Villareal V People

2/16/2017 G.R. No.
151258

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

ARTEMIOVILLAREAL, G.R.No.151258
Petitioner,

versus

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.154954
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, NELSON VICTORINO, 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,RENATOBANTUG,JR.,
ADELABAS,JOSEPHLLEDO,and
RONANDEGUZMAN,
Respondents.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/151258.htm 1/62
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
xx

FIDELITODIZON, G.R.No.155101
Petitioner,

versus

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx

GERARDAH.VILLA, G.R.Nos.178057&178080
Petitioner,
Present:

versus CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
BRION,
PEREZ,
MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA SERENO,and
II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN REYES,JJ.
RAMOS, CRISANTO CRUZ
SARUCA, JR., and ANSELMO Promulgated:
ADRIANO, February1,2012
Respondents.

xx

DECISION
SERENO,J.:
The public outrage over the death of Leonardo Lenny Villa the victim in this case on 10
[1]
February1991ledtoaverystrongclamortoputanendtohazing. Dueinlargeparttothe
brave efforts of his mother, petitioner Gerarda Villa, groups were organized, condemning his
senselessandtragicdeath.ThiswidespreadcondemnationpromptedCongresstoenactaspecial
[2]
law,whichbecameeffectivein1995,thatwouldcriminalizehazing. Theintentofthelawwas
todiscouragemembersfrom making hazing a requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity,
[3]
organization, or association. Moreover, the law was meant to counteract the exculpatory
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
implicationsofconsentandinitialinnocentactintheconductofinitiationritesbymakingthe
[4]
mereactofhazingpunishableormalaprohibita.
[5]
Sadly, the Lenny Villa tragedy did not discourage hazing activities in the country. Within a
yearofhisdeath,sixmorecasesofhazingrelateddeathsemergedthoseofFrederickCahiyang
of the University of Visayas in Cebu Raul Camaligan of San Beda College Felipe Narne of
Pamantasan ng Araullo in Cabanatuan City Dennis Cenedoza of the Cavite Naval Training
CenterJoselitoManggaofthePhilippineMerchantMarineInstituteandJoselitoHernandezof
[6]
theUniversityofthePhilippinesinBaguioCity.
Althoughcourtsmustnotremainindifferenttopublicsentiments,inthiscasethegeneral
condemnationofahazingrelateddeath,theyarestillboundtoobserveafundamentalprinciple
[7]
inourcriminaljusticesystem[N]oactconstitutesacrimeunlessitismadesobylaw. Nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as
immoral or injurious, it cannot be considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its
commission. As interpreters of the law, judges are called upon to set aside emotion, to resist
being swayed by strong public sentiments, and to rule strictly based on the elements of the
offenseandthefactsallowedinevidence.
Before the Court are the consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 151258 (Villareal v.
People),G.R.No.154954(Peoplev.CourtofAppeals),G.R.No.155101(Dizonv.People),and
G.R.Nos.178057and178080(Villav.Escalona).
FACTS
[8] [9]
Thepertinentfacts,asdeterminedbytheCourtofAppeals(CA) andthetrialcourt,
areasfollows:
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University
School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila
Fraternity).TheywereCaesarBogsAsuncion,SamuelSamBelleza,BienvenidoBienMarquez
III,RobertoFrancisBertNavera,GeronimoRandyRecinto,FelixSy,Jr.,andLeonardoLenny
Villa(neophytes).
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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.
Evenbeforetheneophytesgotoffthevan,theyhadalreadyreceivedthreatsandinsults
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
neophytestositonthefloorwiththeirbacksagainstthewallandtheirlegsoutstretchedwhile
theAquilanswalked,jumped,orranovertheirlegstheRounds,inwhichtheneophyteswere
heldatthebackoftheirpantsbytheauxiliaries(theAquilanschargedwiththedutyoflending
assistancetoneophytesduringinitiationrites),whilethelatterwerebeinghitwithfistblowson
theirarmsorwithkneeblowsontheirthighsbytwoAquilansandtheAuxiesPrivilegeRound,
in which the auxiliaries were given the opportunity to inflict physical pain on the neophytes.
During this time, the neophytes were also indoctrinated with the fraternity principles. They
survivedtheirfirstdayofinitiation.
Onthemorningoftheirsecondday9February1991theneophytesweremadetopresent
comicplaysandtoplayroughbasketball.Theywerealsorequiredtomemorizeandrecitethe
AquilaFraternitysprinciples.Whenevertheywouldgiveawronganswer,theywouldbehiton
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.
[10]
After a while, accused nonresident or alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon
(Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of
initiationrites,NelsonVictorino(Victorino),initiallyrefused.UpontheinsistenceofDizonand
Villareal,however,hereopenedtheinitiationrites.Thefraternitymembers,includingDizonand
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to paddling and to additional rounds of physical pain.
Lennyreceivedseveralpaddleblows,oneofwhichwassostrongitsenthimsprawlingtothe
ground.Theneophytesheardhimcomplainingofintensepainanddifficultyinbreathing.After
theirlastsessionofphysicalbeatings,Lennycouldnolongerwalk.Hehadtobecarriedbythe
auxiliaries to the carport. Again, the initiation for the day was officially ended, and the
neophytesstartedeatingdinner.Theythensleptatthecarport.
After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys shivering and
incoherentmumblings.Initially,VillarealandDizondismissedtheserumblings,astheythought
hewasjustoveracting.Whentheyrealized,though,thatLennywasreallyfeelingcold,someof
theAquilansstartedhelpinghim.Theyremovedhisclothesandhelpedhimthroughasleeping
bagtokeephimwarm.Whenhisconditionworsened,theAquilansrushedhimtothehospital.
Lennywaspronounceddeadonarrival.
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)
25.AdelAbas(Abas)
26.PercivalBrigola(Brigola)
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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)were jointly tried.

[11]
On the other hand, the trial against the remaining nine accused in Criminal Case No. C
[12]
38340washeldinabeyanceduetocertainmattersthathadtoberesolvedfirst.
On 8 November 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in Criminal Case No. C
38340(91),holdingthe26accusedguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrime of homicide,
[13]
penalized with reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. A few
weeksafterthetrialcourtrendereditsjudgment,oron29November1993,CriminalCaseNo.
[14]
C38340againsttheremainingnineaccusedcommencedanew.
[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.

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
crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor. They
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
Revised Penal Code. Having found no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
CAsentencedthemtoanindeterminatesentenceof10yearsofprisionmayorto17
years of reclusion temporal. They were also ordered to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the heirs of Lenny Villa in the sum of 50,000 and to pay the additional
amountof1,000,000bywayofmoraldamages.
On 5 August 2002, the trial court in Criminal Case No. 38340 dismissed the charge
[16]
against accused Concepcion on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial.
Meanwhile, on different dates between the years 2003 and 2005, the trial court denied the
[17]
respective Motions to Dismiss of accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. On 25
[18]
October2006,theCAinCAG.R.SPNos.89060&90153 reversedthetrialcourtsOrders
anddismissedthecriminalcaseagainstEscalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdrianoonthebasisof
[19]
violationoftheirrighttospeedytrial.
FromtheaforementionedDecisions,thefive(5)consolidatedPetitionswereindividually
broughtbeforethisCourt.
G.R.No.151258Villarealv.People
TheinstantcasereferstoaccusedVillarealsPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule
45.ThePetitionraisestworeversibleerrorsallegedlycommittedbytheCAinitsDecisiondated
10 January 2002 in CAG.R. No. 15520 first, denial of due process and, second, conviction
[20]
absentproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
WhilethePetitionwaspendingbeforethisCourt,counselforpetitionerVillarealfileda
NoticeofDeathofPartyon10August2011.AccordingtotheNotice,petitionerVillarealdied
on13March2011.CounselthusassertsthatthesubjectmatterofthePetitionpreviouslyfiledby
petitionerdoesnotsurvivethedeathoftheaccused.
G.R.No.155101Dizonv.People
Accused Dizon filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the CAs
Decisiondated10January2002andResolutiondated30August2002inCAG.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
[22]
asbasisofacquittaloftheotheraccused.
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, like the other accused, since his acts were also part of the traditional initiation rites
[23]
andwerenottaintedbyevilmotives. Heclaimsthattheadditionalpaddlingsessionwaspart
oftheofficialactivityofthefraternity.Healsopointsoutthatoneoftheneophytesadmittedthat
the chairperson of the initiation rites decided that [Lenny] was fit enough to undergo the
[24]
initiation so Mr. Villareal proceeded to do the paddling. Further, petitioner echoes the
argument of the Solicitor General that the individual blows inflicted by Dizon and Villareal
[25]
couldnothaveresultedinLennysdeath. TheSolicitorGeneralpurportedlyaverredthat,on
the contrary, Dr. Arizala testified that the injuries suffered by Lenny could not be considered
fataliftakenindividually,butiftakencollectively,theresultistheviolentdeathofthevictim.
[26]
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
PetitionerthencountersthefindingoftheCAthathewasmotivatedbyillwill.Heclaims
thatLennysfathercouldnothavestolentheparkingspaceofDizonsfather,sincethelatterdid
nothaveacar,andtheirfathersdidnotworkinthesameplaceoroffice.Revengeforthelossof
the parking space was the alleged ill motive of Dizon. According to petitioner, his utterances
regardingastolenparkingspacewereonlypartofthepsychologicalinitiation.Hethencitesthe
testimonyofLennysconeophytewitnessMarquezwho admitted knowing it was not true and
[27]
thathewasjustmakingitup.
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
[28]
lessercrimeofslightphysicalinjuries. AccordingtotheSolicitorGeneral,theCAerredin
holding that there could have been no conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity
initiationhadnotyetbeencriminalizedatthetimeLennydied.
In the alternative, petitioner claims that the ruling of the trial court should have been
upheld, 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
criminallyliablefortheresultingcrimeofhomicide,pursuanttoArticle4oftheRevisedPenal
[29]
Code. The said article provides: Criminal liability shall be incurred [b]y any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
Petitioner also argues that the rule on double jeopardy is inapplicable. According to the
SolicitorGeneral,theCAactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtolackorexcessof
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
jurisdiction,insettingasidethetrialcourtsfindingofconspiracyandinrulingthatthecriminal
liabilityof
alltheaccusedmustbebasedontheirindividualparticipationinthecommissionofthecrime.
G.R.Nos.178057and178080Villav.Escalona
PetitionerVillafiledtheinstantPetitionforReviewonCertiorari,prayingforthereversal
oftheCAsDecisiondated25October2006andResolutiondated17May2007inCAG.R.S.P.
[30]
Nos. 89060 and 90153. The Petition involves the dismissal of the criminal charge filed
againstEscalona,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
Criminal Case No. C38340(91) shall have terminated. On 8 November 1993, the trial court
foundthe26accusedguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.Asaresult,theproceedingsinCriminal
CaseNo.C38340involvingthenineothercoaccusedrecommencedon29November1993.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
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
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
InaNoticedated26September2011andwhilethePetitionwaspendingresolution,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
pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term
[31]
personalpenaltiesreferstotheserviceofpersonalorimprisonmentpenalties, whiletheterm
[32]
pecuniary penalties (las pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs, including civil liability
[33]
predicated on the criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However,
civil liability based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the
[34]
accusedandisrecoverablethroughaseparatecivilaction.
Thus,weholdthatthedeathofpetitionerVillarealextinguishedhiscriminalliabilityfor
bothpersonalandpecuniarypenalties,includinghiscivilliabilitydirectlyarisingfromthedelict
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
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[35]
October1993. TheOrderlikewisestatedthatitwillnotentertainanypostponementandthat
alltheaccusedwhohavenotyetpresentedtheirrespectiveevidenceshouldbereadyatalltimes
down the line, with their evidence on all said dates. Failure on their part to present evidence
[36]
whenrequiredshallthereforebeconstruedaswaivertopresentevidence.
However,on19August1993,counselforanotheraccusedmanifestedinopencourtthat
his client Antonio General would no longer present separate evidence. Instead, the counsel
[37]
would adopt the testimonial evidence of the other accused who had already testified.
Because of this development and pursuant to the trial courts Order that the parties should be
readyatalltimesdowntheline,thetrialcourtexpectedDizontopresentevidenceonthenext
trial date 25 August 1993 instead of his originally assigned dates. The original dates were
[38]
supposedtostarttwoweekslater,oron8September1993. CounselforaccusedDizonwas
not able to present evidence on the accelerated date. To address the situation, counsel filed a
Constanciaon25August1993,allegingthathehadtoappearinapreviouslyscheduledcase,
[39]
andthathewouldbereadytopresentevidenceonthedatesoriginallyassignedtohisclients.
ThetrialcourtdeniedtheManifestationonthesamedateandtreatedtheConstanciaasamotion
[40]
for postponement, in violation of the threedaynotice rule under the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the trial court ruled that the failure of Dizon to present evidence amounted to a
[41]
waiverofthatright.
AccusedpetitionerDizonthusarguesthathewasdeprivedofdueprocessoflawwhenthe
trialcourtforfeitedhisrighttopresentevidence.Accordingtohim,thepostponementofthe25
August1993hearingshouldhavebeenconsideredjustified,sincehisoriginalpreassignedtrial
dates were not supposed to start until 8 September 1993, when he was scheduled to present
evidence.Hepositsthathewasreadytopresentevidenceonthedatesassignedtohim.Healso
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
[42]
itself. Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel This constitutional right
[43]
includestherighttopresentevidenceinonesdefense, aswellastherighttobepresentand
[44]
defendoneselfinpersonateverystageoftheproceedings.
[45]
In Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan set the hearing of the defenses
presentationofevidencefor21,22and23June1995.The21June1995hearingwascancelled
duetolackofquorumintheregularmembershipoftheSandiganbayansSecondDivisionand
upon the agreement of the parties. The hearing was reset for the next day, 22 June 1995, but
Crisostomoandhiscounselfailedtoattend.TheSandiganbayan,ontheverysameday,issuedan
OrderdirectingtheissuanceofawarrantforthearrestofCrisostomoandtheconfiscationofhis
suretybond.TheOrderfurtherdeclaredthathehadwaivedhisrighttopresentevidencebecause
ofhisnonappearanceatyesterdaysandtodaysscheduledhearings.InrulingagainsttheOrder,
weheldthus:
Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court,
Crisostomosnonappearanceduringthe22June1995trialwasmerelyawaiverofhisright
tobepresentfortrialonsuchdateonlyandnotforthesucceedingtrialdates

