ANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) – Mark Ventura, an Aegis Juris fratenity member

and suspect in the fatal hazing of Horacio "Atio" Castillo III, became a state witness
in the case on Wednesday, October 24.
Ventura told the investigators everything he knows about the hazing and death of
Castillo, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II said on Wednesday.

Ventura signed the formal acceptance of admission to the Witness Protection

Program (WPP) that afternoon. He was accompanied by his mother, Merlene, and
lawyer, Ferdie Benitez.

Aguirre said once Ventura enters the WPP, he would no longer be considered a
suspect. He added that although the WPP is open to everyone except the most
guilty, Ventura's testimony might already stand on its own.

"Parang no need na [There may be no need anymore) [for other witnesses]. Even
without any corroborative testimony, I believe his statement will stand in court,"
Aguirre said.

Ventura, who admitted to participating in the initiation, named every Aegis Juris
member present at the initiation rites of Castillo, said Aguirre.

If John Paul Solano testified to seeing only 6 fratmen the morning he came to the

fraternity library, Aguirre said Ventura named more than the 16 individuals who
were already on the Department of Justice's Immigration Lookout Bulletin Order.

Beaten black and blue

When Castillo was being hazed, Ventura told investigators that there were others
holding a karaoke session to mask the noise from the initiation rites, Aguirre said.

Ventura also said that Castillo was beat up severely until his muscles swelled.

"Ang unang physical punishment inumpisahan sa pagsuntok sa kanyang braso.

There were about more than 10 who punched him, and meron silang term na
hangga't hindi pumuputok ang kanyang braso, tuloy-tuloy lang sila," Aguirre said.

(The first physical punishment began with punching his arm. There were about
more than 10 who punched him, and they have a term that they would just
continue punching him until his arm swelled.)

Aguirre said after the fratmen saw Castillo's arm swelling, they tapped the affected
area with a spatula to "calm his muscles." Aguirre said everybody took part in the
hazing at this point.

The justice chief said based on the narration of Ventura, the third and final part of
the initiation was the paddling ceremony. The person being initiated was supposed
to get 10 paddles but "for the leader of the batch it would be 11, and if you're solo,
you'll be given 11 paddles."

Delayed hospital treatment

"Noong 3rd paddle against Atio, tinanong pa siya kung kaya pa niya, sumagot pa
siya kaya pa niya (On the 3rd paddle on Atio, he was asked if he could still take it,
he answered he could still take it). By the 4th paddle, he collapsed," Aguirre said.
Ventura told investigators that when fratmen saw Castillo move after he collapsed,
they struck him a 5th time. "Lalong nagcollapse (He collapsed even more)," Aguirre
said.

Aguirre said that according to Ventura, some of the fratmen suggested dropping
melted candle wax on Castillo to force a response.

“But apparently wala nang response si Atio (Atio was no longer responding)," the

justice chief said.

This was at 5 am on September 17, or 4 hours into the hazing rites that began at 1
am.

"Ang kanila daw rites ay sasalubungin nila ang bukang liwayway ng new
member(Based on their rites, they would greet the dawn with the new member),”
Aguirre said.

Aguirre said that that's when the fratmen called up Solano, a licensed medical
technologist.

This effectively delayed medical response on Castillo because they had to wait for
Solano. Solano already testified to performing CPR on Castillo but to no avail.

Solano said in his counter-affidavit on Tuesday, October 24, that the medico legal
report indicated that Castillo might have died of a pre-existing heart condition –
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) – and not of hazing. Senators slammed the
suggestion.

Aguirre said that it was a week-long initation activity for Aegis Juris.

Ventura, according to records, was enrolled for his freshman year at the University
of Santo Tomas (UST) Faculty of Law, Aguirre said. He was on leave at the time of
the initiation, Aguirre added.

UST law dean's statement

In a statement on Thursday, October 25, University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil

Law dean Nilo Divina said that Ventura turning state witness was a "welcome
development."

"The decision of Mark Ventura, one of the Aegis Juris members involved in the
hazing of Atio Castillo, to come out and shed light on the facts is a most welcome
development. I commend the Department of Justice, in particular Secretary
Aguirre, for his relentless efforts to reach out to possible witnesses by offering
them protection through the Witness Protection Program. This only shows his
commitment to ferret out the truth and bring to justice those who may be
responsible," Divina said.

"I trust that Mr Ventura will tell the whole truth in the spirit of remorse. I hope that
others will follow suit," he added.
ANILA, Philippines — Inirekomenda kahapon ni Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri ang
pagsusulong ng disbarment proceedings laban sa may 20 abogadong miyembro ng
Aegis Juris Fraternity na sangkot sa hazing ni Horacio “Atio” Castillo III ng
University of Santo Tomas.

Ayon kay Zubiri, base na rin sa nadiskubreng chat messages ng mga abogadong
miyembro ng Aegis Juris, tinangka nilang pagtakpan o nangyaring pagkamatay ni
Castillo.

Naniniwala si Zubiri na nasa 20 abogado na miyembro ng Aegis Juris ang maaaring

maharap sa disbarment proceedings.

Ipinunto pa ni Zubiri sa pagdinig ng Senate committee on public order and

dangerous drugs ang sinabi ni Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, chairman ng komite
na mayroon nang jurisprudence kung saan mismong ang Supreme Court ang
nagsagawa ng ‘moto propio’ action sa mga disbarment cases.

Sa panayam, sinabi ni Zubiri na balak nilang magdagdag sa ipapanukalang batas

ang agad ng pag-disbar sa mga abogado kung masasangkot sa hazing.

“Very clear napakarami pati disbarment (irerekomendang batas). Magdadagdag

kami ng section diyan kapag hazing involvement of hazing lawyers right away
puwede ng i-take up ito ng SC, hindi na dadaan sa Integrated Bar of the
Philippines,” ani Zubiri.

PSN ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch:

Ipinunto pa ni Zubiri na sa ngayon ay mabusisi ang disbarment proceedings kaya
maraming nakabinbing kaso sa IBP.

“May proseso kasi siya eh, ang daming pending cases sa IBP, so ngayon po ay
diretso na sa SC for quick action,” ani Zubiri.

Samantala, naniniwala si Zubiri na hindi isang “Trojan horse” si Marc Anthony

Ventura, ang gagawing state witness sa naturang kaso.

“Ako naniniwala ako sa mga statement ni Ventura. Mabigat mga sinabi niya at
isinalaysay niya. For me I don’t believe he is a Trojan horse. I believe he is telling
the truth,” ani Zubiri.

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law dean Nilo Divina on Tuesday
shrugged off his inclusion in the criminal complaint pending before the Department
of Justice in connection with the hazing death of Horacio Castillo III.

“I am sure it is baseless since I have not breached any law and have always
discharged my functions as Dean with utmost diligence,” Divina said.

Divina however declined to comment in detail, saying he has yet to read the
supplemental complaint filed by Castillo’s parents, Horacio II and Carminia, on
Monday.

The UST law dean is facing charges for murder, perjury, violation of the Anti-Hazing
Law (Republic Act 8049) and obstruction of justice.

In their supplemental complaint, the Castillos said Divina admitted during the
Senate inquiry on September 25 that he was aware about Castillo's hazing and
injuries in the hands of members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity even before the
freshman law student’s parents were informed.

The dean also allegedly did not act on the information as regards the hazing and
Castillo's fatal injuries.
“It is also worth noting that respondent school administrators [Divina and UST
Faculty of Civil Law secretary Arthur Capili] are complicit in the cover-up of the
hazing and murder of our son,” the complaint stated.

“Respondent Capili categorically stated [during the Senate hearing] that he already
knew that a UST student died on Sunday, September 17, 2017, due to hazing. The
same statement was made by respondent Divina. However, it should be stressed
that our son was only positively identified by us and Atio’s uncle, Dr. Gerardo
Castillo, during the early hours of September 18, 2017 around 3 or 4 in the
morning. Until then, Atio was tagged as an unidentified body,” it added.

The Castillos said Divina also failed to ensure compliance of the fraternity on the
notice requirement regarding any hazing or initiation rites under Section 2 of RA
8049.

"Our lawyers informed us that considering that it was indubitably shown that
respondent Divina, knew of the hazing activities of his Aegis Juris breathren, the
least that respondent Divina could have done was to assign at least two school
representatives to be present at the initiation as required under Section 3 of the
Anti-Hazing Law, to prevent the disastrous consequence that has befallen our son,
Atio, and has claimed his life," the complaint stated.

Divina had previously said UST could not be held liable for Castillo's death, claiming
the university maintained a "very strict" anti-hazing policy.

He also said that the incident happened outside the school premises, and the Aegis
Juris fraternity, which conducted the deadly hazing rites for Castillo on September
17, was not an accredited school organization.

Divina’s co-respondents in the supplemental complaint include some Aegis Juris

members and the board of trustees of the Aegis Juris Foundation Inc

ANILA, Philippines – The effectiveness of the Anti-Hazing Law is once again being
questioned as violent initiation rites by a fraternity claimed another life of a young
law student.

University of Santo Tomas student Horatio Castillo III died on September 17 due

to traumatic injuries he sustained allegedly at the hands of members of the Aegis
Juris fraternity.

It is clear for the parents of the 22-year-old that their son “was killed by criminals”
from the fraternity, expressing outrage that “barbaric and criminal acts continue to
be performed in the false name of brotherhood.”

These violent acts were supposed to be prevented by the Anti-Hazing Law. But
many believe that the law lacks the needed teeth to actually end the long-standing
“tradition” of violence present among organizations – particularly fraternities and
sororities. (READ: Inside the brotherhood: Thoughts on fraternity violence)

What does the law say?

In 1991, Ateneo law student Leonardo “Lenny” Villa died after suffering multiple

injuries from hazing rites conducted by the Aquilia Legis fraternity.

His death shed light on the practice and led to the enactment of the Anti-Hazing
Law in 1995. But Republic Act No. 8049 still does not really prevent hazing from
taking place.
The law defines hazing as “an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such
as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or
otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.”

According to the law, these initiation rites can still push through if:

 There is written notice addressed to the school authorities or head of

organization 7 days prior
 There are at least two representatives from the school present

The written notice should include details about the activity, including how long it
will last, the names of those who will undergo the initiation rites, and an
"undertaking that no physical violence will be employed."

The representatives assigned by the school, meanwhile, have the duty to “see to it
that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or
applicant.”

Hazing automatically a criminal offense

Unfortunately, the rules set forth by the law are not always followed. Various
organizations across the Philippines still employ the “age-old tradition” of using
violence to “test” applicants and has become an open secret among students.

Most often than not, this practice is only put in the spotlight when people are killed,
as the law really only goes after those responsible if the hazing rites result in
injuries or death.

Members of organizations – regardless whether fraternity, sorority, or otherwise –

directly involved in the infliction of harm will be liable if the person who went
through the hazing or any form of initiation rites “suffers any physical injury or
dies,” according to the law. The law does not penalize the actual act of initiation
rites.

If a neophyte dies, has been raped, sodomized, or mutilated, those responsible can
face life imprisonment

Meanwhile, those who have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted but did not
do anything about it – such as owners of the place where it was held, school
authorities, and other members of the organization – can be considered as
accomplices.

In 2012, former law professor and now Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te
wrote that “by not defining hazing as a criminal act per se, subject to specific very
narrowly-drawn exceptions, the law itself guarantees that hazing will continue.”
(READ: Death and brotherhood)

The law also does not entirely cover the effects on mental health of an applicant –
only if he or she becomes "insane, imbecile." Imagine the number of now-members
who were subjected to the paddle and fortunately left physically “unscathed” but
left with psychological scars.

No teeth
Since the law was passed in 1995, the deaths due to hazing did not really stop as
there are at least 15 people who have died, while many have reported sustaining
injuries from the rites.

The numbers do not reflect those who may have suffered injuries but chose not to
report to authorities. Meanwhile, in the 22 years of the law’s existence, there has
been only one conviction. (READ: What's happening to hazing cases in the
Philippines?)

Because of this harsh reality, many have called for amendments to the Anti-Hazing
Law or have called for passing entirely another bill has more teeth.

House Bill 4714 – called the “Servando Act” after college student Guillo Cesar
Servando who died due to injuries from hazing – which seeks to totally ban any
form of hazing on applicants of any organization was filed in 2014 by then
Valenzuela Representative Sherwin Gatchalian.

Compared to the existing law, Gatchalian’s bill will give power to schools to approve
or deny applications by organizations to conduct initiation rites. It also increases
the penalties imposed on those held liable.

