Sibal V People GR No. 209464

~~1
...
l\epubltc of tbe llbilippines

~upreme
Ql:ourt
;fflanila
SECOND DIVISION
DANDY L. DUNGO and
GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR.,
Petitioners,
- versus -
G.R. No. 209464
Present:
'
CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,'"
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN, JJ
Promulgated:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
0 1 JUL 2015
x--------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
The fraternal contract should not be signed in blood, celebrated with
pain, marred by injuries, and perpetrated through suffering. That is the
essence of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set
aside the April 26, 2013 Decision 1 and the October 8, 2013 Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05046, which affirmed
the February 23, 2011 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36,
Calamba City (RTC). The RTC found petitioners Dandy L. Dungo (Dungo)
and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. (Sibal), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049, and sentenced them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2079,
dated June 29, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and Associate
Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurring of Court of Appeals Fourth Division; rollo, pp. 66-88.
2
Id. at 90-91.
3
Penned by Presiding Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen; id. at 30-64.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
The Facts
On February 1, 2006, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba,
Laguna, filed the Information4 against the petitioners before the RTC, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of January 14, 2006,
at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Province of Laguna
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, during an initiation rite and being then members of Alpha
Phi Omega fraternity and present thereat, in conspiracy with more or
less twenty other members and officers, whose identity is not yet
known, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault
and use personal violence upon one MARLON VILLANUEVA y
MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as condition for his admission to
the fraternity, thereby subjecting him to physical harm, resulting to
his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On February 7, 2006, upon motion, the RTC admitted the Amended

Information5 which reads:
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-name
accused, during a planned initiation rite and being then officers and
members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and present thereat, in
conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers,
whose identity is not yet known, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one
MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as
condition for his admission to the fraternity, thereby subjecting him
to physical harm, resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice
of the heirs of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On February 7, 2006, Dungo filed a motion to quash for lack of