xxxxxxxxx

Moreover, Crisostomos absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing should not have been
deemedasawaiverofhisrighttopresentevidence.Whileconstitutionalrightsmaybewaived,
suchwaiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the
right. 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,andCalingayan'scounsel.

In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the
court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the
consequencesofawaiveroftherighttopresentevidence. In fact,itisnot enough that the
accused is simply warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding
hearings.Thecourtmustfirst explain to the accused personally in clear terms the exactnature
andconsequencesofawaiver.Crisostomowasnotevenforewarned.TheSandiganbayansimply
went ahead to deprive Crisostomo of his right to present evidence without even allowing
Crisostomotoexplainhisabsenceonthe22June1995hearing.

Clearly, the waiver of the right to present evidence in a criminal case involving a
gravepenaltyisnotassumedandtakenlightly.Thepresenceoftheaccusedandhiscounselis
indispensablesothatthecourtcouldpersonallyconductasearchinginquiryintothewaiverxxx.
[46]
(Emphasissupplied)

Thetrialcourtshouldnothavedeemedthefailureofpetitionertopresentevidenceon25
August 1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence. On the contrary, it should have
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
consideredtheexcuseofcounseljustified,especiallysincecounselforanotheraccusedGeneral
hadmadealastminuteadoptionoftestimonialevidencethatfreedupthesucceedingtrialdates
and since Dizon was not scheduled to testify until two weeks later. At any rate, the trial court
preassigned five hearing dates for the reception of evidence. If it really wanted to impose its
Orderstrictly,themostitcouldhavedonewastoforfeitoneoutofthefivedayssetforDizons
testimonialevidence.Strippingtheaccusedofallhispreassignedtrialdatesconstitutesapatent
denialoftheconstitutionallyguaranteedrighttodueprocess.
Nevertheless,asinthecaseofanimprovidentguiltyplea,aninvalidwaiveroftherightto
presentevidenceandbehearddoesnotperseworktovacateafindingofguiltinthecriminal
[47]
caseortoenforceanautomaticremandofthecasetothetrialcourt. InPeoplev.Bodoso,we
ruled that where facts have adequately been represented in a criminal case, and no procedural
unfairnessorirregularityhasprejudicedeithertheprosecutionorthedefenseasaresultofthe
invalid waiver, the rule is that a guilty verdict may nevertheless be upheld if the judgment is
[48]
supportedbeyondreasonabledoubtbytheevidenceonrecord.
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
traditionalrites,andthattheallegedextensionoftheinitiationriteswasnotoutsidetheofficial
[49]
activityofthefraternity. HeevenarguesthatDizondidnotrequestfortheextensionandhe
[50]
participatedonlyaftertheactivitywassanctioned.
For one reason or another, the case has been passed or turned over from one judge or
justicetoanotheratthetrialcourt,attheCA,andevenattheSupremeCourt.Remandingthe
caseforthereceptionoftheevidenceofpetitionerDizonwouldonlyinflictfurtherinjusticeon
theparties.Thiscasehasbeengoingonforalmosttwodecades.Itsresolutionislongoverdue.
Sincethekeyfactsnecessarytodecidethecasehavealreadybeendetermined,weshallproceed
todecideit.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
[51]
wereintheCourtofAppeals.
The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been enshrined in Sections 14(2) and 16,
[52]
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This right requires that there be a trial free from
[53]
vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays. The right is deemed violated when the
proceedingisattendedwithunjustifiedpostponementsoftrial,orwhenalongperiodoftimeis
[54]
allowed to elapse without the case being tried and for no cause or justifiable motive. In
determiningtherightoftheaccusedtospeedytrial,courtsshoulddomorethanamathematical
[55]
computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. The
[56]
conductofboththeprosecutionandthedefensemustbeweighed. Alsotobeconsideredare
factorssuchasthelengthofdelay,theassertionornonassertionoftheright,andtheprejudice
[57]
wroughtuponthedefendant.
Wehaveconsistentlyruledinalonglineofcasesthatadismissalofthecasepursuantto
[58]
the right of the accused to speedy trial is tantamount to acquittal. As a consequence, an
appeal or a reconsideration of the dismissal would amount to a violation of the principle of
[59]
doublejeopardy. Aswehavepreviouslydiscussed,however,wherethedismissalofthecase
[60]
is capricious, certiorari lies. The rule on double jeopardy is not triggered when a petition
[61]
challenges the validity of the order of dismissal instead of the correctness thereof. Rather,
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
graveabuseofdiscretionamountstolackofjurisdiction,andlackofjurisdictionpreventsdouble
[62]
jeopardyfromattaching.
WedonotseegraveabuseofdiscretionintheCAsdismissalofthecaseagainstaccused
Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,andAdrianoonthebasisoftheviolationoftheirrighttospeedytrial.
Thecourtheldthus:
An examination of the procedural history of this case would reveal that the following
factorscontributedtotheslowprogressoftheproceedingsinthecasebelow:

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
securecertifiedtruecopiesofthesame.

xxxxxxxxx
Whilewearepreparedtoconcedethatsomeoftheforegoingfactorsthatcontributedto
the delay of the trial of the petitioners are justifiable, We nonetheless hold that their right to
speedytrialhasbeenutterlyviolatedinthiscasexxx.

xxxxxxxxx
[T]heabsenceoftherecordsinthetrialcourt[was]duetothefactthattherecordsofthecase
wereelevatedtotheCourtofAppeals,andtheprosecutionsfailuretocomplywiththeorder
ofthecourtaquorequiringittosecurecertifiedtruecopiesofthesame.Whatisglaringfrom
therecordsisthefactthatasearlyasSeptember21,1995,thecourtaquoalreadyissuedanOrder
requiringtheprosecution,throughtheDepartmentofJustice,tosecurethecompleterecordsofthe
casefromtheCourtofAppeals.TheprosecutiondidnotcomplywiththesaidOrderasinfact,the
samedirectivewasrepeatedbythecourtaquoinanOrderdatedDecember27,1995.Still,there
wasnocomplianceonthepartoftheprosecution.Itisnotstatedwhensuchorderwascomplied
with.Itappears,however,thatevenuntilAugust5,2002,thesaidrecordswerestillnotatthe
disposalofthetrialcourtbecausethelackofitwasmadethebasisofthesaidcourtingranting
themotiontodismissfiledbycoaccusedConcepcionxxx.

xxxxxxxxx
It is likewise noticeable that from December 27, 1995, until August 5, 2002, or for a
period of almost seven years, there was no action at all on the part of the court a quo.
Exceptforthepleadingsfiledbyboththeprosecutionandthepetitioners,thelatestofwhich
wasonJanuary29,1996,followedbypetitionerSarucasmotiontosetcasefortrialonAugust17,
1998whichthecourtdidnotactupon,thecaseremaineddormantforaconsiderablelengthof
time. This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the constitution
[63]
frownsuponxxx. (Emphasissupplied)
ThisCourtpointsoutthaton10January1992,thefinalamendedInformationwasfiledagainst
Escalona,Ramos,Saruca,Ampil,S.Fernandez,Adriano,Cabangon,Concepcion,andDeVera.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[64] [65]
On 29 November 1993, they were all arraigned. Unfortunately, the initial trial of the
[66]
casedidnotcommenceuntil28March2005oralmost12yearsafterarraignment.
AsillustratedinourrulinginAbardov.Sandiganbayan,theunexplainedintervalorinactivityof
the Sandiganbayan for close to five years since the arraignment of the accused amounts to an
unreasonabledelayinthedispositionofcasesaclearviolationoftherightoftheaccusedtoa
[67]
speedydispositionofcases. Thus,weheld:
Thedelayinthiscasemeasuresuptotheunreasonablenessofthedelayinthedisposition
ofcasesinAngchangco,Jr.vs.Ombudsman,wheretheCourtfoundthedelayofsixyearsbythe
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,wheretheCourtheldthattheSandiganbayangravely abused its discretion in
not quashing the information which was filed six years after the initiatory complaint was
filedandtherebydeprivingpetitionerofhisrighttoaspeedydispositionofthecase.So it
must be in the instant case, where the reinvestigation by the Ombudsman has dragged on
[68]
foradecadealready. (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.
G.R.No.154954(Peoplev.CourtofAppeals)
Theruleondoublejeopardyisoneofthepillarsofourcriminaljusticesystem.Itdictatesthat
when a person is charged with an offense, and the case is terminated either by acquittal or
convictionorinanyothermannerwithouttheconsentoftheaccusedtheaccusedcannotagain
[69]
bechargedwiththesameoranidenticaloffense. Thisprincipleisfoundeduponthelawof
[70]
reason,justiceandconscience. Itisembodiedinthecivillawmaximnonbisinidemfound
[71]
inthecommonlawofEnglandandundoubtedlyineverysystemofjurisprudence. Itfound
expression in the Spanish Law, in the Constitution of the United States, and in our own
[72]
Constitutionasoneofthefundamentalrightsofthecitizen, viz:
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
ArticleIIIBillofRights