Te, in his 2012 Rappler piece, also laid out what should be included in the Anti-
Hazing Law for it to be effective. These include changing the word “regulation” in
the title to “prohibited,” define hazing as unlawful as it is, and explicitly stress that
consent from victims will not be a defense and waivers are voided, among others.

Until the existing Anti-Hazing Law remains in effect, the practice of inflicting
physical and mental harm during initiation rites is likely to continue.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049

AN ACT REGULATING HAZING AND OTHER FORMS OF INITIATION RITES

IN FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR

Section 1. Hazing, as used in this Act, is an initiation rite or practice as a

prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization
by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or
injury.

The term "organization" shall include any club or the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and
cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army Training. The
physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to
determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of
prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police as approved ny the Secretary of National Defense and the
National Police Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces
of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not
be considered as hazing for the purposes of this Act.

Sec. 2. No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority

or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the conduct of such
initiation. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities
which shall not exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of those to be
subjected to such activities, and shall further contain an undertaking that no
physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

Sec. 3. The head of the school or organization or their representatives must assign
at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization, as the case may be,
to be present during the initiation. It is the duty of such representative to see to it
that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or
applicant.

Sec. 4. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers
any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the
fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of
physical harm shall be liable as principals. The person or persons who participated
in the hazing shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) if death, rape, sodomy or

mutilation results there from.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 20 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall become
insane, imbecile, impotent or blind.

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months and
one day to 17 years and 4 months) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such member
shall have become incapacitated for the activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged.

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period (12 years and one day
to 14 years and 8 months) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall become
deformed or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use
thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance on the activity
or work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety (90)
days.

5. The penalty of prison mayor in its maximum period (10 years and one day to 12
years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated
for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged for
a period of more than thirty (30) days.

6. The penalty of prison mayor in its medium period (8 years and one day to 10
years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated
for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged for
a period of ten (10) days or more, or that the injury sustained shall require medical
assistance for the same period.

7. The penalty of prison mayor in its minimum period (6 years and one day to 8
years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated
for the performance on the activity or work in which he was habitually engaged
from one (1) to nine (9) days, or that the injury sustained shall require medical
assistance for the same period.

8. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and
one day to 6 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim sustained physical
injuries which do not prevent him from engaging in his habitual activity or work nor
require medical attendance.

The responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen's army
training organization, may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the
person or the persons charged under this provision even before their conviction.
The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the following
instances:

(a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or

deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join;

(b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon
learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting;
(c) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented
from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper school
authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence, threat or
intimidation;

(d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or

(e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the hazing.

The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice,
when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take
any action to prevent the same from occurring. If the hazing is held in the home of
one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the parents
shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.

The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who
have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same
from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed
by the perpetrators.

The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or

sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts
constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals. A fraternity or
sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were
committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be
liable as principal.

The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.

Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.

This section shall apply to the president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment in the
manner provided herein.

Sec. 5. If any provision or part of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional,

the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective.

Sec. 6. All laws, orders, rules or regulations which are inconsistent with or contrary
to the provisions of this Act are hereby amended or repealed accordingly.

Sec. 7. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) calendar days after its publication in
at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, G.R. No. 151258
Petitioner,  
   
- versus -  
   
   
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  
Respondent.  
x-------------------------x  
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 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  
PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN,  
PERCIVAL BRIGOLA, PAUL ANGELO  
SANTOS, JONAS KARL B. PEREZ,  
RENATO BANTUG, JR., ADEL ABAS,  
JOSEPH LLEDO, andRONAN DE  
GUZMAN,  
Respondents.  
x-------------------------x  
   
FIDELITO DIZON,  
Petitioner,  
   
  G.R. No. 155101
- versus -  
   
   
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  
Respondent.  
x-------------------------x  
   
GERARDA H. VILLA,  
Petitioner,  
   
  G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080
- versus -  
   
  Promulgated:
MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA II, February 1, 2012
MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN RAMOS,  
CRISANTO CRUZ SARUCA,
JR., and ANSELMO ADRIANO,
Respondents.
 
x--------------------------------------------------x
 
DECISION

SERENO, J.:

The public outrage over the death of Leonardo Lenny Villa the victim in this case on
10 February 1991 led to a very strong clamor to put an end to hazing. [1] Due in
large part to the brave efforts of his mother, petitioner Gerarda Villa, groups were
organized, condemning his senseless and tragic death. This widespread
condemnation prompted Congress to enact a special law, which became effective in
1995, that would criminalize hazing. [2] The intent of the law was to discourage
members from making hazing a requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity,
organization, or association.[3] Moreover, the law was meant to counteract the
exculpatory implications of consent and initial innocent act in the conduct of
initiation rites by making the mere act of hazing punishable or mala prohibita.[4]

Sadly, the Lenny Villa tragedy did not discourage hazing activities in the country.
[5]
 Within a year of his death, six more cases of hazing-related deaths emerged
those of Frederick Cahiyang 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 Center; Joselito Mangga of the
Philippine Merchant Marine Institute; and Joselito Hernandez of the University of
the Philippines in Baguio City.[6]

Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this

case the general condemnation of a hazing-related death, they are still bound to
observe a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system [N]o act constitutes
a crime unless it is made so by law. [7] 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 offense and the facts allowed in evidence.

Before the Court are the consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 151258
(Villareal v. People), G.R. No. 154954 (People v. Court of Appeals), G.R. No.
155101 (Dizon v. People), and G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 (Villa v. Escalona).

FACTS

The pertinent facts, as determined by the Court of Appeals (CA)[8] and the

trial court,[9] are as follows:

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). They were Caesar Bogs Asuncion, Samuel Sam
Belleza, Bienvenido Bien Marquez III, Roberto Francis Bert Navera, Geronimo
Randy Recinto, Felix Sy, Jr., and Leonardo Lenny Villa (neophytes).

On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were met by some

members of the Aquila 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, who briefed the neophytes on what
to expect during the initiation rites. The latter were informed that there would be
physical beatings, and that they could quit at any time. Their initiation rites were
scheduled to last for three days. After their briefing, they were brought to the
Almeda Compound in Caloocan City for the commencement of their initiation.

Even before the neophytes got off the van, they had already received
threats and insults from the Aquilans. As soon as the neophytes alighted from the
van and walked towards the pelota court of the Almeda compound, some of the
Aquilans delivered physical blows to them. The neophytes were then subjected to
traditional forms of Aquilan initiation rites. These rites included the Indian Run,
which required the neophytes to run a gauntlet of two parallel rows of Aquilans,
each row delivering blows to the neophytes; the Bicol Express, which obliged the
neophytes to sit on the floor with their backs against the wall and their legs
outstretched while the Aquilans walked, jumped, or ran over their legs; the Rounds,
in which the neophytes were held at the back of their pants by the auxiliaries (the
Aquilans charged with the duty of lending assistance to neophytes during initiation
rites), while the latter were being hit with fist blows on their arms or with knee
blows on their thighs by two Aquilans; and the Auxies Privilege Round, 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 survived their first day of initiation.

On the morning of their second day 9 February 1991 the neophytes were
made to present comic plays and to play rough basketball. They were also required
to memorize and recite the Aquila Fraternitys principles. Whenever they would give
a wrong answer, they would be hit on their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the
Aquilans revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to torment them
physically and psychologically. The neophytes were subjected to the same manner
of hazing that they endured on the first day of initiation. After a few hours, the
initiation for the day officially ended.

After a while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity members [10] Fidelito

Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be
reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially refused.
Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation
rites. The fraternity members, including Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the
neophytes to paddling and to additional rounds of physical pain. Lenny received
several paddle blows, one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the
ground. The neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain and difficulty in
breathing. After their last session of physical beatings, Lenny could no longer walk.
He had to be carried by the auxiliaries to the carport. Again, the initiation for the
day was officially ended, and the neophytes started eating dinner. They then slept
at the carport.

After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys

shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these
rumblings, as they thought he was just overacting. When they realized, though,
that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him. They
removed his clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm.
When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was
pronounced dead on arrival.
 Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the following 35
Aquilans:

In Criminal Case No. C-38340(91)

1.            Fidelito Dizon (Dizon)
2.            Artemio Villareal (Villareal)
3.            Efren de Leon (De Leon)
4.            Vincent Tecson (Tecson)
5.            Junel Anthony Ama (Ama)
6.            Antonio Mariano Almeda (Almeda)
7.            Renato Bantug, Jr. (Bantug)
8.            Nelson Victorino (Victorino)
9.            Eulogio Sabban (Sabban)
10.        Joseph Lledo (Lledo)
11.        Etienne Guerrero (Guerrero)
12.        Michael Musngi (Musngi)
13.        Jonas Karl Perez (Perez)
14.        Paul Angelo Santos (Santos)
15.        Ronan de Guzman (De Guzman)
16.        Antonio General (General)
17.        Jaime Maria Flores II (Flores)
18.        Dalmacio Lim, Jr. (Lim)
19.        Ernesto Jose Montecillo (Montecillo)
20.        Santiago Ranada III (Ranada)
21.        Zosimo Mendoza (Mendoza)
22.        Vicente Verdadero (Verdadero)
23.        Amante Purisima II (Purisima)
24.        Jude Fernandez (J. Fernandez)
25.        Adel Abas (Abas)

26.        Percival Brigola (Brigola)

In Criminal Case No. C-38340

1.            Manuel Escalona II (Escalona)
2.            Crisanto Saruca, Jr. (Saruca)
3.            Anselmo Adriano (Adriano)
4.            Marcus Joel Ramos (Ramos)
5.            Reynaldo Concepcion (Concepcion)
6.            Florentino Ampil (Ampil)
7.            Enrico de Vera III (De Vera)
8.            Stanley Fernandez (S. Fernandez)
9.            Noel Cabangon (Cabangon)
 

Twenty-six of the accused Aquilans in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) were

jointly tried.[11] On the other hand, the trial against the remaining nine accused in
Criminal Case No. C-38340 was held in abeyance due to certain matters that had to
be resolved first.[12]

On 8 November 1993, the trial court rendered judgment in Criminal Case No.

C-38340(91), holding the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide, penalized with reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.[13] A few weeks after the trial court rendered its judgment, or
on 29 November 1993, Criminal Case No. C-38340 against the remaining nine
accused commenced anew.[14]

On 10 January 2002, the CA in (CA-G.R. No. 15520)[15] set aside the finding of

conspiracy by the trial court in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) and modified
the criminal liability of each of the accused according to individual
participation. Accused De Leon had by then passed away, so the following
Decision applied only to the remaining 25 accused, viz:

1.           Nineteen of the accused-appellants Victorino, 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 accused-appellants Vincent Tecson, Junel Anthony
Ama, Antonio Mariano Almeda, and Renato Bantug, Jr. (Tecson et al.)
were found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuriesand
sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor. They were also ordered to
jointly pay the heirs of the victim the sum of ₱30,000 as indemnity.
 

3.           Two of the accused-appellants Fidelito Dizon and Artemio

Villareal were found 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 CA sentenced
them to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor to 17
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 amount of ₱1,000,000 by way of moral damages.

On 5 August 2002, the trial court in Criminal Case No. 38340 dismissed the
charge against accused Concepcion on the ground of violation of his right to speedy
trial.[16] Meanwhile, on different dates between the years 2003 and 2005, the trial
court denied the respective Motions to Dismiss of accused Escalona, Ramos,
Saruca, and Adriano.[17] On 25 October 2006, the CA in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 89060 &
90153[18] reversed the trial courts Orders and dismissed the criminal case against
Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of violation of their right to
speedy trial.[19]

From the aforementioned Decisions, the five (5) consolidated Petitions were
individually brought before this Court.

G.R. No. 151258 Villareal v. People

The instant case refers to accused Villareals Petition for Review

on Certiorari under Rule 45. The Petition raises two reversible errors allegedly
committed by the CA in its Decision dated 10 January 2002 in CA-G.R. No. 15520
first, denial of due process; and, second, conviction absent proof beyond
reasonable doubt.[20]
 While the Petition was pending before this Court, counsel for petitioner
Villareal filed a Notice of Death of Party on 10 August 2011. According to the
Notice, petitioner Villareal died on 13 March 2011. Counsel thus asserts that the
subject matter of the Petition previously filed by petitioner does not survive the
death of the accused.

