanv.People,supra,citingPeoplev.Carmen,407Phil.564(2001)Peoplev.Nocum,77Phil.1018(1947)People v.
Sara,55Phil939(1931)andPeoplev.Ramirez,48Phil204(1925).
61/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[225]
176Phil.20(1978).
[226]
Peoplev.Carmen,supranote224.
[227]
Peoplev.Regato,supranote118.
[228]
Id.
[229]
Cf.Peoplev.Penesa,supranote94.
[230]
[231]
[232]
RTCDecision[Crim.CaseNo.C38340(91)],p.38,supranote9rollo,p.147TSN,16July1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C
38340),p.108.
[233]
38340),p.109.
[234]
[235]
[236]
[237]
SenateTSPNo.62,supranote4at1315.
[238]
[239]
38340),pp.108109.
[240]
Vedaav.Valencia,356Phil.317,332(1998).
[241]
Caminosv.People,587SCRA348(2009)citingLUISB.REYES,THEREVISEDPENALCODE:CRIMINALLAWBOOKONE995
(15th ed. 2001) People v. Vistan, 42 Phil 107 (1921), citing U.S. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 14068, 17 January 1919 (unreported) U.S. v.
Manabat,28Phil.560(1914).
[242]
Peoplev.Vistan,supra,citingU.S.vs.Gomez,supra.
[243]
Id.
[244]
Id.
[245]
Gaidv.People,G.R.No.171636,7April2009,584SCRA489Ganv.CourtofAppeals,247APhil.460(1988).
[246]
Gaidv.People,supraGanv.CourtofAppeals,supra.
[247]
Gaidv.People,supraPeoplev.Vistan,supranote241,citingU.S.vs.Gomez,supranote241.
[248]
Id.
[249]
Id.
[250]
SeeGaidv.People,supranote245,at503(Velasco,J.,dissenting).
[251]
Id.
[252]
[253]
Id.
[254]
Id.at36rollo,p.145.
[255]
Id.TSN,24June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.5267.
[256]
[257]
Id.TSN,24June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.6869.
62/63
9/13/2016
G.R.No.151258
[258]
RTCDecision[Crim.CaseNo.C38340(91)],p.37,supranote9rollo,p.146TSN,24June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.
C38340),pp.7071.
[259]
[260]
TSN,24June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),p.50.
[261]
[262]
Id.at23rollo,p.132.
[263]
Id.at25rollo,p.134.
[264]
Id.at26rollo,p.135.
[265]
TSN,21April1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.175176.
[266]
[267]
TSN,16July1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.9293.
[268]
TSN,21April1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.110111.
[269]
Ballou v. Sigma Nu General Fraternity, 291 S.C. 140, 352 S.E.2d 488 (S.C. App. 1986) (U.S.) citing Easler v. Hejaz Temple of
Greenville,285S.C.348,329S.E.2d753(S.C.1985)(U.S.).
[270]
[271]
Id.at27rollo,p.136.
[272]
RepublicActNo.8049(1995),Sec.4(1),otherwiseknownastheAntiHazingLaw.
[273]
[274]
Briasv.People,211Phil.37(1983)seealsoPeoplev.Yanson,G.R.No.179195,3October2011,citingPeoplev.DelRosario,G.R.
No.189580,9February2011.
[275]
Peoplev.Mercado,G.R.No.189847,30May2011[citingPeoplev.Flores,G.R.No.188315,25August2010Peoplev.Lindo,G.R.
No.189818,9August2010Peoplev.Ogan,G.R.No.186461,5July2010andPeoplev.Cadap,G.R.No.190633,5July2010].
[276]
Seguritanv.People,G.R.No.172896,19April2010,618SCRA406.
[277]
PeoplesConsolidatedMemoranda(Dizonv.People,G.R.No.155101),p.144rollo,p.1709.
[278]
HeirsofOchoav.G&STransportCorporation,G.R.No.170071,9March2011,citingVictoryLinerInc.v.Gammad,486Phil.574,
592593(2004).
[279]
Id.
[280]
EasternShippingLines,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.97412,17July1994,234SCRA78.
63/63

Villareal

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Villareal

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

9/13/2016

THE HONORABLE COURT OF

MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA

G.R. Nos. 178057 &

2. Four of the accusedappellants Vincent Tecson, Junel Anthony Ama,Antonio

vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays.

appeal or a reconsideration of the dismissal would amount to a violation of the principle of

is capricious, certiorari lies.

The appellate court relied on our ruling in People v. Penesa

punishmentheapedon[Lenny Villa was] serious in nature,

of foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or simple

Hazing, as commonly understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that serves as

a small confraternity believed to be inspired by European Freemasonry, as well as by

questions to determine their fitness, loyalty, courage, and resolve.

InMortonv.State,MarcusJonesa university student in Florida sought initiation into the

The existence of animus interficendi or intent to kill not

These rituals were performed with Lennys consent.

SENATOR LINA. To discourage persons or group of persons either composing a sorority,

slapped on their faces.

testified on Lenny, saying: [T]inamaan daw sya sa spine.

Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to

Você também pode gostar