Section21.Nopersonshallbetwiceputinjeopardyofpunishmentforthesameoffense.Ifanact
ispunishedbyalawandanordinance,convictionoracquittalundereithershallconstituteabarto
anotherprosecutionforthesameact.
Rule117,Section7oftheRulesofCourt,whichimplementsthisparticularconstitutional
[73]
right,providesasfollows:
SEC.7.Formerconvictionoracquittaldoublejeopardy.Whenanaccusedhasbeenconvictedor
acquitted,orthecaseagainsthimdismissedorotherwiseterminatedwithouthisexpressconsent
byacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,uponavalidcomplaintorinformationorotherformalcharge
sufficientinformandsubstancetosustainaconvictionandaftertheaccusedhadpleadedtothe
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
anotherprosecutionfortheoffensecharged,orforanyattempttocommitthesameorfrustration
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
chargedintheformercomplaintorinformation.
Theruleondoublejeopardythusprohibitsthestatefromappealingthejudgmentinorder
toreversetheacquittalortoincreasethepenaltyimposedeitherthrougharegularappealunder
Rule41oftheRulesofCourtorthroughanappealbycertiorarionpurequestionsoflawunder
[74]
Rule45ofthesameRules. Therequisitesforinvokingdoublejeopardyarethefollowing:
(a) there is a valid complaint or information (b) it is filed before a competent court (c) the
defendantpleadedtothechargeand(d)thedefendantwasacquittedorconvicted,orthecase
against him or her was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the defendants express
[75]
consent.
AswehavereiteratedinPeoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,[a]verdictofacquittalis
immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate
courts,willputtheaccusedinjeopardyforthesameoffense.Thefinalityofacquittaldoctrine
hasseveralavowedpurposes.Primarily,itpreventstheStatefromusingitscriminalprocessesas
aninstrumentofharassmenttowearouttheaccusedbyamultitudeofcaseswithaccumulated
trials.ItalsoservestheadditionalpurposeofprecludingtheState,followinganacquittal,from
successivelyretryingthedefendantinthehopeofsecuringaconviction.Andfinally,itprevents
the State, following conviction, from retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a
[76]
greater penalty. We further stressed that an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of
[77]
reposeasadirectconsequenceofthefinalityofhisacquittal.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
[81]
thepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityofthegovernment. Here,thepartyaskingforthe
reviewmustshowthepresenceofawhimsicalorcapriciousexerciseofjudgmentequivalentto
lackofjurisdictionapatentandgrossabuseofdiscretionamountingtoanevasionofapositive
dutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperformadutyimposedbylawortoactincontemplationoflaw
[82]
anexerciseofpowerinanarbitraryanddespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionandhostility
orablatantabuseofauthoritytoapointsograveandsosevereastodeprivethecourtofitsvery
[83]
powertodispensejustice. Insuchanevent,theaccusedcannotbeconsideredtobeatriskof
[84]
doublejeopardy.
TheSolicitorGeneralfiledaRule65PetitionforCertiorari,whichseeksthereversalof
(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
privatecomplainantandpetitionerweredenieddueprocessoflawwhenthepublicrespondent
completelyignoredthea)PositionPaperxxxb)theMotionforPartialReconsiderationxxx
[85]
andc)thepetitionersCommentxxx. Allegedly,theCAignoredevidencewhenitadopted
thetheoryofindividualresponsibilitysetasidethefindingofconspiracybythetrialcourtand
[86]
failed to applyArticle 4 of the Revised Penal Code. TheSolicitorGeneralalsoassailsthe
finding that the physical blows were inflicted only by Dizon and Villareal, as well as the
[87]
appreciationofLennyVillasconsenttohazing.
In our view, what the Petition seeks is that we reexamine, reassess, and reweigh the
[88]
probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. In People v. Maquiling, we held
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
that grave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court simply because it allegedly
[89]
misappreciated the facts and the evidence. Mere errors of judgment are correctible by an
appealorapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,andnotbyanapplicationfor
[90]
awritofcertiorari. Therefore,pursuanttotheruleondoublejeopardy,weareconstrainedto
denythePetitioncontraVictorinoetal.the19acquittedfraternitymembers.
We,however,modifytheassailedjudgmentasregardsTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantug
thefourfraternitymembersconvictedofslightphysicalinjuries.
Indeed,wehaveruledinalineofcasesthattheruleondoublejeopardysimilarlyapplies
[91]
when the state seeks the imposition of a higher penalty against the accused. We have also
recognized, however, that certiorari may be used to correct an abusive judgment upon a clear
demonstrationthatthelowercourtblatantlyabuseditsauthoritytoapointsograveastodeprive
[92]
itofitsverypowertodispensejustice. Thepresentcaseisoneofthoseinstancesofgrave
abuseofdiscretion.
InimposingthepenaltyofslightphysicalinjuriesonTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantug,
theCAreasonedthus:
Based on the medical findings, it would appear that with the exclusion of the fatal
woundsinflictedbytheaccusedDizonandVillareal,theinjuriessustainedbythevictimasa
resultofthephysicalpunishmentheapedonhimwereseriousinnature.However,byreason
of the death of the victim, there can be no precise means to determine the duration of the
incapacity or the medical attendance required. To do so, at this stage would be merely
speculative.Inaprosecutionforthiscrimewherethecategoryoftheoffenseandtheseverityof
thepenaltydependontheperiodofillnessorincapacityforlabor,thelengthofthisperiodmust
likewisebeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtinmuchthesamemannerasthesameactcharged
[Peoplev.Codilla,CAG.R.No.4079R,June26,1950].Andwhenproofofthesaidperiodis
absent,thecrimecommittedshouldbedeemedonlyasslightphysicalinjuries[Peoplev.De
los Santos, CA, 59 O.G. 4393, citing People v. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398]. As such, this Court is
constrainedtorulethattheinjuriesinflictedbytheappellants,Tecson,Ama,AlmedaandBantug,
[93]
Jr.,areonlyslightandnotserious,innature. (Emphasissuppliedandcitationsincluded)
[94]
The appellate court relied on our ruling in People v. Penesa in finding that the four
accusedshouldbeheldguiltyonlyofslightphysicalinjuries.AccordingtotheCA,becauseof
thedeathofthevictim,therecanbenoprecisemeanstodeterminethedurationoftheincapacity
[95]
ormedicalattendancerequired. TherelianceonPenesawasutterlymisplaced.Areviewof
that case would reveal that the accused therein was guilty merely of slight physical injuries,
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
becausethevictimsinjuriesneithercausedincapacityforlabornorrequiredmedicalattendance.
[96] [97] [98]
Furthermore, he did not die. His injuries were not even serious. Since Penesa
involvedacaseinwhichthevictimallegedlysufferedphysicalinjuriesandnotdeath,theruling
citedbytheCAwaspatentlyinapplicable.
Onthecontrary,theCAsultimateconclusionthatTecson,Ama,Almeda,andBantugwere
liablemerelyforslightphysicalinjuriesgrosslycontradictsitsownfindingsoffact.According
to the court, the four accused were found to have inflictedmorethantheusualpunishment
[99]
undertaken during such initiation rites on the person of Villa. It then adopted the NBI
medicolegalofficersfindingsthattheantecedentcauseofLennyVillasdeathwasthemultiple
[100]
traumaticinjurieshesufferedfromtheinitiationrites. ConsideringthattheCAfoundthat
[101]
thephysicalpunishmentheapedon[LennyVillawas]seriousinnature, itwaspatently
erroneousforthecourttolimitthecriminalliabilitytoslightphysicalinjuries,whichisalight
felony.
Article4(1)oftheRevisedPenalCodedictatesthattheperpetratorshallbeliableforthe
consequencesofanact,evenifitsresultisdifferentfromthatintended.Thus,onceapersonis
found to have committed an initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of physical
injuriesthatresultsinthedeathofthevictim,courtsarerequiredtoautomaticallyapplythelegal
framework governing the destruction of life. This rule is mandatory, and not subject to
discretion.
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
tantamounttoawhimsical,capricious,andabusiveexerciseofjudgmentamountingtolackof
jurisdiction.AccordingtotheRevisedPenalCode,themandatoryandlegallyimposablepenalty
incasethevictimdiesshouldbebasedontheframeworkgoverningthedestructionofthelifeof
aperson,punishedunderArticles246to261forintentionalfeloniesandArticle365forculpable
felonies, and not under the aforementioned provisions. We emphasize that these two types of
feloniesaredistinctfromandlegallyinconsistentwitheachother,inthattheaccusedcannotbe
[102]
heldcriminallyliableforphysicalinjurieswhenactualdeathoccurs.
AttributingcriminalliabilitysolelytoVillarealandDizonasifonlytheiracts,inandof
themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings. From proof
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[103]
thatthedeathofthevictimwasthecumulativeeffectofthemultipleinjurieshesuffered,
theonlylogicalconclusionisthatcriminalresponsibilityshouldredoundtoallthosewhohave
been proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. The
accumulationofbruisingonhisbodycausedhimtosuffercardiacarrest.Accordingly,wefind
thattheCAcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionin
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
intentionalinflictionofphysicalinjuriesonVillawasnonethelessafeloniousactunderArticles
263to266oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thus,inrulingagainsttheaccused,thecourtaquofound
that pursuant toArticle 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the accused fraternity members were
guiltyofhomicide,asitwasthedirect,naturalandlogicalconsequenceofthephysicalinjuries
[104]
theyhadintentionallyinflicted.
TheCAmodifiedthetrialcourtsfindingofcriminalliability.Itruledthattherecouldhave
beennoconspiracysincetheneophytes,includingLennyVilla,hadknowinglyconsentedtothe
conductofhazingduringtheirinitiationrites.Theaccusedfraternitymembers,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
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[105]
Our Revised Penal Code belongs to the classical school of thought. The classical
theory posits that a human person is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to
[106]
choose between good and evil. It asserts that one should only be adjudged or held
[107]
accountableforwrongfulactssolongasfreewillappearsunimpaired. Thebasicpostulate
oftheclassicalpenalsystemisthathumansarerationalandcalculatingbeingswhoguidetheir
[108]
actions with reference to the principles of pleasure and pain. They refrain from criminal
actsifthreatenedwithpunishmentsufficienttocancelthehopeofpossiblegainoradvantagein
[109]
committing the crime. Here, criminal liability is thus based on the free will and moral
[110]
blameoftheactor. Theidentityofmensreadefinedasaguiltymind,aguiltyorwrongful
[111]
purpose or criminal intent is the predominant consideration. Thus, it is not enough to do
[112]
whatthelawprohibits. Inorderforanintentionalfelonytoexist,itisnecessarythattheact
[113]
becommittedbymeansofdoloormalice.
Thetermdoloormaliceisacomplexideainvolvingtheelementsoffreedom,intelligence,
[114]
and intent. The first element, freedom, refers to an act done with deliberation and with
[115]
powertochoosebetweentwothings. Thesecondelement,intelligence,concernstheability
todeterminethemoralityofhumanacts,aswellasthecapacitytodistinguishbetweenalicitand
[116]
anillicitact. Thelastelement,intent,involvesanaimoradeterminationtodoacertainact.
[117]
The element of intent on which this Court shall focus is described as the state of mind
[118]
accompanyinganact,especiallyaforbiddenact. Itreferstothepurposeofthemindandthe
[119]
resolvewithwhichapersonproceeds. Itdoesnotrefertomerewill,forthelatterpertains
[120]
totheact,whileintent concerns the result of the act. While motive is the moving power
thatimpelsonetoactionforadefiniteresult,intentisthepurposeofusingaparticularmeansto
[121]
produce the result. On the other hand, the term felonious means, inter alia, malicious,
[122]
villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose. With these elements taken
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
together,therequirementofintentinintentionalfelonymustrefertomaliciousintent,whichisa
vicious and malevolent state of mind accompanying a forbidden act. Stated otherwise,
intentional felony requires the existence of dolus malus that the act or omission be done
[123]
willfully,maliciously,withdeliberateevilintent,andwithmaliceaforethought. Themaxim
is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
[124]
performing the act complained of is innocent. As is required of the other elements of a
[125]
felony,theexistenceofmaliciousintentmustbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt.
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
personscometoanagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit
istobeinterpretedtoreferonlytofeloniescommittedbymeansofdoloormalice.Thephrase
comingtoanagreementconnotestheexistenceofaprefacedintenttocauseinjurytoanother,an
element present only in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or criminal negligence, the
injury inflicted on another is unintentional, the wrong done being simply the result of an act
[126]
performed without malice or criminal design. Here, a person performs an initial lawful
deedhowever,duetonegligence,imprudence,lackofforesight,orlackofskill,thedeedresults
[127]
inawrongfulact. Verily,adeliberateintenttodoanunlawfulact,whichisarequisitein
[128]
conspiracy,isinconsistentwiththeideaofafelonycommittedbymeansofculpa.
Thepresenceofaninitialmaliciousintenttocommitafelonyisthusavitalingredientin
[129]
establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide. Being mala in se, the
[130]
felony of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo immediately before or
[131]
simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill or animus interficendi cannot
[132]
and should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent.
Furthermore, the victims death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or
[133]
suicide. Ifdeathresultedfromanactexecutedwithoutmaliceorcriminalintentbutwith
lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or simple
[134]
negligenceorimprudenceresultinginhomicide.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
Hazingandotherformsofinitiationrites
[135]
The notion of hazing is not a recent development in our society. It is said that,
throughout history, hazing in some form or another has been associated with organizations
[136]
rangingfrommilitarygroupstoindigenoustribes. Somesaythatelementsofhazingcanbe
traced back to the Middle Ages, during which new students who enrolled in European
[137]
universitiesworkedasservantsforupperclassmen. Itisbelievedthattheconceptofhazing
[138]
isrootedinancientGreece, whereyoungmenrecruitedintothemilitaryweretestedwith
painorchallengedtodemonstratethelimitsoftheirloyaltyandtopreparetherecruitsforbattle.
[139]
Modern fraternities and sororities espouse some connection to these values of ancient
[140]
Greek civilization. According to a scholar, this concept lends historical legitimacy to a
traditionorritualwherebyprospectivemembersareaskedtoprovetheirworthinessandloyalty
[141]
totheorganizationinwhichtheyseektoattainmembershipthroughhazing.
Thus,itissaidthatintheGreekfraternitysystem,customrequiresastudentwishingto
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
[144]
for their fellow neophytes, the organization, and its active and alumni members. Some
chapters require the initiation activities for a recruit to involve hazing acts during the entire
[145]
neophytestage.
Hazing, as commonly understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that serves as