G.R. No. 155101 Dizon v. People

Accused Dizon filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning

the CAs Decision dated 10 January 2002 and Resolution dated 30 August 2002 in
CA-G.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 deprived of due process when the CA
did not apply to him the same ratio decidendi that served as basis of acquittal of
the other accused.[22]

As regards the first issue, the trial court made a ruling, which forfeited
Dizons right to present evidence during trial. The trial court expected Dizon to
present evidence on an earlier date since a co-accused, Antonio General, no longer
presented separate evidence during trial. According to Dizon, his right should not
have been considered as waived because he was justified in asking for a
postponement. He argues that he did not ask for a resetting of any of the hearing
dates and in fact insisted that he was ready to present
evidence on the original pre-assigned schedule, and not on an earlier hearing date.

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 and were not tainted by evil motives. [23] He claims that the
additional paddling session was part of the official activity of the fraternity. He also
points out that one of the neophytes admitted that the chairperson of the initiation
rites decided that [Lenny] was fit enough to undergo the initiation so Mr. Villareal
proceeded to do the paddling. [24] Further, petitioner echoes the argument of the
Solicitor General that the individual blows inflicted by Dizon and Villareal could not
have resulted in Lennys death.[25] The Solicitor General purportedly averred that, on
the contrary, Dr. Arizala testified that the injuries suffered by Lenny could not be
considered fatal if taken individually, but if taken collectively, the result is the
violent death of the victim.[26]

Petitioner then counters the finding of the CA that he was motivated by ill
will. He claims that Lennys father could not have stolen the parking space of Dizons
father, since the latter did not have a car, and their fathers did not work in the
same place or office. Revenge for the loss of the parking space was the alleged ill
motive of Dizon. According to petitioner, his utterances regarding a stolen parking
space were only part of the psychological initiation. He then cites the testimony of
Lennys co-neophyte witness Marquez who admitted knowing it was not true and
that he was just making it up.[27]

Further, petitioner argues that his alleged motivation of ill will was negated
by his show of concern for Villa after the initiation rites. Dizon alludes to the
testimony of one of the neophytes, who mentioned that the former had kicked the
leg of the neophyte and told him to switch places 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
concern for the victims well-being.

G.R. No. 154954 People v. Court of Appeals

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 CA-G.R. No.
15520, insofar as it acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of
the accused Aquilans of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries. [28] According to
the Solicitor General, the CA erred in holding that there could have been no
conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity initiation had not yet been
criminalized at the time Lenny died.

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 criminally liable for the resulting crime of homicide,
pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. [29] 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 Solicitor General, the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in setting aside the trial courts finding
of conspiracy and in ruling that the criminal liability of 
all the accused must be based on their individual participation in the commission of
the crime.

G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 Villa v. Escalona

Petitioner Villa filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, praying for
the reversal of the CAs Decision dated 25 October 2006 and Resolution dated 17
May 2007 in CA-G.R. S.P. Nos. 89060 and 90153. [30] The Petition involves the
dismissal of the criminal charge filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and
Adriano.

Due to several pending incidents, the trial court ordered a separate trial for
accused Escalona, Saruca, Adriano, Ramos, Ampil, Concepcion, De Vera, S.
Fernandez, and Cabangon (Criminal Case No. C-38340) to commence after
proceedings against the 26 other accused in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) shall
have terminated. On 8 November 1993, the trial court found the 26 accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. C-
38340 involving the nine other co-accused recommenced on 29 November 1993.
For various reasons, the initial trial of the case did not commence until 28 March
2005, or almost 12 years after the arraignment of the nine accused.

Petitioner Villa assails the CAs dismissal of the criminal case involving 4 of the 9
accused, namely, Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. She argues that the
accused failed to assert their right to speedy trial within a reasonable period of
time. She also points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the delay, as
the original records and the required evidence were not at its disposal, but were
still in the appellate court.

We resolve herein the various issues that we group into five.

  

ISSUES

1.     Whether the forfeiture of petitioner Dizons right to present evidence

constitutes denial of due 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 violation of the right of the accused to speedy trial;

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

excess of jurisdiction, when it set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial
court and adjudicated the liability of each accused according to individual
participation;

4.     Whether accused Dizon is guilty of homicide; and

5.     Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it pronounced
Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug guilty only of slight physical injuries.
 
DISCUSSION

Resolution on Preliminary Matters

G.R. No. 151258 Villareal v. People

In a Notice dated 26 September 2011 and while the Petition was pending
resolution, this Court took note of counsel for petitioners Notice of Death of Party.

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 personal penalties refers to the service of personal or
imprisonment penalties,[31] while the term pecuniary penalties (las pecuniarias)
refers to fines and costs,[32] including civil liability predicated on the criminal offense
complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto).[33] However, civil liability based on a
source of obligation other than the delictsurvives the death of the accused and is
recoverable through a separate civil action. [34]

Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal
liability for both personal and pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability directly
arising from the delict complained of. Consequently, his Petition is hereby
dismissed, and the criminal case against him deemed closed and terminated.

G.R. No. 155101 (Dizon v. People)

In an Order dated 28 July 1993, the trial court set the dates for the
reception of evidence for accused-petitioner Dizon on the 8 th, 15th, and 22nd of
September; and the 5th and 12 of October 1993.[35] The Order likewise stated that it
will not entertain any postponement and that all the accused who have not yet
presented their respective evidence should be ready at all times down the line, with
their evidence on all said dates. Failure on their part to present evidence when
required shall therefore be construed as waiver to present evidence. [36]
 However, on 19 August 1993, counsel for another accused manifested in
open court that his client Antonio General would no longer present separate
evidence. Instead, the counsel would adopt the testimonial evidence of the other
accused who had already testified.[37] Because of this development and pursuant to
the trial courts Order that the parties should be ready at all times down the line,
the trial court expected Dizon to present evidence on the next trial date 25 August
1993 instead of his originally assigned dates. The original dates were supposed to
start two weeks later, or on 8 September 1993. [38]Counsel for accused Dizon was
not able to present evidence on the accelerated date. To address the situation,
counsel filed a Constancia on 25 August 1993, alleging that he had to appear in a
previously scheduled case, and that he would be ready to present evidence on the
dates originally assigned to his clients. [39] The trial court denied the Manifestation
on the same date and treated the Constancia as a motion for postponement, in
violation of the three-day-notice rule under the Rules of Court. [40] Consequently, the
trial court ruled that the failure of Dizon to present evidence amounted to a waiver
of that right.[41]

Accused-petitioner Dizon thus argues that he was deprived of due process of

law when the trial court forfeited his right to present evidence. According to him,
the postponement of the 25 August 1993 hearing should have been considered
justified, since his original pre-assigned trial dates were not supposed to start until
8 September 1993, when he was scheduled to present evidence. He posits that he
was ready to present evidence on the dates assigned to him. He also 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, thereby invalidating the finding of his guilt.

The right of the accused to present evidence is guaranteed by no less than

the Constitution itself.[42] Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel This constitutional right includes the right to present
evidence in ones defense,[43] as well as the right to be present and defend oneself in
person at every stage of the proceedings. [44]

In Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan,[45] the Sandiganbayan set the hearing of

the defenses presentation of evidence for 21, 22 and 23 June 1995. The 21 June
1995 hearing was cancelled due to lack of quorum in the regular membership of the
Sandiganbayans Second Division and upon the agreement of the parties. The
hearing was reset for the next day, 22 June 1995, but Crisostomo and his counsel
failed to attend. The Sandiganbayan, on the very same day, issued an Order
directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Crisostomo and the confiscation
of his surety bond. The Order further declared that he had waived his right to
present evidence because of his nonappearance at yesterdays and todays
scheduled hearings. In ruling against the Order, we held thus:

Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of
the Rules of Court, Crisostomos non-appearance during the 22
June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be present
for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial
dates
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
 Moreover, Crisostomos absence on the 22 June 1995
hearing should not have been deemed as a waiver of his right
to present evidence. While constitutional rights may be waived,
such waiver 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, and Calingayan's counsel.
 
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 consequences of
a waiver of the right to present evidence. In fact, it is not
enough that the accused is simply warned of the
consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding
hearings. The court must first explain to the accused personally in
clear terms the exact nature and consequences of a waiver.
Crisostomo was not even forewarned. The Sandiganbayan simply
went ahead to deprive Crisostomo of his right to present evidence
without even allowing Crisostomo to explain his absence on the 22
June 1995 hearing.
 
Clearly, the waiver of the right to present evidence in a
criminal case involving a grave penalty is not assumed and
taken lightly. The presence of the accused and his counsel is
indispensable so that the court could personally conduct a searching
inquiry into the waiver x x x.[46] (Emphasis supplied)
 

The trial court should not have deemed the failure of petitioner to present
evidence on 25 August 1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence. On the
contrary, it should have considered the excuse of counsel justified, especially since
counsel for another accused General had made a last-minute adoption of
testimonial evidence that freed up the succeeding trial dates; and since Dizon was
not scheduled to testify until two weeks later. At any rate, the trial court pre-
assigned five hearing dates for the reception of evidence. If it really wanted to
impose its Order strictly, the most it could have done was to forfeit one out of the
five days set for Dizons testimonial evidence. Stripping the accused of all his pre-
assigned trial dates constitutes a patent denial of the constitutionally guaranteed
right to due process.

Nevertheless, as in the case of an improvident guilty plea, an invalid waiver

of the right to present evidence and be heard does not per se work to vacate a
finding of guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an automatic remand of the case
to the trial court.[47] In People v. Bodoso, we ruled that where facts have adequately
been represented in a criminal case, and no procedural unfairness or irregularity
has prejudiced either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the invalid
waiver, the rule is that a guilty verdict may nevertheless be upheld if the judgment
is supported beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record.[48]

We do not see any material inadequacy in the relevant facts on record to

resolve the case 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 decide the matter. Instead,
what he is really contesting in his Petition is the application of the law to the facts
by the trial court and the CA. Petitioner Dizon admits direct participation in the
hazing of Lenny Villa by alleging in his Petition that all actions of the petitioner were
part of the traditional rites, and that the alleged extension of the initiation rites was
not outside the official activity of the fraternity. [49] He even argues that Dizon did
not request for the extension and he participated only after the activity was
sanctioned.[50]

For one reason or another, the case has been passed or turned over from
one judge or justice to another at the trial court, at the CA, and even at the
Supreme Court. Remanding the case for the reception of the evidence of petitioner
Dizon would only inflict further injustice on the parties. This case has been going on
for almost two decades. Its resolution is long overdue. Since the key facts
necessary to decide the case have already been determined, we shall proceed to
decide it.