probable cause,6 but it was denied by the trial court because the ground cited
therein was not provided by law and jurisprudence. When arraigned, the
petitioners pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.7 Thereafter, trial ensued.
Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
Id. at 49.
6
Id. at 41-44.
7
Id. at 58.
5
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented twenty (20) witnesses to prove the crime
charged. Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
At around 3:20 oclock in the morning of January 14, 2006, the victim
Marlon Villanueva (Villanueva) was brought to the emergency room of Dr.
Jose P. Rizal District Hospital (JP Rizal Hospital). Dr. Ramon Masilungan
(Dr. Masilungan), who was then the attending physician at the emergency
room, observed that Villanueva was motionless, not breathing and had no
heartbeat. Dr. Masilungan tried to revive Villanueva for about 15 to 30
minutes. Villanueva, however, did not respond to the resuscitation and was
pronounced dead. Dr. Masilungan noticed a big contusion hematoma on the
left side of the victims face and several injuries on his arms and legs. He
further attested that Villanuevas face was cyanotic, meaning that blood was
no longer running through his body due to lack of oxygen; and when he
pulled down Villanuevas pants, he saw large contusions on both legs, which
extended from the upper portion of the thighs, down to the couplexial
portion, or back of the knees.
Dr. Masilungan disclosed that two (2) men brought Villanueva to the
hospital. The two told him that they found Villanueva lying motionless on
the ground at a store in Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, and brought him to the
hospital. When he asked them where they came from, one of them answered
that they came from Los Baos, Laguna, en route to San Pablo City. He
questioned them on how they found Villanueva, when the latter was in Brgy.
Pansol, Calamba City. One of the men just said that they were headed
somewhere else.
Dr. Masilungan reduced his findings in a medico-legal report.8 Due to
the nature, extent and location of the injuries, he opined that Villanueva was
a victim of hazing. He was familiar with hazing injuries because he had
undergone hazing himself when he was a student, and also because of his
experience in treating victims of hazing incidents.
Dr. Roy Camarillo (Dr. Camarillo), Medico-Legal Officer of the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory (PNP-CL) in Region IV, Camp
Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, testified that he performed an
autopsy on the body of Villanueva on January 14, 2006 and placed down his
findings in an autopsy report. 9 Upon examination of the body, he found
various external injuries in the head, trunk and extremities. There were
thirty-three (33) external injuries, with various severity and nature. He
concluded that the cause of death was subdural hemorrhage due to head
injury contusion-hematoma. Based on multiple injuries and contusions on
8
9
Id. at 301.
Id. at 17-22.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
the body, and his previous examinations of hazing injuries, Dr. Camarillo
opined that these injuries were hazing-related. During the autopsy, he
retrieved two (2) matchsticks from the cadaver with the marking of Alpha
Phi Omega (APO) Fraternity.10
Susan Ignacio (Ignacio) was the owner of the sari-sari store located at
Purok 5, Pansol, Calamba City, in front of Villa Novaliches Resort, which
was barely ten steps away. On January 13, 2006, at around 8:30 to 9:00
oclock in the evening, she was tending her store when she saw a jeepney
with more than twenty (20) persons arrive at the resort. Ignacio identified
Dungo as the person seated beside the driver of the jeepney.11 She estimated
the ages of these persons in the group to be between 20 to 30 years old. They
were in civilian clothes, while the other men wore white long-sleeved shirts.
Before entering the resort, the men and women shook hands and embraced
each other. Three (3) persons, riding on a single motorcycle, also arrived at
the resort.
Ignacio saw about fifteen (15) persons gather on top of the terrace of
the resort who looked like they were praying, and then the lights of the resort
were turned off. Later that evening, at least three (3) of these persons went to
her store to buy some items. During her testimony, she was shown
photographs and she identified Christopher Braseros and Sibal as two of
those who went to her store.12 It was only on the morning of January 14,
2006 that she learned from the policemen visiting the resort that the
deceased person was Villanueva.
Donato Magat (Magat), a tricycle driver plying the route of Pansol,
Calamba City, testified that at around 3:00 oclock in the morning of January
14, 2006, he was waiting for passengers at the corner of Villa Novaliches
Resort. A man approached him and told him that someone inside the resort
needed a ride. Magat went to the resort and asked the two (2) men at the gate
who needed a ride. Afterwards, he saw three (3) men in their 20s carrying
another man, who looked very weak, like a vegetable, towards his tricycle.
Magat touched the body of the man being carried and sensed it was cold.
Magat asked the men what happened to their companion. They replied
that he had too much to drink. Then they instructed Magat to go to the
nearest hospital. He drove the tricycle to JP Rizal Hospital. Upon their
arrival, two of his passengers brought their unconscious companion inside
the emergency room, while their other companion paid the tricycle fare.
Magat then left to go home. Several days after, he learned that the person
brought to the hospital had died.
10
Id. at 325.
TSN Vol. I, June 28, 2006, p. 90.
12
Id. at 29-31.
11
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
Abelardo Natividad (Natividad) and Seferino Espina y Jabay (Espina)

were the security guards on duty at JP Rizal Hospital, from 11:00 oclock in
the evening of January 13, 2006 until 7:00 oclock in the morning of January
14, 2006. In the early morning of January 14, 2006, two men, who signed on
the logbook13 under the names Brandon Gonzales and Jerico Paril, brought
the lifeless body of a person. Pursuant to the standard operating procedure of
the hospital, the security guards did not allow the two men to leave the
hospital because they called the police station so that an investigation could
be conducted. Two policemen arrived later at the hospital. During his
testimony, Natividad identified Sibal and Dungo as the two persons who
brought Villanueva to the hospital.
PO2 Alaindelon Ignacio (PO2 Ignacio) testified that on January 14,
2006 at around 3:30 oclock in the early morning, Natividad called up the
PNP Calamba City Station to report that a lifeless body of a man was
brought to JP Rizal Hospital. When PO2 Ignacio arrived, he saw
Villanuevas corpse with contusions and bite marks all over his body. PO2
Ignacio and his policemen companions then brought Dungo and Sibal to the
police station. He asked them about what happened, but they invoked their
right to remain silent. The policemen then proceeded to Brgy. Pansol at
around 9:00 oclock in the morning. After finding Villa Novaliches Resort,
they knocked on the door and the caretaker, Maricel Capillan (Capillan),
opened it.
The police asked Capillan if there were University of the Philippines
Los Baos (UP Los Baos) students who rented the resort on the evening of
January 13, 2006. Capillan said yes and added that about twenty (20)
persons arrived onboard a jeepney and told her that they would be renting
the resort from 9:30 oclock in the evening up to 7:00 oclock the following
morning.
Gay Czarina Sunga (Sunga) was a food technology student at UP Los
Baos during the academic year of 2005-2006 and a member of the
Symbiosis UPLB Biological Society. Around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon
of January 13, 2006, she was at their organizations tambayan in the UPLB
Biological Sciences Building, when she noticed three (3) men seated two
meters away from her. She identified the two of the three men as Sibal and
Dungo.14 They were wearing black shirts with the logo of APO. Later at
5:00 oclock in the afternoon, two more men arrived and, with their heads
bowed, approached the three men. One of them was Villanueva, who was
carrying a 5-gallon water container. Dungo then stood up and asked
Villanueva why the latter did not report to him when he was just at their
tambayan. Dungo then punched Villanueva twice, but the latter just kept
quiet with his head bowed. Fifteen minutes later, all the men left.
13
14
Records, Vol. I, pp. 331-332.