[146]
prerequisite for admission to an organization. In hazing, the recruit, pledge, neophyte,
initiate, applicant or any other term by which the organization may refer to such a person is
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
generallyplacedinembarrassingorhumiliatingsituations,likebeingforcedtodomenial,silly,
[147]
foolish,orothersimilartasksoractivities. Itencompassesdifferentformsofconductthat
humiliate, degrade, abuse, or physically endanger those who desire membership in the
[148] [149]
organization. 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
[150]
AssociationoftheSonsandDaughtersoftheNation). TheKatipunan,orKKK,startedasa
small confraternity believed to be inspired by European Freemasonry, as well as by
[151]
confraternities or sodalities approved by the Catholic Church. The Katipunans ideology
[152]
was brought home to each member through the societys initiation ritual. It is said that
initiates were brought to a dark room, lit by a single point of illumination, and were asked a
seriesof
[153]
questions to determine their fitness, loyalty, courage, and resolve. They were made to go
[154]
throughvigoroustrialssuchaspagsuotsaisanglunggaor[pagtalon] sa balon. It would
seem that they were also made to withstand the blow of pangherong bakal sa pisngi and to
[155]
endure a matalas na punyal. As a final step in the ritual, the neophyte Katipunero was
[156]
madetosignmembershippaperswiththehisownblood.
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
hazing in the United States was jarringly similar to that inflicted by the Aquila Fraternity on
LennyVilla.
Early in 1865, upperclassmen at West Point Academy forced the fourth classmen to do
exhaustingphysicalexercisesthatsometimesresultedinpermanentphysicaldamagetoeator
[157]
drink unpalatable foods and in various ways to humiliate themselves. In 1901, General
Douglas MacArthur got involved in a congressional investigation of hazing at the academy
[158]
duringhissecondyearatWestPoint.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
InEaslerv.HejazTempleofGreenville,decidedin1985,thecandidatevictimwasinjured
during the shriners hazing event, which was part of the initiation ceremonies for Hejaz
[159] [160]
membership. Theritualinvolvedwhatwasknownasthemattressrotatingbarreltrick.
Itrequiredeachcandidatetoslidedownaneighttoninefoothighmetalboardontoconnected
[161]
mattressesleadingtoabarrel,overwhichthecandidatewasrequiredtoclimb. Membersof
Hejazwouldstandoneachsideofthemattressesandbarrelandfunpaddlecandidatesenroute
[162]
tothebarrel.
In a video footage taken in 1991, U.S. Marine paratroopers in Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, were seen performing a ceremony in which they pinned paratrooper jump wings
[163]
directly onto the neophyte paratroopers chests. The victims were shown writhing and
cryingoutinpainasotherspoundedthespikedmedalsthroughtheshirtsandintothechestsof
[164]
thevictims.
In State v. Allen, decided in 1995, the Southeast Missouri State University chapter of
[165]
KappaAlphaPsiinvitedmalestudentstoenterintoapledgeshipprogram. The fraternity
memberssubjectedthepledgestorepeatedphysicalabuseincludingrepeated,openhandstrikes
atthenape,thechest,andthebackcaningofthebaresolesofthefeetandbuttocksblowsto
thebackwiththeuseofaheavybookandacookiesheetwhilethepledgeswereontheirhands
and knees various kicks and punches to the body and body slamming, an activity in which
active members of the fraternity lifted pledges up in the air and dropped them to the ground.
[166]
The fraternity members then put the pledges through a sevenstation circle of physical
[167]
abuse.
InExParteBarran,decidedin1998,thepledgevictimwentthroughhazingbyfraternity
[168]
members of the Kappa Alpha Order at the Auburn University in Alabama. The hazing
included the following: (1) having to dig a ditch and jump into it after it had been filled with
water, 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, hot sauce, butter, and yerks (a mixture of hot sauce, mayonnaise, butter, beans, and
otheritems)(5)doingchoresforthefraternityanditsmembers,suchascleaningthefraternity
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
house and yard, being designated as driver, and running errands (6) appearing regularly at 2
a.m.meetings,duringwhichthepledgeswouldbehazedforacoupleofhoursand(7)running
thegauntlet,duringwhichthepledgeswerepushed,kicked,andhitastheyrandownahallway
[169]
anddescendeddownaflightofstairs.
InLloydv.AlphaPhiAlphaFraternity,decidedin1999,thevictimSylvesterLloydwas
[170]
acceptedtopledgeattheCornellUniversitychapteroftheAlphaPhiAlphaFraternity. He
participated in initiation activities, which included various forms of physical beatings and
[171]
torture,psychologicalcoercionandembarrassment.
In Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, decided in 2002, the initiatevictim suffered
[172]
injuries from hazing activities during the fraternitys initiation rites. Kenner and the other
initiates went through psychological and physical hazing, including being paddled on the
[173]
buttocksformorethan200times.
InMortonv.State,MarcusJonesauniversitystudentinFloridasoughtinitiationintothe
[174]
campuschapteroftheKappaAlphaPsiFraternityduringthe200506academicyear. The
pledgeseffortstojointhefraternityculminatedinaseriesofinitiationritualsconductedinfour
nights.Jones,togetherwithothercandidates,wasblindfolded,verballyharassed,andcanedon
[175]
his face and buttocks. In these rituals described as preliminaries, which lasted for two
[176]
evenings,hereceivedapproximately60caningsonhisbuttocks. Duringthelasttwodays
[177]
ofthehazing,theritualsintensified. Thepledgessustainedroughly210canestrikesduring
[178] [179]
thefournightinitiation. Jonesandseveralothercandidatespassedout.
Thepurportedraisondtrebehindhazingpracticesistheproverbialbirthbyfire,through
[180]
whichthepledgewhohassuccessfullywithstoodthehazingproveshisorherworth. Some
organizations even believe that hazing is the path to enlightenment. It is said that this process
enablestheorganizationtoestablishunityamongthepledgesand,hence,reinforcesandensures
[181]
thefutureoftheorganization. Allegedbenefitsofjoiningincludeleadershipopportunities
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
improvedacademicperformancehigherselfesteemprofessionalnetworkingopportunitiesand
[182]
theespritdcorpassociatedwithclose,almostfilial,friendshipandcommoncause.
AntiHazinglawsintheU.S.
ThefirsthazingstatuteintheU.S.appearedin1874inresponsetohazinginthemilitary.
[183]
The hazing of recruits and plebes in the armed services was so prevalent that Congress
[184]
prohibitedallformsofmilitaryhazing,harmfulornot. Itwasnotuntil1901thatIllinois
passedthefirststateantihazinglaw,criminalizingconductwherebyanyonesustainsaninjury
[185]
tohis[orher]persontherefrom.
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
[186]
increasinglybegantoenactlegislationprohibitingand/orcriminalizinghazing. Asof2008,
[187]
allbutsixstateshadenactedcriminalorcivilstatutesproscribinghazing. Mostantihazing
lawsintheU.S.treathazingasamisdemeanorandcarryrelativelylightconsequencesforeven
[188]
the most severe situations. Only a few states with antihazing laws consider hazing as a
[189]
felonyincasedeathorgreatbodilyharmoccurs.
UnderthelawsofIllinois,hazingisaClassAmisdemeanor,excepthazingthatresultsin
[190]
death or great bodily harm, which is a Class 4 felony. In a Class 4 felony, a sentence of
[191]
imprisonmentshallbeforatermofnotlessthanoneyearandnotmorethanthreeyears.
Indianacriminallawprovidesthatapersonwhorecklessly,knowingly,orintentionally
performshazingthatresultsinseriousbodilyinjurytoapersoncommitscriminalrecklessness,a
[192]
ClassDfelony.
[193]
TheoffensebecomesaClassCfelonyifcommittedbymeansofadeadlyweapon.
AsanelementofaClassCfelonycriminalrecklessnessresultinginseriousbodilyinjury,death
[194]
fallsunderthecategoryofseriousbodilyinjury. ApersonwhocommitsaClassCfelonyis
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
imprisonedforafixedtermofbetweentwo(2)andeight(8)years,withtheadvisorysentence
[195]
beingfour(4)years. PursuanttoMissourilaw,hazingisaClassAmisdemeanor,unlessthe
act creates a substantial risk to the life of the student or prospective member, in which case it
[196]
becomes a Class C felony. A Class C felony provides for an imprisonment term not to
[197]
exceedsevenyears.
[198]
InTexas,hazingthatcausesthedeathofanotherisastatejailfelony. Anindividual
adjudgedguiltyofastatejailfelonyispunishedbyconfinementinastatejailforanytermofnot
[199]
morethantwoyearsornotlessthan180days. UnderUtahlaw,ifhazingresultsinserious
[200]
bodilyinjury,thehazerisguiltyofathirddegreefelony. Apersonwhohasbeenconvicted
ofathirddegreefelonymaybesentencedtoimprisonmentforatermnottoexceedfiveyears.
[201]
WestVirginialawprovidesthatiftheactofhazingwouldotherwisebedeemedafelony,
[202]
the hazer may be found guilty thereof and subject to penalties provided therefor. In
[203]
Wisconsin,apersonisguiltyofaClassGfelonyifhazingresultsinthedeathofanother. A
ClassGfelonycarriesafinenottoexceed$25,000orimprisonmentnottoexceed10years,or
[204]
both.
In certain states in the U.S., victims of hazing were left with limited remedies, as there
[205]
was no hazing statute. This situation was exemplified in Ballou v. Sigma Nu General
Fraternity, wherein Barry Ballous family resorted to a civil action for wrongful death, since
[206]
therewasnoantihazingstatuteinSouthCarolinauntil1994.
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
automaticallyamounttotheabsenceofmaliciousintentordolusmalus.Ifitisprovenbeyond
reasonabledoubtthattheperpetratorswereequippedwithaguiltymindwhetherornotthereisa
contextualbackgroundorfactualpremisetheyarestillcriminallyliableforintentionalfelony.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
that the two accused had the animus interficendi or intent to kill Lenny Villa, not merely to
inflictphysicalinjuriesonhim.ItjustifieditsfindingofhomicideagainstDizonbyholdingthat
hehadapparentlybeenmotivatedbyillwillwhilebeatingupVilla.Dizonkeptrepeatingthathis
[207]
fathersparkingspacehadbeenstolenbythevictimsfather. AstoVillareal,thecourtsaid
thattheaccusedsuspectedthefamilyofBienvenidoMarquez,oneoftheneophytes,tohavehad
[208]
ahandinthedeathofVillarealsbrother. TheCAthenruledasfollows:
ThetwohadtheirownaxestogrindagainstVillaandMarquez. It was very clear that they

actedwithevilandcriminalintent.Theevidenceonthismatterisunrebuttedandsoforthedeath
ofVilla,appellantsDizonandVillarealmustandshouldfacetheconsequenceoftheiracts,
[209]
thatis,tobeheldliableforthecrimeofhomicide. (Emphasissupplied)

Wecannotsubscribetothisconclusion.
TheappellatecourtreliedmainlyonthetestimonyofBienvenidoMarqueztodetermine
theexistenceofanimusinterficendi.Forafullappreciationofthecontextinwhichthesupposed
utterancesweremade,theCourtdeemsitnecessarytoreproducetherelevantportionsofwitness
Marquezstestimony:
Witness We were brought up into [Michael Musngis] room and we were briefed as to what to
expect during the next three days and we were told the members of the
fraternityandtheirbatchandwewerealsotoldaboutthefraternitysong,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

WitnessWewereescortedoutof[MichaelMusngis]houseandweweremadetorideavanand
wewerebroughttoanotherplaceinKalookanCitywhichIlaterfoundtobe
theplaceofMarianoAlmeda,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

WitnessUponarrival,wewereinstructedtobowourheaddownandtolinkourarmsandthenthe
driverofthevanandothermembersoftheAquilanswhowereinsideleftus
insidethevan,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
WitnessWeheardvoicesshoutedoutsidethevantotheeffect,Villaakinka,AsuncionPatay
kaandthepeopleoutsidepoundthevan,rockthevan,sir.

Atty.TadiarWillyoupleaserecall in what tone of voice and how strong a voice these remarks
uttereduponyourarrival?

WitnessSomewerealmostshouting,youcouldfeelthesenseofexcitementintheirvoices,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Atty.TadiarDuringallthesetimesthatthevanwasbeingrockedthroughandthrough,whatwere
thevoicesorutterancesthatyouheard?