G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 (Villa v. 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 period of time. She points out that the accused
failed to raise a protest during the dormancy of the criminal case against them, and
that they asserted their right only after the trial court had dismissed the case
against their co-accused Concepcion. Petitioner also emphasizes that the trial court
denied the respective Motions to Dismiss filed by Saruca, Escalona, Ramos, and
Adriano, because it found that the prosecution could not be faulted for the delay in
the movement of this case when the original records and the evidence it may
require were not at its disposal as these were in the Court of Appeals. [51]

The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been enshrined in Sections
14(2) and 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. [52] This right requires that there
be a trial free from vexatious, capricious or oppressive delays. [53] The right is
deemed violated when the proceeding is attended with unjustified postponements
of trial, or when a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being
tried and for no cause or justifiable motive.[54] In determining the right of the
accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of
the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. [55] The
conduct of both the prosecution and the defense must be weighed. [56] Also to be
considered are factors such as the length of delay, the assertion or non-assertion of
the right, and the prejudice wrought upon the defendant. [57]

We have consistently ruled in a long line of cases that a dismissal of the

case pursuant to the right of the accused to speedy trial is tantamount to acquittal.
[58]
 As a consequence, an appeal or a reconsideration of the dismissal would amount
to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy. [59] As we have previously
discussed, however, where the dismissal of the case is capricious, certiorari lies.
[60]
The rule on double jeopardy is not triggered when a petition challenges the
validity of the order of dismissal instead of the correctness thereof. [61] Rather, grave
abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction prevents
double jeopardy from attaching.[62]
 We do not see grave abuse of discretion in the CAs dismissal of the case
against accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation
of their right to speedy trial. The court held thus:

An examination of the procedural history of this case would

reveal that the following factors contributed to the slow progress of
the proceedings in the case below:
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
5) The fact that the records of the case were elevated to the
Court of Appeals and the prosecutions failure to comply
with the order of the court a quo requiring them to secure
certified true copies of the same.
 
x x x x x x x x x

While we are prepared to concede that some of the foregoing

factors that contributed to the delay of the trial of the petitioners are
justifiable, We nonetheless hold that their right to speedy trial has
been utterly violated in this case x x x.
 
x x x x x x x x x

[T]he absence of the records in the trial court [was] due to 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 it to secure certified true copies of
the same. What is glaring from the records is the fact that as early
as September 21, 1995, the court a quo already issued an Order
requiring the prosecution, through the Department of Justice, to
secure the complete records of the case from the Court of Appeals.
The prosecution did not comply with the said Order as in fact, the
same directive was repeated by the court a quo in an Order dated
December 27, 1995. Still, there was no compliance on the part of the
prosecution. It is not stated when such order was complied with. It
appears, however, that even until August 5, 2002, the said
records were still not at the disposal of the trial courtbecause
the lack of it was made the basis of the said court in granting the
motion to dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion x x x.
 
x x x x x x x x x

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. Except for
the pleadings filed by both the prosecution and the
petitioners, the latest of which was on January 29, 1996, followed
by petitioner Sarucas motion to set case for trial on August 17, 1998
which the court did not act upon, the case remained dormant for
a considerable length of time. This prolonged inactivity
whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the constitution frowns
upon x x x.[63] (Emphasis supplied)

This Court points out that on 10 January 1992, the final amended Information was
filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, Ampil, S. Fernandez, Adriano, Cabangon,
Concepcion, and De Vera.[64] On 29 November 1993, they were all arraigned.
[65]
 Unfortunately, the initial trial of the case did not commence until 28 March 2005
or almost 12 years after arraignment.[66]
As illustrated in our ruling in Abardo v. Sandiganbayan, the unexplained interval or
inactivity of the Sandiganbayan for close to five years since the arraignment of the
accused amounts to an unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases a clear
violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases. [67] Thus, we
held:

The delay in this case measures up to the unreasonableness

of the delay in the disposition of cases in Angchangco, Jr. vs.
Ombudsman, where the Court found the delay of six years by the
Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints to be
violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy
disposition of cases; similarly, in Roque vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, where the Court held that the delay of almost six
years disregarded the Ombudsman's duty to act promptly on
complaints before him; and in Cervantes vs. Sandiganbayan,
where the Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion in not quashing the information which was filed six
years after the initiatory complaint was filed and thereby
depriving petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the
case. So it must be in the instant case, where the
reinvestigation by the Ombudsman has dragged on for a
decade already.[68] (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing principles, we affirm the ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP

No. 89060 that accused Escalona et al.s right to speedy trial was violated. Since
there is nothing in the records that would show that the subject of this Petition
includes accused Ampil, S. Fernandez, Cabangon, and De Vera, the effects of this
ruling shall be limited to accused Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano.

G.R. No. 154954 (People v. Court of Appeals)

The rule on double jeopardy is one of the pillars of our criminal justice system. It
dictates that when a person is charged with an offense, and the case is terminated
either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the
accused the accused cannot again be charged with the same or an identical
offense.[69] This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.
[70]
 It is embodied in the civil law maxim non bis in idem found in the common law
of England and undoubtedly in every system of jurisprudence. [71] It found
expression in the Spanish Law, in the Constitution of the United States, and in our
own Constitution as one of the fundamental rights of the citizen,[72] viz:

Article III Bill of Rights

 
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.

Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, which implements this particular
constitutional right, provides as follows:[73]

SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an

accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information
or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
 conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.

The rule on double jeopardy thus prohibits the state from appealing the
judgment in order to reverse the acquittal or to increase the penalty imposed either
through a regular appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court or through an appeal
by certiorari on pure questions of law under Rule 45 of the same Rules. [74] The
requisites for invoking double jeopardy are the following: (a) there is a valid
complaint or information; (b) it is filed before a competent court; (c) the defendant
pleaded to the charge; and (d) the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the
case against him or her was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
defendants express consent.[75]

As we have reiterated in People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, [a] verdict

of acquittal is immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal,
even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.
The finality-of-acquittal doctrine has several avowed purposes. Primarily, it
prevents the State from using its criminal processes as an instrument of
harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated
trials. It also serves the additional purpose of precluding the State, following an
acquittal, from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a
conviction. And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, from retrying the
defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty. [76] We further stressed
that an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct
consequence of the finality of his acquittal.[77]

This prohibition, however, is not absolute. The state may challenge the
lower courts acquittal of the accused or the imposition of a lower penalty on the
latter in the following recognized exceptions: (1) where the prosecution is deprived
of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, tantamount to a deprivation of
due process;[78] (2) where there is a finding of mistrial; [79] or (3) where there has
been a grave abuse of discretion.[80]

The third instance refers to this Courts judicial power under Rule 65 to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.[81] Here, the party asking for the review must show the presence of a
whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; a
patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or
to a virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law or to act in contemplation of
law; an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion
and hostility;[82] or a blatant abuse of authority to a point so grave and so severe as
to deprive the court of its very power to dispense justice. [83] In such an event, the
accused cannot be considered to be at risk of double jeopardy.[84]
 The Solicitor General filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari, which seeks the
reversal of (1) the acquittal of Victorino et al. and (2) the conviction of Tecson et
al. for the lesser crime of slight physical injuries, both on the basis of a
misappreciation of facts and evidence. According to the Petition, the decision of the
Court of Appeals is not in accordance with law because private complainant and
petitioner were denied due process of law when the public respondent completely
ignored the a) Position Paper x x x b) the Motion for Partial Reconsideration x x x
and c) the petitioners Comment x x x.[85] Allegedly, the CA ignored evidence when it
adopted the theory of individual responsibility; set aside the finding of conspiracy
by the trial court; and failed to apply Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. [86] The
Solicitor General also assails the finding that the physical blows were inflicted only
by Dizon and Villareal, as well as the appreciation of Lenny Villas consent to hazing.
[87]

In our view, what the Petition seeks is that we reexamine, reassess, and
reweigh the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. [88] In People
v. Maquiling, we held that grave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court
simply because it allegedly misappreciated the facts and the evidence. [89] Mere
errors of judgment are correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, and not by an application for a writ of certiorari.
[90]
 Therefore, pursuant to the rule on double jeopardy, we are constrained to deny
the Petition contra Victorino et al. the 19 acquitted fraternity members.

We, however, modify the assailed judgment as regards Tecson, Ama,

Almeda, and Bantug the four fraternity members convicted of slight physical
injuries.

Indeed, we have ruled in a line of cases that the rule on double jeopardy
similarly applies when the state seeks the imposition of a higher penalty against the
accused.[91] We have also recognized, however, that certiorari may be used to
correct an abusive judgment upon a clear demonstration that the lower court
blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power
to dispense justice.[92] The present case is one of those instances of grave abuse of
discretion.

In imposing the penalty of slight physical injuries on Tecson, Ama, Almeda,

and Bantug, the CA reasoned thus:

Based on the medical findings, it would appear that with the

exclusion of the fatal wounds inflicted by the accused Dizon
and Villareal, the injuries sustained by the victim as a result of
the physical punishment heaped on him were serious in
nature. However, by reason 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. In a prosecution for this crime
where the category of the offense and the severity of the penalty
depend on the period of illness or incapacity for labor, the length of
this period must likewise be proved beyond reasonable doubt in
 much the same manner as the same act charged [People v. Codilla,
CA-G.R. No. 4079-R, June 26, 1950]. And when proof of the said
period is absent, the crime committed should be deemed only
as slight physical injuries [People v. De los Santos, CA, 59 O.G.
4393, citing People v. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398]. As such, this Court is
constrained to rule that the injuries inflicted by the appellants,
Tecson, Ama, Almeda and Bantug, Jr., are only slight and not
serious, in nature.[93] (Emphasis supplied and citations included)

The appellate court relied on our ruling in People v. Penesa[94] in finding that
the four accused should be held guilty only of slight physical injuries. According to
the CA, because of the death of the victim, there can be no precise means to
determine the duration of the incapacity or medical attendance required. [95] The
reliance on Penesa was utterly misplaced. A review of that case would reveal that
the accused therein was guilty merely of slight physical injuries, because the
victims injuries neither caused incapacity for labor nor required medical attendance.
[96]
 Furthermore, he did not die.[97] His injuries were not even serious.
[98]
 Since Penesa involved a case in which the victim allegedly suffered physical
injuries and not death, the ruling cited by the CA was patently inapplicable.

On the contrary, the CAs ultimate conclusion that Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and
Bantug were liable merely for slight physical injuries grossly contradicts its own
findings of fact. According to the court, the four accused were found to
have inflicted more than the usual punishment undertaken during such
initiation rites on the person of Villa. [99] It then adopted the NBI medico-legal
officers findings that the antecedent cause of Lenny Villas death was the multiple
traumatic injuries he suffered from the initiation rites. [100] Considering that the CA
found that the physical punishment heaped on [Lenny Villa was] serious in
nature,[101] it was patently erroneous for the court to limit the criminal liability to
slight physical injuries, which is a light felony.

Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the perpetrator shall be
liable for the consequences of an act, even if its result is different from that
intended. Thus, once a person is found to have committed an initial felonious act,
such as the unlawful infliction of physical injuries that results in the death of the
victim, courts are required to automatically apply the legal 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 tantamount to a whimsical, capricious, and abusive
exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. According to the Revised
Penal Code, the mandatory and legally imposable penalty in case the victim dies
should be based on the framework governing the destruction of the life of a person,
punished under Articles 246 to 261 for intentional felonies and Article 365 for
culpable felonies, and not under the aforementioned provisions. We emphasize that
these two types of felonies are distinct from and legally inconsistent with each
other, in that the accused cannot be held criminally liable for physical injuries when
actual death occurs.[102]

Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon as if only their acts,
in and of themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own
findings. From proof that the death of the victim was the cumulative effect of the
multiple injuries he suffered,[103] the only logical conclusion is that criminal
responsibility should redound to all those who have been proven to have directly
participated in the infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. The accumulation of
bruising on his body caused him to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordingly, we find that
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug criminally liable for slight
physical injuries. As an allowable exception to the rule on double jeopardy, we
therefore give due course to the Petition in G.R. No. 154954.

Resolution on Ultimate Findings

According to the trial court, although hazing was not (at the time) punishable as a
crime, the intentional infliction of physical injuries on Villa was nonetheless a
felonious act under Articles 263 to 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in ruling
against the accused, the court a quo found that pursuant to Article 4(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, the accused fraternity members were guilty of homicide, as it
was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the physical injuries they had
intentionally inflicted.[104]

The CA modified the trial courts finding of criminal liability. It ruled that
there could have been no conspiracy since the neophytes, including Lenny Villa,
had knowingly consented to the conduct of hazing during their initiation rites. The
accused fraternity members, therefore, were liable only for the consequences of
their individual acts. Accordingly, 19 of the accused Victorino et al. were acquitted;
4 of them Tecson et al. were found guilty of slight physical injuries; and the
remaining 2 Dizon and Villareal were found guilty of homicide.

The issue at hand does not concern a typical criminal case wherein the
perpetrator clearly commits a felony in order to take revenge upon, to gain
advantage over, to harm maliciously, or to get even with, the victim. Rather, the
case involves an ex ante situation in which a man driven by his own desire to join a
society of men pledged to go through physically and psychologically strenuous
admission rituals, just so he could enter the fraternity. Thus, in order to understand
how our criminal laws apply to such situation absent the Anti-Hazing Law, we deem
it necessary to make a brief exposition on the underlying concepts shaping
intentional felonies, as well as on the nature of physical and psychological
initiations widely known as hazing.