TSN, Vol. I, August 23, 2006, p. 8.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
Joey Atienza (Atienza) had been a good friend of Villanueva since

2004. They were roommates at the UP Los Baos Mens Dormitory and
housemates at the DPS Apartment in Umali Subdivision, Los Baos, Laguna.
According to Atienza, on January 9, 2006, Villanueva introduced him to
Daryl Decena (Decena) as his APO Theta Chapter batchmate, who was
also to undergo final initiation rites on January 13, 2006.
Severino Cuevas, Director of the Students Affairs at UP Los Baos,
testified that Dungo and Sibal were both members of the APO Fraternity,
and that there was no record of any request for initiation or hazing activity
filed by the said fraternity.
McArthur Padua of the Office of the Registrar, UP Los Baos,
testified that Villanueva was a B.S. Agricultural Economics student at the
UP Los Baos,15 as evidenced by his official transcript of record.16
Atty. Eleno Peralta and Dina S. Carlos, officers of the Student
Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) of the UP Los Baos, testified that an
administrative disciplinary case was filed on March 31, 2006 against the
APO Fraternity regarding the death of Villanueva. They confirmed that
Capilla of Villa Novaliches Resort and Irene Tan (Tan) of APO Sorority
Theta Chapter appeared as witnesses for the complainant.17
Roman Miguel De Jesus, UP Office of the Legal Aid (UP-OLA)
supervising student, testified that he met Tan of the APO Sorority sometime
between July and August 2006 in UP Diliman to convince her to testify in
the criminal case. Tan, however, refused because she feared for her safety.
She said that after testifying in the SDT hearing, her place in Imus, Cavite
was padlocked and vandalized.
Evelyn Villanueva, mother of victim Villanueva, testified that, as a
result of the death of her son, her family incurred actual damages consisting
of medical, burial and funeral expenses in the aggregate amount of
P140,000.00 which were evidenced by receipts.18 Her husband also incurred
travel expenses in the amount of P7,000.00 in returning to the Philippines to
attend his sons wake and burial, as supported by a plane ticket.19 She further
attested that she experienced mental anguish, sleepless nights, substantial
weight loss, and strained family relationship as a result of her sons death.
15
TSN, Vol. II, September 12, 2007, p. 8.

Records, Vol. II, pp. 50-51.
17
Records, Vol. I, pp. 360-407.
18
Records, Vol. II, pp. 35-45.
19
Id. at 46.
16
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
Version of the Defense

