Anti-Hazing Law

Reporter:
Mae Niagara M.
Balanay
The public outrage over the death of Leonardo “Lenny” Villa
who died during the initiation rites of Aquila Legis fraternity on 10
February 1991 led to a very strong clamor to put an end to hazing.
Due in large part to the brave efforts of his mother, 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. The intent of the law was to discourage members from
making hazing a requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity,
organization, or association. 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.
The fraternal contract should not be signed in
blood, celebrated with pain, marred by injuries, and
perpetrated through suffering.
(Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr., vs.People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015)
It 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. (Sec. 1)
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 crime of hazing is thus committed when:
(1) A person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating
situation or subjected to physical or psychological
suffering or injury; and
(2) The acts were employed as a prerequisite for the
person’s admission or entry into an organization.
“There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a

prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization. Failure to aver
this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the
criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as
accomplice, for the crime of hazing.”
(PEOPLE vs. BAYABOS,et.al, Supra.)
In the crime of hazing, the crucial ingredient
distinguishing it from the crimes against persons
defined under Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code is
the infliction by a person of physical or psychological
suffering on another in furtherance of the latter’s
admission or entry into an organization.
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
by 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.
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 the
initiation rites (Sec. 2).
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. 3)
1. PARTICIPATORS
The officers and members of the fraternity,
sorority or organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm upon the recruit.
2. ADVISERS
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 occuring.
3. PLANNERS
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 crime of hazing were committed.
4. PARENTS
Parents of one of the officers or members of
the fraternity, group, or organization, in whose home
the hazing was held, and having actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring.
1. The owner of the place where hazing is conducted, when
he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring.
2. 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.
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
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
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 maximum penalty for Violation of Anti-Hazing Law
shall be imposed if 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.
In Villareal v. People, (G.R. No. 151258, February 1,
2012) the Court suggested that the fact of intoxication and the
presence of non-resident or alumni fraternity members during
hazing should be considered as aggravating circumstances that
would increase the applicable penalties.
Section 4 expressly states that “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.”
The provision of RA No. 8049, which
prescribes penalty for hazing, is applicable to
the President, Manager, Director, or other
responsible Officer of a corporation engaged in
hazing as a requirement for employment.
Responsible officials of the school or the police, military or
Citizen’s army training organization, may imposed the
appropriate administrative sanctions on the person or the
persons charged with hazing under Sec. 4 even before their
convictions.
Thank you for listening.

Anti-Hazing Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti-Hazing Law

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

Anti-Hazing Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reporter:

“There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a

2. The school authorities including faculty members who

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum

(a) When the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence,

(b) When the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to

(d) When the hazing is committed outside of the school or

You might also like