Case Digest - ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

8/23/22, 2:29 PM Case Digest: ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v.
PEOPLE
by Gerz Pil

    
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE, GR No. 151258, 2012-02-01 (/juris/view/c63bf?
user=fMkcyRW1MVERMaW1YNDBIQStZczdnQT09)
Facts:
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 Rufo's 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 Fraternity's 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.
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c63bf?user=889 1/7
8/23/22, 2:29 PM Case Digest: ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE
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 Lenny's 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
Tw... wenty-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,... G.R. No. 155101 - Dizon v. People
Accused Dizon filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the CA's 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 court's 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 Dizon's 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 Lenny's 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 Lenny's father
could not have stolen the parking space of Dizon's 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 Lenny's 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 latter's
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 victim's well-being.
adopt the testimonial evidence of the other accused who had already testified.[37] Because of this
development and pursuant to the trial court's 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 Constanci... nt 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 court's 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
Cour... tion, counsel filed a Constancia on 25 August 1993,... alleging that he had to appear in a previously
[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
cour
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 court's 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]
Issues:
Whether accused Dizon is guilty of homicide
Ruling:
emed 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 8th, 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]... 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 acti... on 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.
Principles:
uation, counsel filed a Constancia on 25 August 1993,... alleging that he had to appear in a previously
[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]... 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 one's
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 defense's 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
Sandiganbayan's 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 "yesterday's and today's 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, Crisostomo's 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, Crisostomo's 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,... risostomo 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 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 Dizon's 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]
already been determined, we shall proceed to decide i... d only after the activity was sanctioned."[50]
on 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]

Case Digest - ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/23/22, 2:29 PM Case Digest: ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v.

Whether accused Dizon is guilty of homicide

emed closed and terminated.

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

You might also like