The defense presented seven (7) witnesses to prove the innocence of
the petitioners. Their testimonies are summarized as follow:
Richard Cornelio (Cornelio), an APO Fraternity member, testified that
on January 13, 2006, around 4:00 to 4:30 oclock in the afternoon, he met
Dungo at the UP Los Baos Graduate School. Dungo asked him if he would
attend the initiation ceremony, and Cornelio answered in the negative
because he had other things to do. At 10:00 oclock in the evening of the
same day, Cornelio again met Dungo and his girlfriend while eating a
hamburger at the Burger Machine along Raymundo Street, Umali
Subdivision, Los Baos, Laguna (Raymundo Street). He asked Dungo if he
would attend the initiation ceremony. Dungo replied that he would not
because he and his girlfriend had something to do.
Ana Danife Rivera (Rivera), the girlfriend of Dungo, testified that on
January 13, 2006 at around 1:00 oclock in the afternoon, Dungo came and
visited her at her boarding house on Raymundo Street. Around 4:00 oclock
of the same afternoon, they went to the UP Los Baos Graduate School and
saw Cornelio. Afterwards, they went back to her boarding house and stayed
there from 5:00 oclock in the afternoon to 7:00 oclock in the evening. Then,
they went to Lacxo Restaurant for dinner and left at around 10:00 oclock in
the evening. On their way back to her boarding house, they encountered
Cornelio again at the Burger Machine. Dungo then stayed and slept at her
boarding house. Around 2:00 oclock in the early morning of January 14,
2006, they were roused from their sleep by a phone call from Sibal, asking
Dungo to go to a resort in Pansol, Calamba City. Dungo then left the
boarding house.
Dungo testified that around 1:00 oclock in the early afternoon of
January 13, 2006, he arrived at the boarding house of his girlfriend, Rivera,
on Raymundo Street. At around 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, they went to
the UP Los Baos Graduate School and inquired about the requirements for
a masters degree. They walked back to the boarding house and met
Cornelio. They talked about their fraternitys final initiation ceremony for
that night in Pansol, Calamba City. Dungo and Rivera then reached the
latters boarding house around 5:00 oclock in the afternoon. At around 7:00
oclock in the evening, they went out for dinner at the Lacxo Restaurant,
near Crossing Junction, Los Baos. They ate and stayed at the restaurant for
at least one and a half hours. Then they walked back to the boarding house
of Rivera and, along the way, they met Cornelio again at the Burger
Machine along Raymundo Street. Cornelio asked Dungo if he would attend
their fraternitys final initiation ceremony, to which he replied in the
negative. Dungo and Rivera reached the boarding house around 9:00 oclock
in the evening and they slept there.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
Around 2:00 oclock in the early morning of January 14, 2006, Dungo
was roused from his sleep because Sibal was calling him on his cellphone.
Sibal asked for his help, requesting him to go to Villa Novaliches Resort in
Pansol, Calamba City. Upon Dungos arrival at the resort, Sibal led him
inside. There, he saw Rudolfo Castillo (Castillo), a fellow APO fraternity
brother, and Villanueva, who was unconscious. Dungo told them that they
should bring Villanueva to the hospital. They all agreed, and Castillo called
a tricycle that brought them to JP Rizal Hospital. He identified himself
before the security guard as Jerico Paril because he was scared to tell his real
name.
Gilbert Gopez (Gopez) testified that he was the Grand Chancellor of
the APO Theta Chapter for years 2005-2006. At around 7:00 oclock in the
evening of January 13, 2006, he was at the tambayan of their fraternity in
UP Los Baos because their neophytes would be initiated that night. Around
8:30 oclock in the evening, they met their fraternity brothers in Bagong
Kalsada, Los Baos. He noticed that their neophyte, Villanueva, was with
Castillo and that there was a bruise on the left side of his face. Then they
boarded a jeepney and proceeded to Villa Novaliches Resort in Pansol,
Calamba City. There, Gopez instructed Sibal to take Villanueva to the
second floor of the resort. He confronted Castillo as to what happened to
Villanueva. Around 11:00 or 11:30 oclock in the evening, Gopez decided to
cancel the final rites. He told Sibal to stay at the resort and accompany
Villanueva and Castillo. Together with the other neophytes, Gopez left the
resort and went back to UP Los Baos.
Sibal testified that he was a DOST Scholar at the UP Los Baos from
2002 to 2006, taking up B.S. Agricultural Chemistry. He was a Brother
Actuary of the APO Theta Chapter, and was in charge of fraternity
activities, such as tree planting, free medical and dental missions, and blood
donations. On January 13, 2006, at around 6:00 oclock in the evening, he
was at the fraternitys tambayan for the final initiation rites of their
neophytes. After preparing the food for the initiation rites, Sibal, together
with some neophytes, went to Bagong Kalsada, Los Baos, where he saw
fellow fraternity brother Castillo with their neophyte Villanueva, who had a
bruised face. Thereafter, they boarded a jeepney and proceeded to Villa
Novaliches Resort in Pansol, Calamba City. Once inside the resort, he
accompanied Villanueva upstairs for the latter to take a rest. A few minutes
later, he went down and confronted Castillo about the bruises on
Villanuevas face. He was angry and irritated with Castillo. He then stayed
outside the resort until Gopez and the other neophytes came out and told him
that the final initiation rite was cancelled, and that they were returning to UP
Los Baos. Sibal wanted to go with them but he was ordered to stay with
Villanueva and Castillo.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
After the group of Gopez left, Sibal checked on the condition of