Intentional Felony and Conspiracy

Our Revised Penal Code belongs to the classical school of thought. [105] The
classical theory posits that a human person is essentially a moral creature with an
absolute free will to choose between good and evil. [106] It asserts that one should
only be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears
unimpaired.[107] The basic postulate of the classical penal system is that humans are
rational and calculating beings who guide their actions with reference to the
principles of pleasure and pain. [108] They refrain from criminal acts if threatened
with punishment sufficient to cancel the hope of possible gain or advantage in
committing the crime.[109] Here, criminal liability is thus based on the free will and
moral blame of the actor.[110] The identity of mens rea defined as a guilty mind, a
guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent is the predominant consideration.
[111]
 Thus, it is not enough to do what the law prohibits. [112] In order for an
intentional felony to exist, it is necessary that the act be committed by means
of dolo or malice.[113]

The term dolo or malice is a complex idea involving the elements

[114]
of freedom, intelligence, and intent.  The first element, freedom, refers to an act
done with deliberation and with power to choose between two things. [115] The
second element, intelligence, concerns the ability to determine the morality of
human acts, as well as the capacity to distinguish between a licit and an illicit act.
[116]
 The last element, intent, involves an aim or a determination to do a certain act.
[117]

The element of intent on which this Court shall focus is described as the
state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act. [118] It refers to the
purpose of the mind and the resolve with which a person proceeds. [119] It does not
refer to mere will, for the latter pertains to the act, while intent concerns the result
of the act.[120] While motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a
definite result, intent is the purpose of using a particular means to produce the
result.[121] On the other hand, the term felonious means, inter alia, malicious,
villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose. [122] With these elements
taken together, the requirement of intent in intentional felony must refer to
malicious intent, which is a 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 willfully, maliciously, with deliberate evil
intent, and with malice aforethought. [123] The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of is innocent.[124] As is required of the other elements of a felony, the
existence of malicious intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. [125]

In turn, the existence of malicious intent is necessary in order for conspiracy

to attach. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it is to be interpreted to refer only to felonies
committed by means of dolo or malice. The phrase coming to an agreement
connotes the existence of a prefaced intent to cause injury to another, 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 performed without malice or criminal design. [126] Here, a person performs
an initial lawful deed; however, due to negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or
lack of skill, the deed results in a wrongful act. [127] Verily, a deliberate intent to do
an unlawful act, which is a requisite in conspiracy, is inconsistent with the idea of a
felony committed by means of culpa.[128]
 The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is thus a vital
ingredient in establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide.
[129]
 Being mala in se, the felony of homicide requires the existence of malice
or dolo[130] immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.
[131]
 Intent to kill or animus interficendi cannot and should not be inferred, unless
there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. [132] Furthermore, the victims
death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide. [133] If
death resulted from an act executed without malice or criminal intent but with lack
of foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or
simple negligence or imprudence resulting in homicide. [134]

Hazing and other forms of initiation rites

The notion of hazing is not a recent development in our society. [135] It is said
that, throughout history, hazing in some form or another has been associated with
organizations ranging from military groups to indigenous tribes. [136] Some say that
elements of hazing can be traced back to the Middle Ages, during which new
students who enrolled in European universities worked as servants for
upperclassmen.[137] It is believed that the concept of hazing is rooted in ancient
Greece,[138] where young men recruited into the military were tested with pain or
challenged to demonstrate the limits of their loyalty and to prepare the recruits for
battle.[139] Modern fraternities and sororities espouse some connection to these
values of ancient Greek civilization. [140] According to a scholar, this concept lends
historical legitimacy to a tradition or ritual whereby prospective members are asked
to prove their worthiness and loyalty to the organization in which they seek to
attain membership through hazing.[141]

Thus, it is said that in the Greek fraternity system, custom requires a

student wishing to join an organization to receive an invitation in order to be a
neophyte for a particular chapter. [142] The neophyte period is usually one to two
semesters long.[143] 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 grade point
average; to participate in the organizations activities; and to show dignity and
respect for their fellow neophytes, the organization, and its active and alumni
members.[144] Some chapters require the initiation activities for a recruit to involve
hazing acts during the entire neophyte stage.[145]

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

serves as prerequisite for admission to an organization. [146] In hazing, the recruit,
pledge, neophyte, initiate, applicant or any other term by which the organization
may refer to such a person is generally placed in embarrassing or humiliating
situations, like being forced to do menial, silly, foolish, or other similar tasks or
activities.[147] It encompasses different forms of conduct that humiliate, degrade,
abuse, or physically endanger those who desire membership in the organization.
[148]
 These acts usually involve physical or psychological suffering or injury. [149]

The concept of initiation rites in the country is nothing new. In fact, more
than a century ago, our national hero Andres Bonifacio organized a secret society
named Kataastaasan Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (The
Highest and Most Venerable Association of the Sons and Daughters of the Nation).
[150]
 The Katipunan, or KKK, started as a small confraternity believed to be inspired
by European Freemasonry, as well as by confraternities or sodalities approved by
the Catholic Church.[151] The Katipunans ideology was brought home to each
member through the societys initiation ritual. [152] It is said that initiates were
brought to a dark room, lit by a single point of illumination, and were asked a
series of questions to determine their fitness, loyalty, courage, and resolve.
[153]
 They were made to go through vigorous trials such as pagsuot sa isang
lungga or [pagtalon] sa balon.[154] It would seem that they were also made to
withstand the blow of pangherong bakal sa pisngi and to endure a matalas na
punyal.[155] As a final step in the ritual, the neophyte Katipunero was made to sign
membership papers with the his own blood.[156]

It is believed that the Greek fraternity system was transported by the

Americans to the Philippines in the late 19th century. As can be seen in the following
instances, the manner of hazing in the United States was jarringly similar to that
inflicted by the Aquila Fraternity on Lenny Villa.

Early in 1865, upperclassmen at West Point Academy forced the fourth

classmen to do exhausting physical exercises that sometimes resulted in
permanent physical damage; to eat or drink unpalatable foods; and in various ways
to humiliate themselves.[157] In 1901, General Douglas MacArthur got involved in a
congressional investigation of hazing at the academy during his second year at
West Point.[158]

In Easler v. Hejaz Temple of Greenville, decided in 1985, the candidate-

victim was injured during the shriners hazing event, which was part of the initiation
ceremonies for Hejaz membership. [159] The ritual involved what was known as the
mattress-rotating barrel trick.[160] It required each candidate to slide down an eight
to nine-foot-high metal board onto connected mattresses leading to a barrel, over
which the candidate was required to climb. [161] Members of Hejaz would stand on
each side of the mattresses and barrel and fun-paddle candidates en route to the
barrel.[162]

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 directly onto the neophyte paratroopers chests. [163] The
victims were shown writhing and crying out in pain as others pounded the spiked
medals through the shirts and into the chests of the victims.[164]
 In State v. Allen, decided in 1995, the Southeast Missouri State University
chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi invited male students to enter into a pledgeship
program.[165] The fraternity members subjected the pledges to repeated physical
abuse including repeated, open-hand strikes at the nape, the chest, and the back;
caning of the bare soles of the feet and buttocks; blows to the back with the use of
a heavy book and a cookie sheet while the pledges were on their hands 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 seven-
station circle of physical abuse.[167]

In Ex Parte Barran, decided in 1998, the pledge-victim went through hazing

by fraternity members of the Kappa Alpha Order at the Auburn University in
Alabama.[168] 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 other items);
(5) doing chores for the fraternity and its members, such as cleaning the fraternity
house and yard, being designated as driver, and running errands; (6) appearing
regularly at 2 a.m. meetings, during which the pledges would be hazed for a couple
of hours; and (7) running the gauntlet, during which the pledges were pushed,
kicked, and hit as they ran down a hallway and descended down a flight of stairs.
[169]

In Lloyd v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, decided in 1999, the victim Sylvester
Lloyd was accepted to pledge at the Cornell University chapter of the Alpha Phi
Alpha Fraternity.[170] He participated in initiation activities, which included various
forms of physical beatings and torture, psychological coercion and embarrassment.
[171]

In Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, decided in 2002, the initiate-victim

suffered injuries from hazing activities during the fraternitys initiation rites.
[172]
 Kenner and the other initiates went through psychological and physical hazing,
including being paddled on the buttocks for more than 200 times.[173]

In Morton v. State, Marcus Jones a university student in Florida sought

initiation into the campus chapter of the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity during the
2005-06 academic year.[174] The pledges efforts to join the fraternity culminated in
a series of initiation rituals conducted in four nights. Jones, together with other
candidates, was blindfolded, verbally harassed, and caned on his face and buttocks.
[175]
 In these rituals described as preliminaries, which lasted for two evenings, he
received approximately 60 canings on his buttocks. [176] During the last two days of
the hazing, the rituals intensified.[177] The pledges sustained roughly 210 cane
strikes during the four-night initiation. [178] Jones and several other candidates
passed out.[179]
 The purported raison dtre behind hazing practices is the proverbial birth by
fire, through which the pledge who has successfully withstood the hazing proves his
or her worth.[180] Some organizations even believe that hazing is the path to
enlightenment. It is said that this process enables the organization to establish
unity among the pledges and, hence, reinforces and ensures the future of
the organization.[181] Alleged benefits of joining include leadership opportunities;
improved academic performance; higher self-esteem; professional networking
opportunities; and the esprit dcorp associated with close, almost filial, friendship
and common cause.[182]

Anti-Hazing laws in the U.S.

The first hazing statute in the U.S. appeared in 1874 in response to hazing
in the military.[183] The hazing of recruits and plebes in the armed services was so
prevalent that Congress prohibited all forms of military hazing, harmful or not.
[184]
 It was not until 1901 that Illinois passed the first state anti-hazing law,
criminalizing conduct whereby any one sustains an injury to his [or her] person
therefrom.[185]

However, it was not until the 1980s and 1990s, due in large part to the
efforts of the Committee to Halt Useless College Killings and other similar
organizations, that states increasingly began to enact legislation prohibiting and/or
criminalizing hazing.[186] As of 2008, all but six states had enacted criminal or civil
statutes proscribing hazing.[187] Most anti-hazing laws in the U.S. treat hazing as a
misdemeanor and carry relatively light consequences for even the most severe
situations.[188] Only a few states with anti-hazing laws consider hazing as a felony in
case death or great bodily harm occurs.[189]

Under the laws of Illinois, hazing is a Class A misdemeanor, except hazing

that results in death or great bodily harm, which is a Class 4 felony. [190] In a Class 4
felony, a sentence of imprisonment shall be for a term of not less than one year
and not more than three years. [191] Indiana criminal law provides that a person who
recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally 
performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person commits criminal
recklessness, a Class D felony.[192]

The offense becomes a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly

weapon.[193] As an element of a Class C felony criminal recklessness resulting in
serious bodily injury, death falls under the category of serious bodily injury. [194] A
person who commits a Class C felony is imprisoned for a fixed term of between two
(2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years.
[195]
Pursuant to Missouri law, hazing is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the act
creates a substantial risk to the life of the student or prospective member, in which
case it becomes a Class C felony.[196] A Class C felony provides for an imprisonment
term not to exceed seven years.[197]

In Texas, hazing that causes the death of another is a state jail felony.
[198]
 An individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony is punished by confinement in
a state jail for any term of not more than two years or not less than 180 days.
[199]
 Under Utah law, if hazing results in serious bodily injury, the hazer is guilty of a
third-degree felony.[200] A person who has been convicted of a third-degree felony
may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not to exceed five years. [201] West
Virginia law provides that if the act of hazing would otherwise be deemed a felony,
the hazer may be found guilty thereof and subject to penalties provided therefor.
[202]
 In Wisconsin, a person is guilty of a Class G felony if hazing results in the death
of another.[203] A 
Class G felony carries a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed
10 years, or both.[204]

In certain states in the U.S., victims of hazing were left with limited
remedies, as there was no hazing statute. [205] This situation was exemplified
in Ballou v. Sigma Nu General Fraternity, wherein Barry Ballous family resorted to a
civil action for wrongful death, since there was no anti-hazing statute in South
Carolina until 1994.[206]

The existence of animus interficendi or

intent to kill not proven beyond reasonable
doubt

The presence of an ex ante situation in this case, fraternity initiation rites

does not automatically amount to the absence of malicious intent or dolus malus. If
it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators were equipped with a
guilty mind whether or not there is a contextual background or factual premise they
are still criminally liable for intentional felony.

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 disturb this finding.

As regards Villareal and Dizon, the CA modified the Decision of the trial
court and found that the two accused had the animus interficendi or intent to kill
Lenny Villa, not merely to inflict physical injuries on him. It justified its finding of
homicide against Dizon by holding that he had apparently been motivated by ill will
while beating up Villa. Dizon kept repeating that his fathers parking space had been
stolen by the victims father.[207] As to Villareal, the court said that the accused
suspected the family of Bienvenido Marquez, one of the neophytes, to have had a
hand in the death of Villareals brother.[208]The CA then ruled as follows:

The two had their own axes to grind against Villa and

Marquez. It was very clear that they acted with evil and criminal
intent. The evidence on this matter is unrebutted and so for the
death of Villa, appellants Dizon and Villareal must and should
face the consequence of their acts, that is, to be held liable for
the crime of homicide.[209] (Emphasis supplied)
 
We cannot subscribe to this conclusion.