WitnessVillaakinka,Asuncionpatayka,Recintopataykasaamin,etc.,sir.

Atty.TadiarAndthoseutterancesandthreats,howlongdidtheycontinueduringtherockingof
thevanwhichlastedfor5minutes?

xxxxxxxxx

WitnessEvenaftertheyrockedthevan,westillkeptonhearingvoices,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Atty.TadiarDuringthetimethatthisrounds[ofphysicalbeating]werebeinginflicted,wasthere
anyutterancesbyanybody?

WitnessYes 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,kayang
kayapaniyan.

Atty.TadiarDoyouknowwhoinparticularutteredthoseparticularwordsthatyouquote?

WitnessIcannotparticularlypointtobecausetherewereutterancessimultaneously,Icouldnot
reallypinpointwhoutteredthosewords,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,hewouldsay
thatandIquoteito,yungpamilyanitoaypinapatayyungkapatidko,so
thatwouldinturnsortofjustifyinghimininflictingmoreseriouspainonme.
Soinsteadofjustwalking,hewouldjumponmythighsandthenafteronwas
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
LennyVilla.Hewassayingtotheeffectthatthisguy,hisfatherstolethe
parkingspaceofmyfather,sir.So,thatswhyheinflictedmorepainonVilla
andthatwenton,sir.

Atty.TadiarAndyouwerereferringtowhichparticularaccused?

WitnessBoyetDizon,sir.

Atty.TadiarWhen Boyet Dizon at that particular time was accusing you of having your family
havehisbrotherkilled,whatwasyourresponse?

WitnessOfcourse,Iknewsirthatitwasnottrueandthathewasjustmakingitupsir.Sohe
said that I knew nothing of that incident. However, he just in fact after the
BicolExpress,hekeptonutteringthosewords/statementssothatitwouldin
turnjustifyhimandtogivemeharderblows,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Atty.TadiarYou mentioned about Dizon in particular mentioning that Lenny Villas father
stole the parking space allotted for his father, do you recall who were
withinhearingdistancewhenthatutterancewasmade?

WitnessYes,sir.Alloftheneophytesheardthatutterance,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

WitnessThereweredifferenttimesmadethisaccusationsothereweredifferentpeoplewhoheard
fromtimetotime,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Atty.TadiarCanyoutelltheHonorableCourtwhenwasthenextaccusationagainstLennyVillas
fatherwasmade?

WitnessWhenwewerelineupagainstthewall,BoyetDizoncameneartousandwhenLenny
Villasturn,Iheardhimutteredthosestatements,sir.

Atty.TadiarWhathappenedafterhemadethisaccusationtoLennyVillasfather?

WitnessHecontinuedtoinflictblowsonLennyVilla.

Atty.TadiarHowwerethoseblowsinflicted?

WitnessTherewereslapsandhekneltonLennyVillasthighsandsometimehestandupandhe
kickedhisthighsandsometimesjumpedatit,sir.

xxxxxxxxx

Atty. Tadiar We would go on to the second day but not right now. You mentioned also that
accusationsmadebyDizonyouoryourfamilyhadhisbrotherkilled,can
you inform this Honorable Court what exactly were the accusations that
werechargedagainstyouwhileinflictingblowsuponyouinparticular?

2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
WitnessWhilehewasinflictingblowsuponme,hetoldmeinparticularifIknewthathisfamily
who had his brother killed, and he said that his brother was an NPA, sir so I
knew that it was just a story that he made up and I said that I knew
nothingaboutitandhecontinuedinflictingblowsonme,sir.Andanother
incident was when a talk was being given, Dizon was on another part of the
pelotacourtandIwassortoflookingandwesawthathewasdrinkingbeer,
and he said and I quote: Marquez, Marquez, ano ang tinitingintingin mo
diyan,ikawyungpamilyamoangnagpapataysaakingkapatid,yarikasa
akin,sir.

Atty.TadiarWhatelse?

WitnessThatsall,sir.

Atty.TadiarAnd on that first night of February 8, 1991, did ever a doctor or a physician came
aroundaspromisedtoyouearlier?

[210]
WitnessNo,sir. (Emphasissupplied)
Oncrossexamination,witnessBienvenidoMarqueztestifiedthus:
JudgePurisimaWhenyoutestifiedondirectexaminationMr.Marquez,haveyoustatedthatthere
wasabriefingthatwasconductedimmediatelybeforeyourinitiationasregards
towhattoexpectduringtheinitiation,didIhearyouright?

WitnessYes,sir.

JudgePurisimaWhodidthebriefing?

WitnessMr.MichaelMusngi,sirandNelsonVictorino.

JudgePurisimaWillyoukindlytelltheHonorableCourtwhattheytoldyoutoexpectduringthe
initiation?

WitnessTheytoldusatthetimewewouldbebroughttoaparticularplace,wewouldbemocked
at,sir.

JudgePurisimaSo,youexpectedtobemockedat,ridiculed,humiliatedetc.,andthelikes?

WitnessYes,sir.

JudgePurisimaYouwerealsotoldbeforehandthattherewouldbephysicalcontact?

WitnessYes,siratthebriefing.

xxxxxxxxx

Witness Yes, sir, because they informed that we could immediately go back to school. All the
bruiseswouldbelimitedtoourarmsandlegs,sir.So,ifweweartheregular
schooluniformslikelongsleeves,itwouldbecoveredactuallysowehaveno
thinkingthatourfacewouldbeslapped,sir.

2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
JudgePurisimaSo,youmeantosaythatbeforehandthatyouwouldhavebruisesonyourbody
butthatwillbecovered?

WitnessYes,sir.

JudgePurisimaSo,whatkindofphysicalcontactorimplementsthatyouexpectthatwouldcreate
bruisestoyourbody?

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. Jimenez The initiation that was conducted did not consist only of physical initiation,
meaningbodycontact,isthatcorrect?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezPartoftheinitiationwasthesocalledpsychologicalinitiation,correct?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezAnd this consisted of making you believe of things calculated to terrify you,
scareyou,correct?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezInotherwords,theinitiatingmastersmadebeliefsituationintendedto,Irepeat,
terrifyyou,frightenyou,scareyouintoperhapsquittingtheinitiation,is
thiscorrect?

WitnessSometimessir,yes.

Atty. Jimenez You said on direct that while Mr. Dizon was initiating you, he said or he was
supposedtohavesaidaccordingtoyouthatyourfamilywereresponsiblefor
thekillingofhisbrotherwhowasanNPA,doyouremembersayingthat?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezYoualsosaidinconnectionwiththatstatementsaidtoyoubyDizonthatyoudid
notbelievehimbecausethatisnottrue,correct?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezInotherwords,hewasonlypsychologizingyouperhaps,thepurposeasIhave
mentioned before, terrifying you, scaring you or frightening you into
quittingtheinitiation,thisiscorrect?
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258

Witness No, sir, perhaps it is one but the main reason, I think, why he was saying those
thingswasbecausehewantedtoinflictinjury.

Atty.JimenezHedidnottellthattoyou.Thatisyouronlyperception,correct?

WitnessNo,sir,becauseatonepoint,whilehewastellingthistoVillareal,hewashittingme.

Atty.JimenezButdidyounotsayearlierthatyou[were]subjectedtothesameformsofinitiation
byalltheinitiatingmasters?Yousaidthatearlier,right?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty. Jimenez Are you saying also that the others who jumped on you or kicked you said
somethingsimilaraswastoldtoyoubyMr.Dizon?

WitnessNo,sir.

Atty.JimenezButthefactremainsthatintheBicolExpressforinstance,themasterswouldrun
onyourthighs,right?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty.JimenezThiswastheregularprocedurethatwasfollowedbytheinitiatingmastersnotonly
onyoubutalsoontheotherneophytes?

WitnessYes,sir.

Atty. Jimenez In other words, it is fair to say that whatever forms of initiation was
administered by one master, was also administered by one master on a
neophyte,wasalsoadministeredbyanothermasterontheotherneophyte,
thisiscorrect?

[212]
WitnessYes,sir. (Emphasissupplied)
AccordingtotheSolicitorGeneralhimself,theillmotivesattributedbytheCAtoDizon
[213]
and Villareal were baseless, since the statements of the accused were just part of the
psychologicalinitiationcalculatedtoinstillfearonthepartoftheneophytesthat[t]hereisno
element of truth in it as testified by Bienvenido Marquez and that the harsh words uttered by
PetitionerandVillarealarepartoftraditionconcurredandacceptedbyallthefraternitymembers
[214]
duringtheirinitiationrites.
WeagreewiththeSolicitorGeneral.
The foregoing testimony of witness Marquez reveals a glaring mistake of substantial

proportiononthepartoftheCAitmistooktheutterancesofDizonforthoseofVillareal.Such
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
inaccuracycannotbetolerated,especiallybecauseitwastheCAsprimarybasisforfindingthat
Villarreal had the intent to kill Lenny Villa, thereby making Villareal guilty of the intentional
felony of homicide. To repeat, according to Bienvenido Marquezs testimony, as reproduced
above,itwasDizonwhoutteredbothaccusationsagainstVillaandMarquezVillarealhadno
participationwhatsoeverinthespecificthreatsreferredtobytheCA.ItwasBoyetDizon[who]
stepped on [Marquezs] thigh and who told witness Marquez, [I]to, yung pamilya nito ay
pinapatayyungkapatidko.ItwasalsoDizonwhojumpedonVillasthighswhilesaying,[T]his
guy,hisfatherstoletheparkingspaceofmyfather.Withthetestimonyclarified,wefindthatthe
CAhadnobasisforconcludingtheexistenceofintenttokillbasedsolelythereon.
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,
Yarika,Recinto,Villa,akinka,Asuncion,gulpika,Putanginamo,Asuncion,Putanginanyo,
[215]
pataykayosaamin,orsomeotherwordstothateffect. Whilebeatingtheneophytes,Dizon
accused Marquez of the death of the formers purported NPA brother, and then blamed Lenny
VillasfatherforstealingtheparkingspaceofDizonsfather.AccordingtotheSolicitorGeneral,
these statements, including those of the accused Dizon, were all part of the psychological
[216]
initiationemployedbytheAquilaFraternity.
Thus,toourunderstanding,accusedDizonswayofinflictingpsychologicalpressurewas
throughhurlingmakebelieveaccusationsattheinitiates.Heconcoctedthefictitiousstories,so
thathecouldjustifygivingtheneophytesharderblows,allinthecontextoffraternityinitiation
androleplaying.Evenoneoftheneophytesadmittedthattheaccusationswereuntrueandmade
up.
Theinflictionofpsychologicalpressureisnotunusualintheconductofhazing.Infact,
during the Senate deliberations on the then proposed AntiHazing Law, former Senator Lina
spokeasfollows:
SenatorLina.soastocapturetheintentthatweconveyedduringtheperiodofinterpellations
onwhyweincludedthephraseorpsychologicalpainandsuffering.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
xxxxxxxxx
Sothatifnodirectphysicalharmisinflictedupontheneophyteortherecruitbuttherecruitor
neophyteismadetoundergocertainactswhichIalreadydescribedyesterday,likeplayingthe
Russian roulette extensively to test the readiness and the willingness of the neophyte or
recruit to continue his desire to be a member of the fraternity, sorority or similar
organizationorplayingandputtinganooseontheneckoftheneophyteorrecruit,makingthe
recruit or neophyte stand on the ledge of the fourth floor of the building facing outside, asking
himtojumpoutsideaftermakinghimturnaroundseveraltimesbuttherealityisthathewillbe
madetojumptowardstheinsideportionofthebuildingthese are the mentalorpsychological
teststhatareresorted to by these organizations, sororities or fraternities. The doctors who
appearedduringthepublichearingtestifiedthatsuchactscanresultinsomementalaberration,
[217]
thattheycanevenleadtopsychosis,neurosisorinsanity.Thisiswhatwewanttoprevent.
(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,withoutproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,Dizonsbehaviormustnotbeautomatically
viewed as evidence of a genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny Villa. Rather, it must be taken
withinthecontextofthefraternityspsychologicalinitiation.ThisCourtpointsoutthatitwasnot
even established whether the fathers of Dizon and Villa really had any familiarity with each
other as would lend credence to the veracity of Dizons threats. The testimony of Lennys co
neophyte,Marquez,onlyconfirmedthisview.AccordingtoMarquez,heknewitwasnottrue
[218]
and that [Dizon] was just making it up. Even the trial court did not give weight to the
utterancesofDizonasconstitutingintenttokill:[T]hecumulativeactsofalltheaccusedwere
not directed toward killing Villa, but merely to inflict physical harm as part of the fraternity
[219]
initiationritesxxx. TheSolicitorGeneralsharesthesameview.
Verily,wecannotsustaintheCAinfindingtheaccusedDizonguiltyofhomicideunder
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence of intent to kill. Animus
interficendicannotandshouldnotbeinferredunlessthereisproofbeyondreasonabledoubtof
[220]
such intent. Instead, we adopt and reinstate the finding of the trial court in part,
insofarasitruledthatnoneofthefraternitymembershadthespecificintenttokillLenny
[221]
Villa.
The existence of animus iniuriandi or malicious intent to

injurenotprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt
TheSolicitorGeneralargues,instead,thattherewasanintenttoinflictphysicalinjuries
on Lenny Villa. Echoing the Decision of the trial court, the Solicitor General then posits that
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
sincealloftheaccusedfraternitymembersconspiredtoinflictphysicalinjuriesonLennyVilla
anddeathensued,allofthemshouldbeliableforthecrimeofhomicidepursuanttoArticle4(1)
oftheRevisedPenalCode.
InordertobefoundguiltyofanyofthefeloniousactsunderArticles262to266ofthe
[222]
Revised Penal Code, 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
satisfies the elements of freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of
[223]
theactdoesnot,initself,makeamanguiltyunlesshisintentionsare.
[224]
Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances that the mere infliction of physical
injuries,absentmaliciousintent,doesnotmakeapersonautomaticallyliableforanintentional
[225]
felony.InBagajov.People, 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.
[226]
Carmen, the accused members of the religious group known as the Missionaries of Our
Lady of Fatima under the guise of a ritual or treatment plunged the head of the victim into a
barrelofwater,bangedhisheadagainstabench,poundedhischestwithfists,andstabbedhim
onthesidewithakitchenknife,inordertocurehimofnervousbreakdownbyexpellingthrough
thosemeansthebadspiritspossessinghim.Thecollectiveactsofthegroupcausedthedeathof
thevictim.Sincemaliciousintentwasnotproven,wereversedthetrialcourtsfindingofliability
formurderunderArticle4oftheRevisedPenalCodeandinsteadruledthattheaccusedshould
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
be held criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365
thereof.
Indeed, the threshold question is whether the accuseds initial acts of inflicting physical
pain on the neophytes were attended by animus iniuriandi amounting to a felonious act
punishableundertheRevisedPenalCode,therebymakingitsubjecttoArticle4(1)thereof.In
People v. Regato, we ruled that malicious intent must be judged by the action, conduct, and
[227] [228]
externalactsoftheaccused. Whatpersonsdoisthebestindexoftheirintention. We
havealsoruledthatthemethodemployed,thekindofweaponused,andthepartsofthebodyon
[229]
which the injury was inflicted may be determinative of the intent of the perpetrator. The
CourtshallthusexaminethewholecontextualbackgroundsurroundingthedeathofLennyVilla.
LennydiedduringAquilasfraternityinitiationrites.Thenightbeforethecommencement
of 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
initiation rituals. When the rituals were officially reopened on the insistence of Dizon and
Villareal,theneophytesweresubjectedtoanothertraditionalritualpaddlingbythefraternity.
During the whole initiation rites, auxiliaries were assigned to the neophytes. The
auxiliaries protected the neophytes by functioning as human barriers and shielding them from
[230]
thosewhoweredesignatedtoinflictphysicalandpsychologicalpainontheinitiates. Itwas
theirregulardutytostopfoulorexcessivephysicalblowstohelptheneophytestopumptheir
legs in order that their blood would circulate to facilitate a rest interval after every physical
activityorroundtoservefoodandwatertotelljokestocoachtheinitiatesandtogivethem
whatevertheyneeded.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[231]
TheseritualswereperformedwithLennysconsent. Afewdaysbeforetherites,he
[232]
asked both his parents for permission to join the Aquila Fraternity. His father knew that
[233]
Lennywouldgothroughaninitiationprocessandwouldbegoneforthreedays. TheCA
foundasfollows:
It is worth pointing out that the neophytes willingly and voluntarily consented to undergo
physicalinitiationandhazing.As can be gleaned from the narration of facts, they voluntarily
agreedtojointheinitiationritestobecomemembersoftheAquilaLegisFraternity.Priortothe
initiation,theyweregivenbriefingsonwhattoexpect.Itisofcommonknowledgethatbefore
admission in a fraternity, the neophytes will undergo a rite of passage. Thus, they were made
aware that traditional methods such as mocking, psychological tests and physical
punishment would take place. They knew that the initiation would involve beatings and
otherformsofhazing.Theywerealsotoldoftheirrightandopportunitytoquitatanytime
theywantedto.Infact,prosecutionwitnessNaveratestifiedthataccusedTecsontoldhimthat
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, that a wooden
paddlewouldbeusedtohitthemandthatheexpectedbruisesonhisarmsandlegs.Indeed,
[234]
therecanbenofraternityinitiationwithoutconsentingneophytes. (Emphasissupplied)
Even after going through Aquilas grueling traditional rituals during the first day, Lenny
continuedhisparticipationandfinishedtheseconddayofinitiation.
Basedontheforegoingcontextualbackground,andabsentfurtherproofshowingclearmalicious
intent,weareconstrainedtorulethatthespecificanimusiniuriandiwasnotpresentinthiscase.
Evenifthespecificactsofpunching,kicking,paddling,andothermodesofinflictingphysical
pain were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence, thereby satisfying the elements of
freedom and intelligence in the felony of physical injuries, the fundamental ingredient of
criminal intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, all that was proven
wasthattheactsweredonepursuanttotradition.Althoughtheadditionalroundsonthesecond
night were held upon the insistence of Villareal and Dizon, the initiations were officially
reopenedwiththeconsentoftheheadoftheinitiationritesandtheaccusedfraternitymembers
still participated in the rituals, including the paddling, which were performed pursuant to
tradition. Other than the 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 neophytes during the initiation rites, further belied the
presenceofmaliciousintent.Allthosewhowishedtojointhefraternitywentthroughthesame
process of traditional initiation there is no proof that Lenny Villa was specifically targeted or
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
given a different treatment. We stress that Congress itself recognized that hazing is uniquely
[235]
differentfromcommoncrimes. The totality of the circumstances must therefore be taken
intoconsideration.
Theunderlyingcontextandmotiveinwhichtheinflictionofphysicalinjurieswasrooted
may also be determined by Lennys continued participation in the initiation and consent to the
methodusedevenafterthefirstday.Thefollowingdiscussionoftheframersofthe1995Anti
HazingLawisenlightening:
SENATOR GUINGONA. Most of these acts, if not all, are already punished under the
RevisedPenalCode.

SENATORLINA.Thatiscorrect,Mr.President.

SENATORGUINGONA. If hazing is done at present and it results in death, the charge
wouldbemurderorhomicide.


SENATORGUINGONA. If it does not result in death, it may be frustrated homicide or
seriousphysicalinjuries.


SENATORGUINGONA. Or, if the person who commits sexual abuse does so it can be
penalizedunderrapeoractsoflasciviousness.


SENATORGUINGONA. So, what is the rationale for making a new offense under this
definitionofthecrimeofhazing?

SENATORLINA.Todiscouragepersonsorgroupofpersonseithercomposingasorority,
fraternityoranyassociationfrommakingthisrequirementofinitiationthathasalreadyresultedin
thesespecificactsorresults,Mr.President.

Thatisthemainrationale.Wewanttosendastrongsignalacrossthelandthatnogroupor
association can require the act of physical initiation before a person can become a member
withoutbeingheldcriminallyliable.

xxxxxxxxx

SENATOR GUINGONA. Yes, but what would be the rationale for that imposition?
BecausethedistinguishedSponsorhassaidthatheisnotpunishingamereorganization,heisnot
seekingthepunishmentofaninitiationintoaclubororganization,heisseekingthepunishment
of certain acts that resulted in death, et cetera as a result of hazing which are already covered
crimes.

The penalty is increased in one, because we would like to discourage hazing, abusive
hazing,butitmaybealegitimatedefenseforinvokingtwoormorechargesoroffenses,because
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
theseverysameactsarealreadypunishableundertheRevisedPenalCode.

Thatismydifficulty,Mr.President.

SENATORLINA.xxx

Anotherpoint,Mr.President,isthis,andthisisaverytellingdifference:Whenaperson
orgroupofpersonsresorttohazingasarequirementforgainingentryintoanorganization,
theintenttocommitawrongisnotvisibleorisnotpresent,Mr.President.Whereas,inthese
specific crimes, Mr. President, let us say there is death or there is homicide, mutilation, if one
files a case, then the intention to commit a wrong has to be proven. But if the crime of
hazingisthebasis,whatisimportantistheresultfromtheactofhazing.

Tome,thatisthebasicdifferenceandthatiswhatwillpreventordeterthesororitiesor
fraternities that they should really shun this activity called hazing. Because, initially, these
fraternities or sororities do not even consider having a neophyte killed or maimed or that
actsoflasciviousnessareevencommittedinitially,Mr.President.

So,whatwewanttodiscourageisthesocalledinitialinnocentact.Thatiswhythereis
needtoinstitutethiskindofhazing.Ganiyanpoangnangyari.Angfraternityoangsororityay
magrerecruit.Walatalagasilangintensiyongmakamatay.Hindikonababanggitinatbuhaypa
iyong kaso. Pero dito sa anim o pito na namatay nitong nakaraang taon, walang intensiyong
patayintalagaiyongneophyte.So,kungmaghihintaypatayo,nasakalamangnatinisasakdalng
murderkungnamatayna,ayafterthefacthoiyon.Pero,kungsasabihinnatinsamgakabataanna:
Huwag ninyong gagawin iyong hazing. Iyan ay kasalanan at kung mamatay diyan, mataas ang
penaltysainyo.

xxxxxxxxx

SENATOR GUINGONA. I join the lofty motives, Mr. President, of the distinguished
Sponsor. But I am again disturbed by his statement that the prosecution does not have to
provetheintentthatresulted in the death, thatresulted in the serious physical injuries, that
resulted in the acts of lasciviousness or deranged mind. We do not have to prove the willful
intentoftheaccusedinprovingorestablishingthecrimeofhazing.Thisseems,tome,anovel
situationwherewecreatethespecialcrimewithouthavingtogointotheintent,whichisone
ofthebasicelementsofanycrime.

Ifthereisnointent,thereisnocrime.Iftheintentweremerelytoinitiate,thenthere
isnooffense.AndeventhedistinguishedSponsoradmitsthattheorganization,theintentto
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.

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
conducthazing,noonewilladmitthattheirintentionistomaimortokill.So,wearealready
criminalizingthefactofinflictingphysicalpain.Mr.President,itisacriminalactandwewantit
stopped,deterred,discouraged.

Ifthatoccurs,underthislaw,thereisnonecessitytoprovethatthemastersintendedtokill
orthemastersintendedtomaim.Whatisimportantistheresultoftheactofhazing.Otherwise,
themastersorthosewhoinflictthephysicalpaincaneasilyescaperesponsibilityandsay,
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
Wedidnothavetheintentiontokill.Thisispartofourinitiationrites.Thisisnormal.We
donothaveanyintentiontokillormaim.

Thisisthelusot,Mr.President.Theymightaswellhavebeenchargedthereforewith
the ordinary crime of homicide, mutilation, et cetera, where the prosecution will have a
difficultyprovingtheelementsiftheyareseparateoffenses.

xxxxxxxxx

SENATORGUINGONA.Mr.President,assumingtherewasagroupthatinitiatedanda
persondied.Thechargeismurder.Myquestionis:Underthisbillifitbecomesalaw,wouldthe
prosecutionhavetoproveconspiracyornotanymore?

SENATORLINA.Mr.President,ifthepersonispresentduringhazingxxx

SENATOR GUINGONA. The persons are present. First, would the prosecution have to
proveconspiracy?Second,wouldtheprosecutionhavetoproveintenttokillornot?

SENATORLINA.Nomore.Astothesecondquestion,Mr.President,ifthatoccurs,there
isnoneedtoproveintenttokill.

SENATORGUINGONA.Butthechargeismurder.