Villanueva, who was sleeping on the second floor of the resort. Then he
went outside for one hour, or until 1:00 oclock in the early morning of
January 14, 2006. Sibal entered the resort again and saw Villanueva, who
looked unconscious, seated in one of the benches on the ground floor. Sibal
inquired about Villanuevas condition but he was ignored by Castillo. He
then called Dungo for help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they hailed a
tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false
name to the security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the same.
The RTC Ruling
On February 23, 2011, the RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the
crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court stated that the
prosecution established the presence of Dungo and Sibal (1) at the UP Los
Baos Campus on January 13, 2006 around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, by
the testimony of Sunga and (2) at the Villa Novaliches Resort around 9:00
oclock in the evening of the same day by the testimony of Ignacio. With the
extensive testimonies of Dr. Masilungan and Dr. Camarillo, the prosecution
also proved that Villanueva died from hazing injuries.
According to the RTC, the evidence of the prosecution undeniably
proved that Villanueva, a UP Los Baos student, was a neophyte of the APO
Theta Chapter Fraternity; that Dungo and Sibal were members of the said
fraternity; that on the evening of January 13, 2006, Dungo and Sibal,
together with the other fraternity members, officers and alumni, brought and
transported Villanueva and two other neophytes to Villa Novaliches Resort
at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City, for the final initiation rites; that the
initiation rites were conducted inside the resort, performed under the cover
of darkness and secrecy; that due to the injuries sustained by Villanueva, the
fraternity members and the other two neophytes haphazardly left the resort;
and that Dungo and Sibal boarded a tricycle and brought the lifeless body of
Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital, where Villanueva was pronounced dead.
The RTC explained that even if there was no evidence that Dungo and
Sibal participated to bodily assault and harm the victim, it was irrefutable
that they brought Villanueva to the resort for their final initiation rites.
Clearly, they did not merely induce Villanueva to attend the final initiation
rites, but they also brought him to Villa Novaliches Resort.
The RTC held that the defense of denial and alibi were self-serving
negative assertions. The defense of denial and alibi of Dungo, which was
corroborated by the testimony of his girlfriend Rivera and his co-fraternity
brother, could not be given credence. The witnesses presented by the defense
were partial and could not be considered as disinterested parties. The
DECISION
10
G.R. No. 209464
defense of denial of Sibal likewise failed. The corroborative testimonies of

his fraternity brothers were suspect because they had so much as stake in the
outcome of the criminal action.
The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Dandy Dungo and
Gregorio Sibal GUILTY of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law
and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and order them to jointly and severally pay the
family/heirs of Deceased Marlon Villanueva the following sums of
money:
1.
2.
3.
4.
P141,324.00 for and as actual damages;

P200,000.00 for and as moral damages;
P100,000.00 for and as exemplary damages; and
P50,000.00 for the death of Marlon Villanueva.
SO ORDERED.20
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal. In their brief, they