The appellate court relied mainly on the testimony of Bienvenido Marquez to

determine the existence of animus interficendi. For a full appreciation of the context
in which the supposed utterances were made, the Court deems it necessary to
reproduce the relevant portions of witness Marquezs testimony:
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
fraternity and their batch and we were also told
about the fraternity song, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness We were escorted out of [Michael Musngis] house and we
were made to ride a van and we were brought to
another place in Kalookan City which I later found
to be the place of Mariano Almeda, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness Upon arrival, we were instructed to bow our head down and
to link our arms and then the driver of the van and
other members of the Aquilans who were inside left
us inside the van, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness We heard voices shouted outside the van to the effect,
Villa akin ka, Asuncion Patay ka and the
people outside pound the van, rock the van,
sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar Will you please recall in what tone of voice and how
strong a voice these remarks uttered upon your
arrival?
 
Witness Some were almost shouting, you could feel the sense of
excitement in their voices, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar During all these times that the van was being rocked
through and through, what were the voices or
utterances that you heard?
 
Witness Villa akin ka, Asuncion patay ka, Recinto patay ka sa
amin, etc., sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar And those utterances and threats, how long did they
continue during the rocking of the van which lasted
for 5 minutes?
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness Even after they rocked the van, we still kept on
hearing voices, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar During the time that this rounds [of physical beating]
were being inflicted, was there any utterances by
anybody?
 
Witness Yes sir. Some were piercing, some were discouraging,
and some were encouraging others who were
pounding and beating us, it was just like a
fiesta atmosphere, actually some of them
enjoyed looking us being pounded, sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar Do you recall what were those voices that you heard?
 
Witness One particular utterance always said was, they asked us
whether matigas pa yan, kayang-kaya pa niyan.
 
Atty. Tadiar Do you know who in particular uttered those particular
words that you quote?
 
Witness I cannot particularly point to because there were utterances
simultaneously, I could not really pin point who
uttered those words, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar Were there any utterances that you heard during the
conduct of this Bicol Express?
 
Witness Yes, sir I heard utterances.
 
Atty. Tadiar Will you please recall to this Honorable Court what were
the utterances that you remember?
 
Witness For example, one person particularly Boyet Dizon stepped
on my thigh, he would say that and I quote
ito, yung pamilya nito ay pinapatay yung
kapatid ko, so that would in turn sort of justifying
him in inflicting more serious pain on me. So
instead of just walking, he would jump on my
thighs and then after on was Lenny Villa. He
was saying to the effect that this guy, his
father stole the parking space of my
father, sir. So, thats why he inflicted more pain on
Villa and that went on, sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar And you were referring to which particular accused?
 
Witness Boyet Dizon, sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar When Boyet Dizon at that particular time was accusing
you of having your family have his brother killed,
what was your response?
 
Witness Of course, I knew sir that it was not true and that he
was just making it up sir. So he said that I knew
nothing of that incident. However, he just in fact
after the Bicol Express, he kept on uttering those
words/statements so that it would in turn justify
him and to give me harder blows, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar You mentioned about Dizon in particular
mentioning that Lenny Villas father stole the
parking space allotted for his father, do you
recall who were within hearing distance when
that utterance was made?
 
Witness Yes, sir. All of the neophytes heard that utterance, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness There were different times made this accusation so there
were different people who heard from time to time,
sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar Can you tell the Honorable Court when was the next
accusation against Lenny Villas father was made?
 
Witness When we were line up against the wall, Boyet Dizon came
near to us and when Lenny Villas turn, I heard
him uttered those statements, sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar What happened after he made this accusation to Lenny
Villas father?
 
Witness He continued to inflict blows on Lenny Villa.
 
Atty. Tadiar How were those blows inflicted?
 
Witness There were slaps and he knelt on Lenny Villas thighs and
sometime he stand up and he kicked his thighs and
sometimes jumped at it, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Tadiar We would go on to the second day but not right now.
You mentioned also that accusations made
by Dizon you or your family had his brother
killed, can you inform this Honorable Court
what exactly were the accusations that were
charged against you while inflicting blows
upon you in particular?
 
Witness While he was inflicting blows upon me, he told me in
particular if I knew that his family 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 nothing
about it and he continued inflicting blows on
me, sir. And another incident was when a talk was
being given, Dizon was on another part of the
pelota court and I was sort of looking and we saw
that he was drinking beer, and he said and I
quote: Marquez, Marquez, ano ang tinitingin-
tingin mo diyan, ikaw yung pamilya mo ang
nagpapatay sa aking kapatid, yari ka sa akin,
sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar What else?
 
Witness Thats all, sir.
 
Atty. Tadiar And on that first night of February 8, 1991, did ever a
doctor or a physician came around as promised to
you earlier?
 
Witness No, sir.[210] (Emphasis supplied)

On cross-examination, witness Bienvenido Marquez testified thus:

Judge Purisima When you testified on direct examination Mr.

Marquez, have you stated that there was a briefing
that was conducted immediately before your
initiation as regards to what to expect during the
initiation, did I hear you right?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Judge Purisima Who did the briefing?
 
Witness Mr. Michael Musngi, sir and Nelson Victorino.
 
Judge Purisima Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court what they
told you to expect during the initiation?
 
Witness They told us at the time we would be brought to a particular
place, we would be mocked at, sir.
 
Judge Purisima So, you expected to be mocked at, ridiculed,
humiliated etc., and the likes?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Judge Purisima You were also told beforehand that there would be
physical contact?
 
Witness Yes, sir at the briefing.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Witness Yes, sir, because they informed that we could immediately
go back to school. All the bruises would be limited
to our arms and legs, sir. So, if we wear the regular
school uniforms like long sleeves, it would be
covered actually so we have no thinking that our
face would be slapped, sir.
 
Judge Purisima So, you mean to say that beforehand that you would
have bruises on your body but that will be covered?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
JudgePurisima So, what kind of physical contact or implements that
you expect that would create bruises to your body?
 
Witness At that point I am already sure that there would be hitting
by a paddling or paddle, sir.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Judge Purisima Now, will you admit Mr. Marquez that much of
the initiation procedures is psychological in
nature?
 
Witness Combination, sir.[211] (Emphasis supplied)
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
Atty. Jimenez The initiation that was conducted did not consist only
of physical initiation, meaning body contact, is that
correct?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez Part of the initiation was the so-called
psychological initiation, correct?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez And this consisted of making you believe of
things calculated to terrify you, scare you,
correct?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez In other words, the initiating masters made belief
situation intended to, I repeat, terrify you,
frighten you, scare you into perhaps quitting
the initiation, is this correct?
 
Witness Sometimes sir, yes.
 
Atty. Jimenez You said on direct that while Mr. Dizon was initiating
you, he said or he was supposed to have said
according to you that your family were responsible
for the killing of his brother who was an NPA, do
you remember saying that?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez You also said in connection with that statement said to
you by Dizon that you did not believe him
because that is not true, correct?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez In other words, he was only psychologizing you
perhaps, the purpose as I have mentioned
before, terrifying you, scaring you or
frightening you into quitting the initiation,
this is correct?
 
Witness No, sir, perhaps it is one but the main reason, I think,
why he was saying those things was because
he wanted to inflict injury.
 
Atty. Jimenez He did not tell that to you. That is your only
perception, correct?
 
Witness No, sir, because at one point, while he was telling this to
Villareal, he was hitting me.
 
Atty. Jimenez But did you not say earlier that you [were] subjected
to the same forms of initiation by all the initiating
masters? You said that earlier, right?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez Are you saying also that the others who jumped on you
or kicked you said something similar as was told to
you by Mr. Dizon?
 
Witness No, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez But the fact remains that in the Bicol Express for
instance, the masters would run on your thighs,
right?
 
Witness Yes, sir.
 
Atty. Jimenez This was the regular procedure that was followed by
the initiating masters not only on you but also on
the other neophytes?
 
Witness Yes, 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, was also administered by
another master on the other neophyte, this is
correct?
 
Witness Yes, sir.[212] (Emphasis supplied)

According to the Solicitor General himself, the ill motives attributed by the
CA to Dizon and Villareal were baseless,[213] since the statements of the accused
were just part of the psychological initiation calculated to instill fear on the part of
the neophytes; that [t]here is no element of truth in it as testified by Bienvenido
Marquez; and that the harsh words uttered by Petitioner and Villareal are part of
tradition concurred and accepted by all the fraternity members during their
initiation rites.[214]

We agree with the Solicitor General.

The foregoing testimony of witness Marquez reveals a glaring mistake of

substantial proportion on the part of the CA it mistook the utterances of Dizon for
those of Villareal. Such inaccuracy cannot be tolerated, especially because it was
the CAs primary basis for finding that 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, it was Dizon
who uttered both accusations against Villa and Marquez; Villareal had no
participation whatsoever in the specific threats referred to by the CA. It was Boyet
Dizon [who] stepped on [Marquezs] thigh; and who told witness Marquez, [I]to,
yung pamilya nito ay pinapatay yung kapatid ko. It was also Dizon who jumped on
Villas thighs while saying, [T]his guy, his father stole the parking space of my
father. With the testimony clarified, we find that the CA had no basis for concluding
the existence of intent to kill based solely thereon.

As to the existence of animus interficendi on the part of Dizon, we refer to

the entire factual milieu and contextual premise of the incident to fully appreciate
and understand the testimony of witness Marquez. At the outset, the neophytes
were briefed that they would be subjected to psychological pressure in order to
scare them. They knew that they would be mocked, ridiculed, and intimidated.
They heard fraternity members shout, Patay ka, Recinto, Yari ka, Recinto,
Villa, akin ka, Asuncion, gulpi ka, Putang ina mo, Asuncion, Putang ina nyo, patay
kayo sa amin, or some other words to that effect.[215] While beating the neophytes,
Dizon accused Marquez of the death of the formers purported NPA brother, and
then blamed Lenny Villas father for stealing the parking space of Dizons father.
According to the Solicitor General, these statements, including those of the accused
Dizon, were all part of the psychological initiation employed by the Aquila
Fraternity.[216]

Thus, to our understanding, accused Dizons way of inflicting psychological

pressure was through hurling make-believe accusations at the initiates. He
concocted the fictitious stories, so that he could justify giving the neophytes harder
blows, all in the context of fraternity initiation and role playing. Even one of the
neophytes admitted that the accusations were untrue and made-up.

 
 The infliction of psychological pressure is not unusual in the conduct of
hazing. In fact, during the Senate deliberations on the then proposed Anti-Hazing
Law, former Senator Lina spoke as follows:

Senator Lina. -- so as to capture the intent that we conveyed during

the period of interpellations on why we included the phrase or
psychological pain and suffering.

x x x x x x x x x

So that if no direct physical harm is inflicted upon the neophyte or

the recruit but the recruit or neophyte is made to undergo
certain acts which I already described yesterday, like playing the
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
organization or playing and putting a noose on the neck of the
neophyte or recruit, making the recruit or neophyte stand on the
ledge of the fourth floor of the building facing outside, asking him to
jump outside after making him turn around several times but the
reality is that he will be made to jump towards the inside portion of
the building these are the mental or psychological tests that are
resorted to by these organizations, sororities or fraternities.
The doctors who appeared during the public hearing testified that
such acts can result in some mental aberration, that they can even
lead to psychosis, neurosis or insanity. This is what we want to
prevent.[217] (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, Dizons behavior must not be
automatically viewed as evidence of a genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny Villa.
Rather, it must be taken within the context of the fraternitys psychological
initiation. This Court points out that it was not 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,
only confirmed this view. According to Marquez, he knew it was not true and that
[Dizon] was just making it up. [218] Even the trial court did not give weight to the
utterances of Dizon as constituting intent to kill: [T]he cumulative acts of all the
accused were not directed toward killing Villa, but merely to inflict physical harm as
part of the fraternity initiation rites x x x. [219] The Solicitor General shares the same
view.