SENATORLINA.ThatiswhyIsaidthatitshouldnotbemurder.Itshouldbehazing,Mr.
[236]
President. (Emphasissupplied)

DuringadiscussionbetweenSenatorBiazonandSenatorLinaontheissueofwhetherto
include sodomy as a punishable act under the AntiHazing Law, Senator Lina further clarified
thus:
SENATORBIAZON.Mr.President,thisRepresentationhasnoobjectiontotheinclusion
ofsodomyasoneoftheconditionsresultingfromhazingasnecessarytobepunished.However,
theactofsodomycanbecommittedbytwopersonswithorwithoutconsent.
Tomakeitclearer,whatisbeingpunishedhereisthecommissionofsodomyforcedinto
anotherindividualbyanotherindividual.Imove,Mr.President,thatsodomybemodifiedbythe
phrasewithoutconsentforpurposesofthissection.

SENATORLINA.Iamafraid,Mr.President,thatifwequalifysodomywiththeconcept
thatitisonlygoingtoaggravatethecrimeofhazingifitisdonewithoutconsentwillchangealot
of concepts here. Because the results from hazing aggravate the offense with or without
consent. In fact, when a person joins a fraternity, sorority, or any association for that
matter,itcanbewithorwithouttheconsentoftheintendedvictim.Thefactthataperson
joinsasororityorfraternitywithhisconsentdoesnotnegatethecrimeofhazing.

This is a proposed law intended to protect the citizens from the malpractices that attend
initiationwhichmayhavebeenannouncedwithorwithoutphysicalinflictionofpainorinjury,
Mr. President. Regardless of whether there is announcement that there will be physical
hazing or whether there is none, and therefore, the neophyte is duped into joining a
fraternityisofnomoment.Whatisimportantisthatthereisaninflictionofphysicalpain.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258

Thebottomlineofthislawisthatacitizenevenhastobeprotectedfromhimselfifhe
joinsafraternity,sothatatacertainpointintime,theState,theindividual,ortheparentsof
the victim can run after the perpetrators of the crime,regardless of whether or not there
wasconsentonthepartofthevictim.
xxxxxxxxx
SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, I understand the position taken by the distinguished
GentlemanfromCaviteandMetroManila.Itiscorrectthatsocietysometimesadoptsnewmores,
traditions,andpractices.

Inthisbill,wearenotgoingtoencroachintotheprivateproclivitiesofsomeindividuals
whentheydotheiractsinprivateaswedonottakeapeekintotheprivateroomsofcouples.They
can do their thing if they want to make love in ways that are not considered acceptable by the
mainstreamofsociety.ThatisnotsomethingthattheStateshouldprohibit.

But sodomy in this case is connected with hazing, Mr. President. Such that the act may
even be entered into with consent. It is not only sodomy. The infliction of pain may be done
withtheconsentoftheneophyte.Ifthelawispassed,thatdoesnotmaketheactofhazingnot
punishablebecausetheneophyteacceptedtheinflictionofpainuponhimself.

If the victim suffers from serious physical injuries, but the initiator said, Well, he
allowedituponhimself.Heconsentedtoit.So,ifweallowthatreasoningthatsodomywas
donewiththeconsentofthevictim,thenwewouldnothavepassedanylawatall.Therewill
be no significance if we pass this bill, because it will always be a defense that the victim
allowedtheinflictionofpainorsuffering.Heaccepteditaspartoftheinitiationrites.

Butprecisely,Mr.Presidentthatisonethingthatwewouldwanttoprohibit.Thatthe
defense of consent will not apply because the very act of inflicting physical pain or
psychologicalsufferingis,byitself,apunishableact.Theresultoftheactofhazing,likedeath
orphysicalinjuriesmerelyaggravatestheactwithhigherpenalties.Butthedefenseofconsentis
notgoingtonullifythecriminalnatureoftheact.

So, if we accept the amendment that sodomy can only aggravate the offense if it is
committed without consent of the victim, then the whole foundation of this proposed law
willcollapse.

SENATORBIAZON.Thankyou,Mr.President.

SENATORLINA.Thankyouverymuch.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the committee amendment? (Silence.) The
[237]
Chairhearsnonethesameisapproved.
(Emphasissupplied)

Realizingtheimplicationofremovingthestatesburdentoproveintent,SenatorLina,the
principalauthoroftheSenateBill,said:
IamveryhappythatthedistinguishedMinorityLeaderbroughtouttheideaofintentor
whetherthereitismalainseormalaprohibita.Therecanbearadicalamendmentifthatisthe
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
pointthathewantstogoto.

If we agree on the concept, then, maybe, we can just make this a special law on
hazing. We will not include this anymore under the Revised Penal Code. That is a
[238]
possibility.Iwillnotforeclosethatsuggestion,Mr.President. (Emphasissupplied)
Thus, having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and the core
principleofmalainseadheredtoundertheRevisedPenalCode,Congressdidnotsimplyenact
anamendmentthereto.Instead,itcreatedaspeciallawonhazing,foundedupontheprincipleof
mala prohibita. This dilemma faced by Congress is further proof of how the nature of hazing
uniqueasagainsttypicalcrimescastacloudofdoubtonwhethersocietyconsideredtheactasan
inherently wrong conduct or mala in se at the time. It is safe to presume that Lennys parents
[239]
would not have consented to his participation inAquila Fraternitys initiation rites if the
practiceofhazingwereconsideredbythemasmalainse.
Furthermore,inVedaav.Valencia(1998),wenotedthroughAssociateJustice(nowretired
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
[240]
harmlessbycustom,ascriminal. Althoughitmayberegardedasasimpleobiterdictum,
thestatementnonethelessshowsrecognitionthathazingortheconductofinitiationritesthrough
physicaland/orpsychologicalsufferinghasnotbeentraditionallycriminalized.Priortothe1995
AntiHazing Law, there was to some extent a lacuna in the law hazing was not clearly
consideredanintentionalfelony.Andwhenthereisdoubtontheinterpretationofcriminallaws,
allmustberesolvedinfavoroftheaccused.Indubioproreo.
Fortheforegoingreasons,andasamatteroflaw,theCourtisconstrainedtoruleagainst
thetrialcourtsfindingofmaliciousintenttoinflictphysicalinjuriesonLennyVilla,therebeing
noproofbeyondreasonabledoubtoftheexistenceofmaliciousintenttoinflictphysicalinjuries
oranimusiniuriandiasrequiredinmalainsecases,consideringthecontextualbackgroundof
hisdeath,theuniquenatureofhazing,andabsentalawprohibitinghazing.
The accused fraternity members guilty of reckless

imprudenceresultinginhomicide
Theabsenceofmaliciousintentdoesnotautomaticallymean,however,thattheaccused
fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also
punishesfeloniesthatarecommittedbymeansoffault(culpa).AccordingtoArticle3thereof,
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
lackofskill.
Recklessimprudenceornegligenceconsistsofavoluntaryactdonewithoutmalice,from
which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage results by reason of an
[241]
inexcusablelackofprecautionoradvertenceonthepartofthepersoncommittingit. Inthis
[242]
case, the danger is visible and consciously appreciated by the actor. In contrast, simple
imprudenceornegligence comprises an act done without grave fault, from which an injury or
[243]
materialdamageensuesbyreasonofamerelackofforesightorskill. Here,thethreatened
[244]
harmisnotimmediate,andthedangerisnotopenlyvisible.
[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
[246]
resultsoftheact.Failuretodosoconstitutesnegligence.
AsweheldinGaidv.People,forapersontoavoidbeingchargedwithrecklessness,the
[247]
degreeofprecautionanddiligencerequiredvarieswiththedegreeofthedangerinvolved.
If,onaccountofacertainlineofconduct,thedangerofcausingharmtoanotherpersonisgreat,
the individual who chooses to follow that particular course of conduct is bound to be very
[248]
careful,inordertopreventoravoiddamageorinjury. Incontrast,ifthedangerisminor,
[249]
notmuchcareisrequired. Itisthuspossiblethattherearecountlessdegreesofprecaution
ordiligencethatmayberequiredofanindividual,fromatransitoryglanceofcaretothemost
[250]
vigilanteffort. Thedutyofthepersontoemploymoreorlessdegreeofcarewilldepend
[251]
uponthecircumstancesofeachparticularcase.
TherewaspatentrecklessnessinthehazingofLennyVilla.
According to the NBI medicolegal officer, Lenny died of cardiac failure secondary to
[252]
multipletraumaticinjuries. Theofficerexplainedthatcardiacfailurereferstothefailureof
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[253]
thehearttoworkasapumpandaspartofthecirculatorysystemduetothelackofblood.
Inthepresentcase,thevictimsheartcouldnolongerworkasapumpingorgan,becauseitwas
[254]
deprivedofitsrequisitebloodandoxygen. Thedeprivationwasduetothechannelingof
thebloodsupplyfromtheentirecirculatorysystemincludingtheheart,arteries,veins,venules,
andcapillariestothethigh,leg,andarmareasofLenny,thuscausingtheformationofmultiple
[255] [256]
hematomas or blood clots. The multiple hematomas were wide, thick, and deep,
indicatingthatthesecouldhaveresultedmainlyfrominjuriessustainedbythevictimfromfist
[257]
blows,kneeblows,paddles,orthelike. Repeatedblowstothoseareascausedthebloodto
graduallyoozeoutofthecapillariesuntilthecirculatingbloodbecamesomarkedlydiminished
[258]
as to produce death. The officer also found that the brain, liver, kidney, pancreas,
intestines,andallotherorgansseenintheabdominals,aswellasthethoracicorganinthelungs,
[259]
werepaleduetothelackofblood,whichwasredirectedtothethighsandforearms. Itwas
concludedthattherewasnothingintheheartthatwouldindicatethatthevictimsufferedfroma
[260]
previouscardiacarrestordisease.
ThemultiplehematomasorbruisesfoundinLennyVillasarmsandthighs,resultingfrom
repeated blows to those areas, caused the loss of blood from his vital organs and led to his
eventualdeath.Thesehematomasmustbetakeninthelightofthehazingactivitiesperformedon
himbytheAquilaFraternity.AccordingtothetestimoniesoftheconeophytesofLenny,they
werepunched,kicked,elbowed,kneed,stampedonandhitwithdifferentobjectsontheirarms,
[261] [262]
legs, and thighs. They were also paddled at the back of their thighs or legs and
[263] [264]
slapped on their faces. They were made to play rough basketball. Witness Marquez
[265]
testified on Lenny, saying: [T]inamaan daw sya sa spine. The NBI medicolegal officer
explainedthatthedeathofthevictimwasthecumulativeeffectofthemultipleinjuriessuffered
[266]
bythelatter. Therelevantportionofthetestimonyisasfollows:
Atty. Tadiar Doctor, there was, rather, it was your testimony on various cross examinations of
defensecounselsthattheinjuriesthatyouhaveenumeratedonthebodyofthe
deceasedLennyVilla previously marked as Exhibit G1 to G14 individually
by themselves would not cause the death of the victim. The question I am
goingtopropoundtoyouiswhatisthecumulativeeffectofalloftheseinjuries
markedfromExhibitG1toG14?
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258