Verily, we cannot sustain the CA in finding the accused Dizon guilty of

homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence
of intent to kill. Animus interficendi cannot and should not be inferred unless there
is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. [220] Instead, we adopt and
reinstate the finding of the trial court in part, insofar as it ruled that none
of the fraternity members had the specific intent to kill Lenny Villa.[221]

The existence of animus iniuriandi or

malicious intent to injure not proven
beyond reasonable doubt

The Solicitor General argues, instead, that there was an intent to inflict
physical injuries on Lenny Villa. Echoing the Decision of the trial court, the Solicitor
General then posits that since all of the accused fraternity members conspired to
inflict physical injuries on Lenny Villa and death ensued, all of them should be liable
for the crime of homicide pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
 In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to
266 of the Revised Penal Code,[222] the employment of physical injuries must be
coupled with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious
intent is fundamental, since injury arises from the mental state of the
wrongdoer iniuria ex affectu facientis consistat. If there is no 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
malicious intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a
person, so as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain bodily functions.
Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt
act of inflicting physical injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of freedom
and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of the act does not, in
itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions are.[223]

Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances [224] that the mere infliction of

physical injuries, absent malicious intent, does not make a person automatically
liable for an intentional felony. In Bagajo v. People,[225] the accused teacher, using a
bamboo stick, whipped one of her students behind her legs and thighs as a form of
discipline. The student suffered lesions and bruises from the corporal punishment.
In reversing the trial courts finding of criminal liability for slight physical injuries,
this Court stated thus: Independently of any civil or administrative responsibility
[w]e are persuaded that she did not do what she had done with criminal intent the
means she actually used was moderate and that she was not motivated by ill-will,
hatred or any malevolent intent. Considering the applicable laws, we then ruled
that as a matter of law, petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of
whipping her pupil. In People v. Carmen,[226] the accused members of the religious
group known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima under the guise of a ritual
or treatment plunged the head of the victim into a barrel of water, banged his head
against a bench, pounded his chest with fists, and stabbed him on the side with a
kitchen knife, in order to cure him of nervous breakdown by expelling through
those means the bad spirits possessing him. The collective acts of the group caused
the death of the victim. Since malicious intent was not proven, we reversed the trial
courts finding of liability for murder under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code and
instead ruled that the accused should 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 punishable under the Revised Penal Code,
thereby making it subject to Article 4(1) thereof. In People v. Regato, we ruled that
malicious intent must be judged by the action, conduct, and external acts of the
accused.[227] What persons do is the best index of their intention. [228] We have also
ruled that the method employed, the kind of weapon used, and the parts of the
body on which the injury was inflicted may be determinative of the intent of the
perpetrator.[229] The Court shall thus examine the whole contextual background
surrounding the death of Lenny Villa.

Lenny died during Aquilas fraternity initiation rites. The night before the
commencement 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 their first night, they were subjected to
traditional initiation rites, including the Indian Run, Bicol Express, Rounds, and the
Auxies Privilege Round. The beatings were predominantly directed at the neophytes
arms and legs.

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, the neophytes were subjected to another
traditional ritual paddling by the fraternity.

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 those who were designated to inflict physical and psychological
pain on the initiates. [230] It was their regular duty to stop foul or excessive physical
blows; to help the neophytes to pump their legs in order that their blood would
circulate; to facilitate a rest interval after every physical activity or round; to serve
food and water; to tell jokes; to coach the initiates; and to give them whatever
they needed.

These rituals were performed with Lennys consent. [231] A few days before the
rites, he asked both his parents for permission to join the Aquila Fraternity. [232] His
father knew that Lenny would go through an initiation process and would be gone
for three days.[233] The CA found as follows:

It is worth pointing out that the neophytes willingly and

voluntarily consented to undergo physical initiation and
hazing. As can be gleaned from the narration of facts, they
voluntarily agreed to join the initiation rites to become members of
the Aquila Legis Fraternity. Prior to the initiation, they were given
briefings on what to expect. It is of common knowledge that
before 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 other forms of hazing. They were also told of their
right and opportunity to quit at any time they wanted to. In
fact, prosecution witness Navera testified that accused Tecson told
him that after a week, you can already play basketball. Prosecution
witness Marquez for his part, admitted that he knew that the
initiates would be hit in the arms and legs, that a wooden
paddle would be used to hit them and that he expected
bruises on his arms and legs. Indeed, there can be no
fraternity initiation without consenting neophytes.
[234]
 (Emphasis supplied)

Even after going through Aquilas grueling traditional rituals during the first
day, Lenny continued his participation and finished the second day of initiation.

Based on the foregoing contextual background, and absent further proof showing
clear malicious intent, we are constrained to rule that the specific animus
iniuriandi was not present in this case. Even if the specific acts of punching, kicking,
paddling, and other modes of inflicting physical pain were done voluntarily, freely,
and with intelligence, thereby satisfying the elements of 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 was that the
acts were done pursuant to tradition. Although the additional rounds on the second
night were held upon the insistence of Villareal and Dizon, the initiations were
officially reopened with the consent of the head of the initiation rites; and the
accused fraternity members 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
presence of malicious intent. All those who wished to join the fraternity went
through the same process of traditional initiation; there is no proof that Lenny Villa
was specifically targeted or given a different treatment. We stress that Congress
itself recognized that hazing is uniquely different from common crimes. [235] The
totality of the circumstances must therefore be taken into consideration.

The underlying context and motive in which the infliction of physical injuries
was rooted may also be determined by Lennys continued participation in the
initiation and consent to the method used even after the first day. The following
discussion of the framers of the 1995 Anti-Hazing Law is enlightening:

SENATOR GUINGONA. Most of these acts, if not all, are

already punished under the Revised Penal Code.
 
SENATOR LINA. That is correct, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. If hazing is done at present and it
results in death, the charge would be murder or homicide.
 
SENATOR LINA. That is correct, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. If it does not result in death, it may be
frustrated homicide or serious physical injuries.
 
SENATOR LINA. That is correct, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. Or, if the person who commits sexual
abuse does so it can be penalized under rape or acts of
lasciviousness.
 
SENATOR LINA. That is correct, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. So, what is the rationale for making a
new offense under this definition of the crime of hazing?
 
SENATOR LINA. To discourage persons or group of persons
either composing a sorority, fraternity or any association from
making this requirement of initiation that has already resulted in
these specific acts or results, Mr. President.
 
That is the main rationale. We want to send a strong signal
across the land that no group or association can require the act of
physical initiation before a person can become a member without
being held criminally liable.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. Yes, but what would be the rationale
for that imposition? Because the distinguished Sponsor has said that
he is not punishing a mere organization, he is not seeking the
punishment of an initiation into a club or organization, he is seeking
the punishment 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, but it may be a legitimate
defense for invoking two or more charges or offenses, because these
very same acts are already punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
 
That is my difficulty, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR LINA. x x x
 
Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a very telling
difference: When a person or group of persons resort to hazing
as a requirement for gaining entry into an organization, the
intent to commit a wrong is not visible or is not present, Mr.
President. Whereas, in these 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 hazing is the basis, what is important is the
result from the act of hazing.
 
To me, that is the basic difference and that is what will
prevent or deter the sororities or 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 acts of lasciviousness are
even committed initially, Mr. President.
 
So, what we want to discourage is the so-called initial
innocent act. That is why there is need to institute this kind of
hazing. Ganiyan po ang nangyari. Ang fraternity o ang sorority ay
magre-recruit. Wala talaga silang intensiyong makamatay. Hindi
ko na babanggitin at buhay pa iyong kaso. Pero dito sa anim o pito
na namatay nitong nakaraang taon, walang intensiyong patayin
talaga iyong neophyte. So, kung maghihintay pa tayo, na saka
lamang natin isasakdal ng murder kung namatay na, ay after the fact
ho iyon. Pero, kung sasabihin natin sa mga kabataan na: Huwag
ninyong gagawin iyong hazing. Iyan ay kasalanan at kung mamatay
diyan, mataas ang penalty sa inyo.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
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 prove the
intent that resulted in the death, that resulted in the serious
physical injuries, that resulted in the acts of lasciviousness or
deranged mind. We do not have to prove the willful intent of the
accused in proving or establishing the crime of hazing. This seems,
to me, a novel situation where we create the special crime
without having to go into the intent, which is one of the basic
elements of any crime.
 
If there is no intent, there is no crime. If the intent
were merely to initiate, then there is no offense. And even the
distinguished Sponsor admits that the organization, the intent
to initiate, the intent to have a new society or a new club
is, per se, not punishable at all. What are punishable are the
acts that lead to the result. But if these results are not going
to be proven by intent, but just because there was hazing, I
am afraid that it will disturb the basic concepts of the Revised
Penal Code, 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
conduct hazing, no one will admit that their intention is to
maim or to kill. So, we are already criminalizing the fact of inflicting
physical pain. Mr. President, it is a criminal act and we want it
stopped, deterred, discouraged.
 
If that occurs, under this law, there is no necessity to prove
that the masters intended to kill or the masters intended to maim.
What is important is the result of the act of hazing. Otherwise, the
masters or those who inflict the physical pain can easily
escape responsibility and say, We did not have the intention
to kill. This is part of our initiation rites. This is normal. We do
not have any intention to kill or maim.
 
This is the lusot, Mr. President. They might as well have
been charged therefore with the ordinary crime of homicide,
mutilation, et cetera, where the prosecution will have a
difficulty proving the elements if they are separate offenses.
 
x x x x x x x x x
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. Mr. President, assuming there was a
group that initiated and a person died. The charge is murder. My
question is: Under this bill if it becomes a law, would the prosecution
have to prove conspiracy or not anymore?
 
SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, if the person is present during
hazing x x x
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. The persons are present. First, would
the prosecution have to prove conspiracy? Second, would the
prosecution have to prove intent to kill or not?
 
 
SENATOR LINA. No more. As to the second question, Mr.
President, if that occurs, there is no need to prove intent to kill.
 
SENATOR GUINGONA. But the charge is murder.
 
SENATOR LINA. That is why I said that it should not be
murder. It should be hazing, Mr. President.  [236] (Emphasis supplied)
 

During a discussion between Senator Biazon and Senator Lina on the issue
of whether to include sodomy as a punishable act under the Anti-Hazing Law,
Senator Lina further clarified thus:

SENATOR BIAZON. Mr. President, this Representation has no

objection to the inclusion of sodomy as one of the conditions
resulting from hazing as necessary to be punished. However, the act
of sodomy can be committed by two persons with or without consent.

To make it clearer, what is being punished here is the

commission of sodomy forced into another individual by another
individual. I move, Mr. President, that sodomy be modified by the
phrase without consent for purposes of this section.
 
SENATOR LINA. I am afraid, Mr. President, that if we qualify
sodomy with the concept that it is only going to aggravate the crime
of hazing if it is done without consent will change a lot 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, it can
be with or without the consent of the intended victim. The fact
that a person joins a sorority or fraternity with his consent
does not negate the crime of hazing.
 
This is a proposed law intended to protect the citizens from
the malpractices that attend initiation which may have been
announced with or without physical infliction of pain or injury, Mr.
President. Regardless of whether there is announcement that
there will be physical hazing or whether there is none, and
therefore, the neophyte is duped into joining a fraternity is of
no moment. What is important is that there is an infliction of
physical pain.
 
The bottom line of this law is that a citizen even has to be
protected from himself if he joins a fraternity, so that at a certain
point in time, the State, the individual, or the parents of the
victim can run after the perpetrators of the crime, regardless
of whether or not there was consent on the part of the victim.

x x x x x x x x x

SENATOR LINA. Mr. President, I understand the position taken

by the distinguished Gentleman from Cavite and Metro Manila. It is
correct that society sometimes adopts new mores, traditions, and
practices.
 
 
In this bill, we are not going to encroach into the private
proclivities of some individuals when they do their acts in private as
we do not take a peek into the private rooms of couples. They can do
their thing if they want to make love in ways that are not considered
acceptable by the mainstream of society. That is not something that
the State should prohibit.
 
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 with
the consent of the neophyte. If the law is passed, that does
not make the act of hazing not punishable because the
neophyte accepted the infliction of pain upon himself.
 
If the victim suffers from serious physical injuries, but
the initiator said, Well, he allowed it upon himself. He
consented to it. So, if we allow that reasoning that sodomy
was done with the consent of the victim, then we would not
have passed any law at all. There will be no significance if we
pass this bill, because it will always be a defense that the
victim allowed the infliction of pain or suffering. He accepted it
as part of the initiation rites.
 
But precisely, Mr. President that is one thing that we
would want to prohibit. That the defense of consent will not
apply because the very act of inflicting physical pain or
psychological suffering is, by itself, a punishable act. The result
of the act of hazing, like death or physical injuries merely aggravates
the act with higher penalties. But the defense of consent is not
going to nullify the criminal nature of the act.
 
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 will
collapse.
 
 SENATOR BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. President.
 
SENATOR LINA. Thank you very much.
 
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the committee
amendment? (Silence.) The Chair hears none; the same is approved.
[237]

(Emphasis supplied)
 
Realizing the implication of removing the states burden to prove intent,
Senator Lina, the principal author of the Senate Bill, said:

I am very happy that the distinguished Minority Leader

brought out the idea of intent or whether there it
is mala in se or mala prohibita. There can be a radical amendment if
that is the point that he wants to go to.
 
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 possibility. I
will not foreclose that suggestion, Mr. President. [238](Emphasis
supplied)

Thus, having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and
the core principle of mala in se adhered to under the Revised Penal Code, Congress
did not simply enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on
hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. This dilemma faced by
Congress is further proof of how the nature of hazing unique as against typical
crimes cast a cloud of doubt on whether society considered the act as an inherently
wrong conduct or mala in se at the time. It is safe to presume that Lennys parents
would not have consented[239] to his participation in Aquila Fraternitys initiation rites
if the practice of hazing were considered by them as mala in se.

Furthermore, in Vedaa v. Valencia (1998), we noted through Associate

Justice (now retired Chief Justice) Hilario Davide that in our nations very recent
history, the people have spoken, through Congress, to deem conduct constitutive
of hazing, [an] act[] previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal.
[240]
 Although it may be regarded as a simple obiter dictum, the statement
nonetheless shows recognition that hazing or the conduct of initiation rites through
physical and/or psychological suffering has not been traditionally criminalized. Prior
to the 1995 Anti-Hazing Law, there was to some extent a lacuna in the law; hazing
was not clearly considered an intentional felony. And when there is doubt on the
interpretation of criminal laws, all must be resolved in favor of the accused. In
dubio pro reo.

For the foregoing reasons, and as a matter of law, the Court is constrained
to rule against the trial courts finding of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries
on Lenny Villa, there being no proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of
malicious intent to inflict physical injuries or animus iniuriandi as required in mala
in se cases, considering the contextual background of his death, the unique nature
of hazing, and absent a law prohibiting hazing.

The accused fraternity members guilty of

reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
 The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean, however, that
the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The
Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault
(culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Reckless imprudence or negligence consists of a voluntary act done without

malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage results
by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution or advertence on the part of the
person committing it.[241] In this case, the danger is visible and consciously
appreciated by the actor.[242] In contrast, simple imprudence or
negligence comprises an act done without grave fault, from which an injury or
material damage ensues by reason of a mere lack of foresight or skill. [243] Here, the
threatened harm is not immediate, and the danger is not openly visible. [244]

The test[245] 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? If so, the law imposes on the doer
the duty to take precaution against the mischievous results of the act. Failure to do
so constitutes negligence.[246]

As we held in Gaid v. People, for a person to avoid being charged with

recklessness, the degree of precaution and diligence required varies with the
degree of the danger involved. [247] If, on account of a certain line of conduct, the
danger of causing harm to another person is great, the individual who chooses to
follow that particular course of conduct is bound to be very careful, in order to
prevent or avoid damage or injury. [248] In contrast, if the danger is minor, not much
care is required.[249] It is thus possible that there are countless degrees of
precaution or diligence that may be required of an individual, from a transitory
glance of care to the most vigilant effort.[250] The duty of the person to employ more
or less degree of care will depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.
[251]

There was patent recklessness in the hazing of Lenny Villa.

According to the NBI medico-legal officer, Lenny died of cardiac failure

secondary to multiple traumatic injuries. [252] The officer explained that cardiac
failure refers to the failure of the heart to work as a pump and as part of the
circulatory system due to the lack of blood. [253] In the present case, the victims
heart could no longer work as a pumping organ, because it was deprived of its
requisite blood and oxygen.[254] The deprivation was due to the channeling of the
blood supply from the entire circulatory system including the heart, arteries, veins,
venules, and capillaries to the thigh, leg, and arm areas of Lenny, thus causing the
formation of multiple hematomas or blood clots. [255] The multiple hematomas were
wide, thick, and deep,[256] indicating that these could have resulted mainly from
injuries sustained by the victim from fist blows, knee blows, paddles, or the like.
[257]
 Repeated blows to those areas caused the blood to gradually ooze out of the
capillaries until the circulating blood became so markedly diminished as to produce
death. [258] The officer also found that the brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, intestines,
and all other organs seen in the abdominals, as well as the thoracic organ in the
lungs, were pale due to the lack of blood, which was redirected to the thighs and
forearms.[259] It was concluded that there was nothing in the heart that would
indicate that the victim suffered from a previous cardiac arrest or disease.[260]

The multiple hematomas or bruises found in Lenny Villas arms and thighs,
resulting from repeated blows to those areas, caused the loss of blood from his vital
organs and led to his eventual death. These hematomas must be taken in the light
of the hazing activities performed on him by the Aquila Fraternity. According to the
testimonies of the co-neophytes of Lenny, they were punched, kicked, elbowed,
kneed, stamped on; and hit with different objects on their arms, legs, and thighs.
[261]
 They were also paddled at the back of their thighs or legs; [262] and slapped on
their faces.[263] They were made to play rough basketball.[264] Witness Marquez
testified on Lenny, saying: [T]inamaan daw sya sa spine.[265] The NBI medico-legal
officer explained that the death of the victim was the cumulative effect of the
multiple injuries suffered by the latter. [266] The relevant portion of the testimony is
as follows:

Atty. Tadiar Doctor, there was, rather, it was your testimony on

various cross examinations of defense counsels that
the injuries that you have enumerated on the body
of the deceased Lenny Villa previously marked as
Exhibit G-1 to G-14 individually by themselves
would not cause the death of the victim. The
question I am going to propound to you is what is
the cumulative effect of all of these injuries marked
from Exhibit G-1 to G-14?
 
Witness All together nothing in concert to cause to the demise of the
victim. So, it is not fair for us to isolate such
injuries here because we are talking of the whole
body. At the same manner that as a car would not
run minus one (1) wheel. No, the more humane in
human approach is to interpret all those injuries in
whole and not in part.[267]

There is also evidence to show that some of the accused fraternity members
were drinking during the initiation rites.[268]

Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were

tantamount to recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable
felony. It must be remembered that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of
care not to cause them injury in the process. [269] With the foregoing facts, we rule
that the accused are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the
NBI medico-legal officer found that the victims death was the cumulative effect of
the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly
participated in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries.

It appears from the aforementioned facts that the incident may have been
prevented, or at least mitigated, had the alumni of Aquila Fraternity accused Dizon
and Villareal restrained themselves from insisting on reopening the initiation rites.
Although this point did not matter in the end, 
as records would show that the other fraternity members participated in the
reopened initiation rites having in mind the concept of seniority in fraternities the
implication of the presence of alumni should be seen as a point of review in future
legislation. We further note that some of the fraternity members were intoxicated
during Lennys initiation rites. In this light, the Court submits to Congress, for
legislative consideration, the amendment of the Anti-Hazing Law to include the fact
of intoxication and the presence of non-resident or alumni fraternity members
during hazing as aggravating circumstances that would increase the applicable
penalties.

It is truly astonishing how men would wittingly or unwittingly impose the

misery of hazing and employ appalling rituals in the name of brotherhood. There
must be a better way to establish kinship. A neophyte admitted that he joined the
fraternity to have more friends and to avail himself of the benefits it offered, such
as tips during bar examinations. [270] Another initiate did not give up, because he
feared being looked down upon as a quitter, and because he felt he did not have a
choice.[271] Thus, for Lenny Villa and the other neophytes, joining the Aquila
Fraternity entailed a leap in the dark. By giving consent under the circumstances,
they left their fates in the hands of the fraternity members. Unfortunately, the
hands to which lives were entrusted were barbaric as they were reckless.

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 convicted of the crime of hazing punishable
by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).[272] Since there was no law prohibiting
the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing
laws at the time of his death. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, 
Victorino et al.s individual participation in the infliction of physical injuries upon
Lenny Villa.[273] As to accused Villareal, his criminal liability was totally extinguished
by the fact of his death, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, our ruling herein shall be interpreted without prejudice to the

applicability of the Anti-Hazing Law to subsequent cases. Furthermore, the
modification of criminal liability from slight physical injuries to reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide shall apply only with respect to accused
Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson.

The accused liable to pay damages

The CA awarded damages in favor of the heirs of Lenny Villa in the amounts
of ₱50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and ₱1,000,000 as moral damages, to be
jointly and severally paid by accused Dizon and Villareal. It also awarded the
amount of ₱30,000 as indemnity to be jointly and severally paid by
accused Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson.

Civil indemnity ex delicto is automatically awarded for the sole fact of death
of the victim.[274] In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, [275] we sustain the
CAs award of indemnity in the amount of ₱50,000.
 The heirs of the victim are entitled to actual or compensatory damages,
including expenses incurred in connection with the death of the victim, so long as
the claim is supported by tangible documents. [276] Though we are prepared to award
actual damages, the Court is prevented from granting them, since the records are
bereft of any evidence to show that actual expenses were incurred or proven during
trial. Furthermore, in the appeal, the Solicitor General does not interpose any claim
for actual damages.[277]

The heirs of the deceased may recover moral damages for the grief suffered
on account of the victims death.[278] This penalty is pursuant to Article 2206(3) of
the Civil Code, which provides that the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and the ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. [279] Thus, we hereby we
affirm the CAs award of moral damages in the amount of ₱1,000,000.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 155101 finding petitioner

Fidelito Dizon guilty of homicide is hereby MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART.
The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954 finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel
Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson guilty of the crime of slight
physical injuries is also MODIFIED and SET ASIDE 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 Article 365 in
relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to
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 indemnity ex delicto in the amount of ₱50,000, and moral
damages in the amount of ₱1,000,000, plus legal interest on all damages awarded
at the rate of 12% from the date of the finality of this Decision until satisfaction.
[280]
 Costs de oficio.

The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954, acquitting Victorino et al., is

hereby AFFIRMED. The appealed Judgments in G.R. Nos. 178057 & 178080,
dismissing the criminal case filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano,
are likewise AFFIRMED. Finally, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal
Code, the Petition in G.R. No. 151258 is hereby 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 House of Representatives for possible consideration of the
amendment of the Anti-Hazing Law to include the fact of intoxication and the
presence of non-resident or alumni fraternity members during hazing as
aggravating circumstances that would increase the applicable penalties. SO
ORDERED.

Al Philip P. Geli Dec. 9, 2017

LLB-3 Assignment no. 2

Horacio Castillo III case

The death of the freshman law student from the University of Santo

Tomas Horacio Castillo III has created many controversies that needs to be

addressed. One such thing is whether Dean Divina of the College of Law in

the University is also liable for the death of Castillo. Under section 3 of the

Anti-Hazing Act of 1995 or R.A. no. 8049, the head of the school or

organization or their representatives must assign at least two (2)

representatives of the school or organization, as the case may be, to be

present during the initiation. It is the duty of such representative to see to it

that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte

or applicant. In this case, there was no evidence presented by the alleged

suspects which includes Dean Divina that there are representatives that are

present during the initiation to see to it that no physical harm of any kind

shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant, which here is the

victim Horacio Castillo III. Moreover, Divina admitted during the Senate

inquiry on September 25, 2017 that he was aware about Castillo’s hazing

and injuries in the hands of the members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity even

before Castillo’s parents were informed. Divina failed to ensure

compliance of the notice requirement regarding any hazing or initiation

rites under Section 2 of R.A. 8049.

Moreover, Marc Ventura’s act of concealing the details of him

witnessing the hazing incident as a state witness constitutes a ground for

misconduct under the Code of Profession Responsibility. Rule 1.01 of the

said Code provides a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03 of the Code provides that a lawyer

shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice

law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous

manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Furthermore, the initiators of hazing from the Aegis Juris Fraternity

are liable for the death of Castillo. According to the case of In the matter

of the admission to the bar and oathtaking of successful bar applicant Al C.

Argosino, the requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those

who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent

than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public.

There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the

legal profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications.

In addition, as stated in Valdez vs Dabon, Jr., possession of good moral

character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to

warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal

profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden duty to observe the

highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity, and the

legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called

upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts

constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court

demand no less than the highest degree of morality.