WitnessAlltogethernothinginconcerttocausetothedemiseofthevictim.So,itisnotfairfor
ustoisolatesuchinjuriesherebecausewearetalkingofthewholebody.Atthe
samemannerthatas a car would not run minus one (1) wheel. No, the more
humaneinhumanapproachistointerpretallthoseinjuriesinwholeandnotin
[267]
part.
Thereisalsoevidencetoshowthatsomeoftheaccusedfraternitymembersweredrinking
[268]
duringtheinitiationrites.
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to

recklessness,whichmadetheresultingdeathofLennyaculpablefelony.Itmustberemembered
thatorganizations 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
resultinginhomicide.SincetheNBImedicolegalofficerfoundthatthevictimsdeathwasthe
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
themselvesfrominsistingonreopeningtheinitiationrites.Althoughthispointdidnotmatterin
theend,
asrecordswouldshowthattheotherfraternitymembersparticipatedinthereopenedinitiation
rites having in mind the concept of seniority in fraternities the implication of the presence of
alumnishouldbeseenasapointofreviewinfuturelegislation.Wefurthernotethatsomeofthe
fraternity members were intoxicated during Lennys initiation rites. In this light, the Court
submits to Congress, for legislative consideration, the amendment of the AntiHazing Law to
include the fact of intoxication and the presence of nonresident or alumni fraternity members
duringhazingasaggravatingcircumstancesthatwouldincreasetheapplicablepenalties.
It is truly astonishing how men would wittingly or unwittingly impose the misery of
hazingandemployappallingritualsinthenameofbrotherhood.Theremustbeabetterwayto
establishkinship.Aneophyteadmittedthathejoinedthefraternitytohavemorefriendsandto
[270]
avail himself of the benefits it offered, such as tips during bar examinations. Another
initiatedidnotgiveup,becausehefearedbeinglookeddownuponasaquitter,andbecausehe
[271]
felt he did not have a choice. Thus, for Lenny Villa and the other neophytes, joining the
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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
wereentrustedwerebarbaricastheywerereckless.
Our finding of criminal liability for the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide shall cover only accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon. Had the Anti
Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have all been
[272]
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).
SincetherewasnolawprohibitingtheactofhazingwhenLennydied,weareconstrainedtorule
accordingtoexistinglawsatthetimeofhisdeath.TheCAfoundthattheprosecutionfailedto
prove,beyondreasonabledoubt,
Victorinoetal.sindividualparticipationintheinflictionofphysicalinjuriesuponLennyVilla.
[273]
As to accused Villareal, his criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his
death,pursuanttoArticle89oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Furthermore,ourrulinghereinshallbeinterpretedwithoutprejudicetotheapplicabilityof
the AntiHazing Law to subsequent cases. Furthermore, the modification of criminal liability
fromslightphysicalinjuries to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall apply only
withrespecttoaccusedAlmeda,Ama,Bantug,andTecson.
Theaccusedliabletopaydamages
TheCAawardeddamagesinfavoroftheheirsofLennyVillaintheamountsof50,000
ascivilindemnityexdelictoand1,000,000asmoraldamages,tobejointlyandseverallypaid
by accused Dizon and Villareal. It also awarded the amount of 30,000 as indemnity to be
jointlyandseverallypaidbyaccusedAlmeda,Ama,Bantug,andTecson.
Civilindemnityexdelictoisautomaticallyawardedforthesolefactofdeathofthevictim.
[274] [275]
Inaccordancewithprevailingjurisprudence, wesustaintheCAsawardofindemnity
intheamountof50,000.
Theheirsofthevictimareentitledtoactualorcompensatorydamages,includingexpenses
incurredinconnectionwiththedeathofthevictim,solongastheclaimissupportedbytangible
[276]
documents. Thoughwearepreparedtoawardactualdamages,theCourtispreventedfrom
granting them, since the records are bereft of any evidence to show that actual expenses were
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
incurred or proven during trial. Furthermore, in the appeal, the Solicitor General does not
[277]
interposeanyclaimforactualdamages.
Theheirsofthedeceasedmayrecovermoraldamagesforthegriefsufferedonaccountof
[278]
the victims death. 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
deceasedmaydemandmoraldamagesformentalanguishbyreasonofthedeathofthedeceased.
[279]
Thus,weherebyweaffirmtheCAsawardofmoraldamagesintheamountof1,000,000.
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
JudgmentinG.R.No.154954finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato
Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries is also
MODIFIED and SETASIDE IN PART. Instead, Fidelito Dizon, Antonio Mariano Almeda,
Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined and penalized under
Article365inrelationtoArticle249oftheRevisedPenalCode.Theyareherebysentencedto
suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. In
addition, accused are ORDERED jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Lenny Villa civil
indemnityexdelictointheamountof50,000,andmoraldamagesintheamountof1,000,000,
pluslegalinterestonalldamagesawardedattherateof12%fromthedateofthefinalityofthis
[280]
Decisionuntilsatisfaction. 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
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
toincludethefactofintoxicationandthepresenceofnonresidentoralumnifraternitymembers
duringhazingasaggravatingcircumstancesthatwouldincreasetheapplicablepenalties.
SOORDERED.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheOpinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
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)9thCongress,
1stRegularSess.at2122[hereinafterSenateTSPNo.34].
[2]
Id.
[3]
SenateTranscriptofSessionProceedingsNo.47(10November1992)9thCongress,1stRegularSess.at2021,2427[hereinafter
SenateTSPNo.47].
[4]
Id.SenateTranscriptofSessionProceedingsNo.62(14December1992)9thCongress,1stRegularSess.at15[hereinafterSenate
TSPNo.62].
[5]
SenateTSPNo.34,supranote1.
[6]
Id.
[7]
U.S. v. Taylor,28 Phil 599 (1914). The Court declared, In the Philippine Islands there exist no crimes such as are known in the
UnitedStatesandEnglandascommonlawcrimesid.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.
[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.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[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,
630SCRA445.
[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.
[42]
People v. Banihit, 393 Phil. 465 (2000) People v. Hernandez, 328 Phil. 1123 (1996), citing People v. Dichoso, 96 SCRA 957
(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.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[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]
People v. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517 (2000), citing Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Sec 7 Paulin v. Gimenez, G. R. No.
103323,21January1993,217SCRA386Comelecv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.108120,26January1994,229SCRA501Peoplev.
Maquiling,supranote74.
[76]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,G.R.No.159261,21February2007,516SCRA383,397,citingPeoplev.Serrano,315
SCRA686,689(1999).
[77]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supra,citingPeoplev.Velasco,340SCRA207,240(2000).
[78]
Galmanv.Sandiganbayan,228Phil.42(1986),citingPeoplev.Bocar,138SCRA166(1985)Combatev.SanJose,135SCRA
693(1985)Peoplev.Catolico,38SCRA389(1971)andPeoplev.Navarro,63SCRA264(1975).
[79]
Peoplev.CourtofAppealsandGalicia,supranote76[citingPeoplev.TriaTirona,463SCRA462,469470(2005)andPeoplev.
Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)] People v. Court of Appeals and Francisco, 468 Phil. 1 (2004) Galman v. Sandiganbayan, supra,
citingPeoplev.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]
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[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]
People v. Maquiling, supra note74,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,supranote79.
[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).
[106]
VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: ANNOTATED AND COMMENTED BOOK ONE 4 (3rd ed.
1958)seePeoplev.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(8thabr.ed.2005)seePeoplev.Regato,212Phil.268(1984).
[119]
Guevarrav.Almodovar,supranote117.
[120]
ALBERT,supranote114at23.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[121]
Peoplev.Ballesteros,349Phil.366(1998)Bagajov.Marave,176Phil.20(1978),citingPeoplev.Molineux,168N.Y.264,297
61N.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,8Phil.59(1907)Dadov.People,440Phil.521(2002),citingMondragonv.People,17SCRA476,481(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,
citingPeoplev.Sara,55Phil.939(1931).
[127]
SeegenerallyFRANCISCO,supranote106at51.
[128]
Id.at 52 People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943), citing People v. Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232 (1922) People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15
(1931).
[129]
Mahawanv.People,G.R.No.176609,18December2008,574SCRA737,citingRiverav.People,G.R.No.166326,25January
2006,480SCRA188,196197.
[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(12THED.,1932).
[134]
SeePeoplev.Garcia,467Phil.1102(2004),citingPeoplev.Carmen,G.R.No.137268,26March2001,355SCRA267U.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]
In re Khalil H., No. 08110, 2010 WL 4540458 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 9, 2010) (U.S.) [citing Kuzmich, Comment, In Vino
Mortuus:FraternalHazingandAlcoholRelatedDeaths,31MCGEORGELREV.1087,10881089(2000)andSYMPOSIUM,THE
WORKSOFPLATO(THEMODERNLIBRARY1956)]GregoryE.Rutledge,HellNightHathNoFuryLikeaPledgeScorned...
and Injured: Hazing Litigation in U.S. Colleges and Universities,25 J.C. & U.L. 361, 3689 (1998) Kendrick, 24 AM. J. TRIAL
ADVOC.
[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]
In re Khalil H., supra note 137,citingWEBSTER'S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 1041 (1986) and People v.
Lenti,44Misc.2d118,253N.Y.S.2d9(N.Y.NassauCountyCt.1964)(U.S.).
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[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,ALAY
SA INANG BAYAN: PANIBAGONG PAGBIBIGAY KAHULUGAN SA KASAYSAYAN NG HIMAGSIKAN NG 1896, 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,
interalia,that(1)evidencesupportedthejuryfindingthatthemannerinwhichtheassociationcarriedoutmattressrotatingbarreltrick,
a hazing event, was hazardous and constituted actionable negligence and (2) the candidate was not barred from recovery by the
doctrineofassumptionofrisk.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.
[167]
Id.
[168]
ExparteBarran,730So.2d203(Ala.1998)(U.S.).(TheAlabamaSupremeCourtruledthatthe(1)pledgeknewandappreciated
the risks inherent in hazing and (2) pledge voluntarily exposed himself to hazing, supporting the fraternity's assumption of the risk
defense.Consequently,theCourtreversedthejudgmentoftheCourtofCivilAppealsandreinstatedtherulingofthetrialcourt,which
enteredthesummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantswithrespecttothevictimsnegligenceclaims.Thecasewasremandedasto
theothermatters.Id.)
[169]
Id.
[170]
Lloyd v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, No. 96CV348, 97CV565, 1999 WL 47153 (Dist. Ct., N.D. N.Y., 1999) (U.S.). (The
plaintifffiledalawsuitagainstCornellUniversityforthelattersliabilityresultingfromtheinjuriestheformersustainedduringthe
allegedhazingbythefraternity.TheNewYorkdistrictcourtgranteddefendantCornellsmotiontodismisstheplaintiffscomplaint.Id.)
[171]
Id.
[172]
Kennerv.KappaAlphaPsiFraternity,Inc.,808A.2d178(Pa.Super.Ct.2002).(ThePennsylvaniaSuperiorCourtheldthat:(1)
the fraternity owed the duty to protect the initiate from harm (2) breach of duty by fraternity was not established (3) individual
fraternitymembersowedthedutytoprotecttheinitiatefromharmand(4)theevidenceraisedthegenuineissueofmaterialfactasto
whetherthefraternity'schapteradvisorbreachedthedutyofcaretoinitiate.Id.)
[173]
Id.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[174]
Mortonv.State,988So.2d698(Flo.Dist.Ct.App.2008)(U.S.).(TheDistrictCourtofAppealofFloridareversedtheconviction
forfelonyhazingandremandedthecaseforanewtrialbecauseoferroneousjuryinstruction.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
Learning Environment: A Criticism of the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis and the Restatement (Second) of Torts,20 J.C. & U.L. 261
(1994)JenniferL.Spaziano,It'sAllFunandGamesUntilSomeoneLosesanEye:AnAnalysisofUniversityLiabilityforActionsof
StudentOrganizations,22PEPP.L.REV.213(1994)FraternityHazing:IsthatAnywaytoTreataBrother?,TRIAL,Sept.1991,at
63 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,the1874
statuteoutlawinghazingwasdirectedspecificallyattheUnitedStatesNavalAcademy.
[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,28NEW ENG. J. ON
CRIM.&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.).
[192]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingInd.CodeAnn.354222(U.S.).
[193]
Pelletier,supranote188,citingInd.CodeAnn.354222(U.S.).
[194]
Ind.CodeAnn.354222 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Sess.) (U.S.) citingState v. Lewis, 883 N.E.2d 847 (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.).
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[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(Villareal v. 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)9thCongress,1stRegularSess.,pp.1213.
[218]
TSN,21April1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.CaseNo.C38340),pp.6872,9091,100102,108109,127134seeTSN,26May
1992(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)Peoplev.
Sara,55Phil939(1931)andPeoplev.Ramirez,48Phil204(1925).
[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.Case
No.C38340),p.108.
[233]
No.C38340),p.109.
[234]
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[235]
[236]
[237]
SenateTSPNo.62,supranote4at1315.
[238]
[239]
No.C38340),pp.108109.
[240]
Vedaav.Valencia,356Phil.317,332(1998).
[241]
Caminosv.People,587SCRA348(2009)citingLUISB.REYES,THEREVISEDPENALCODE:CRIMINALLAWBOOK
ONE995(15thed.2001)Peoplev.Vistan,42Phil107(1921),citingU.S.vs.Gomez,G.R.No.14068,17January1919(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.
[258]
RTCDecision[Crim.CaseNo.C38340(91)],p.37,supranote9rollo,p.146TSN,24June1992(Peoplev.Dizon,Crim.Case
No.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.
2/16/2017 G.R. No. 151258
[269]
Ballouv.SigmaNuGeneralFraternity,291S.C.140,352S.E.2d488(S.C.App.1986)(U.S.)citingEaslerv.HejazTempleof
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.

Villareal V People

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Villareal V People

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

2/16/2017 G.R. No.

TwentysixoftheaccusedAquilansinCriminalCaseNo.C38340(91)were jointly tried.

2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of

3. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of

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

The existence of animus interficendi or intent to kill not

ThetwohadtheirownaxestogrindagainstVillaandMarquez. It was very clear that they

The foregoing testimony of witness Marquez reveals a glaring mistake of substantial

The existence of animus iniuriandi or malicious intent to

The accused fraternity members guilty of reckless

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

También podría gustarte