contended that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for violating R.A. No. 8049. They also assailed the
constitutionality of Section 4 of the said law, which stated that mere
presence in the hazing was prima facie evidence of participation therein,
because it allegedly violated the constitutional presumption of innocence of
the accused.
The CA Ruling
The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal was bereft of merit.
It stated that, in finding them guilty of violating R.A. No. 8049, the RTC
properly relied on circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. The
CA painstakingly discussed the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to
convict Dungo and Sibal as principals in the crime of hazing.
It further found that the defense of denial and alibi of Dungo and Sibal
failed to cast doubt on the positive identification made by the prosecution
witnesses; and that denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the
positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
The CA also stated that Dungo and Sibal were not only convicted
based on their presence in the venue of the hazing, but also in their act of
bringing the victim to Villa Novaliches Resort for the final initiation rites.
20
Rollo, p. 64.
DECISION
11
G.R. No. 209464
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 23, 2011
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36 of Calamba City
in CRIM. Case No. 13958-2006-C, finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of R.A. 8049 is
hereby AFFIRMED in TOTO.
SO ORDERED.21
Dungo and Sibal moved for reconsideration but their motion was
denied by the CA in the assailed October 8, 2013 Resolution.
Hence, this petition.
SOLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE RTC AND THE CA A QUO
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THE
OFFENSE PROVED AS FOUND AND PRONOUNCED THEREBY
IS
DIFFERENT
FROM
THAT
CHARGED
IN
THE
INFORMATION, NOR DOES ONE INCLUDE OR NECESSARILY
INCLUDE THE OTHER.22
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal argue that the amended information

charged them as they did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one Marlon Villanueva y
Mejilla.23 Yet, both the RTC and the CA found them guilty of violating
R.A. No. 8049 because they [i]nduced the victim to be present24 during the
initiation rites. The crime of hazing by inducement does not necessarily
include the criminal charge of hazing by actual participation. Thus, they
cannot be convicted of a crime not stated or necessarily included in the
information. By reason of the foregoing, the petitioners contend that their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against them has been violated.
In its Comment,25 filed on May 23, 2014, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) asserted that Dungo and Sibal were charged in the amended
information with the proper offense and convicted for such. The phrases
21
Id. at 87.
Id. at 15.
23
Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
24
Rollo, p. 86.
25
Id. at 125-146.
22
DECISION
12
G.R. No. 209464
planned initiation and in conspiracy with more or less twenty members

and officers in the amended information sufficiently cover knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present
thereat. The planned initiation rite would not have been accomplished were
it not for the acts of the petitioners in inducing the victim to be present
thereat and it was obviously conducted in conspiracy with the others.26
In their Reply 27 filed on September 10, 2014, Dungo and Sibal
insisted that there was a variance between the offense charged of actually
participated in the infliction of physical harm, and the offense knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present
thereat.28 The prosecution, moreover, failed to establish conspiracy because
no act or circumstance was proved pointing to a joint purpose and design
between and among the petitioners and the other twenty accused.
The Courts Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Procedural Matter
An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered
by bringing it to a higher court authority.29 The right to appeal is neither a
natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory
privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of law.30
Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03, dated October 15, 2004, governs the
procedure on the appeal from the CA to the Court when the penalty imposed
is either reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. 31 According to the said
provision, [i]n cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion
26
Id. at 137.
Id. at 153-163.
28
Rollo, p. 155.
29
Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th ed., p. 112 (2009).
30
Boardwalk Business Ventures Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 468, 477.
31
Rule 124, Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.
27
(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death should be imposed, the court shall render
judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire
record to the Supreme Court for review.
(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or
which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of
death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the case certified for review to,
the Supreme Court.
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it
shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme
Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
DECISION
13
G.R. No. 209464
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter

judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
Hence, an accused, upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment had been imposed by the CA, can simply file a notice of
appeal to allow him to pursue an appeal as a matter of right before the Court.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any
question including one not raised by the parties.32 Section 13(c), Rule 124
recognizes the constitutionally conferred jurisdiction of the Court in all
criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.33
An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an appeal by
certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under the Rules of Court. An appeal to
this Court by petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of
law.34 Moreover, such review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important
reasons.35
In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, an accused may: (1) file a notice of appeal under
Section 13(c), Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the
Court and open the entire case for review on any question; or (2) file a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a
matter of discretion and raise only questions of law.
In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision imposing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua upon the petitioners. The latter opted to appeal the CA
decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Consequently, they
could only raise questions of law. Oddly, the petitioners began to assail the
existence of conspiracy in their reply, 36 which is a question of fact that
would require an examination of the evidence presented. In the interest of
32
People v. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014.

Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
34
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
185590, December 03, 2014.
35
Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
36
Rollo, pp. 157-160.
33
DECISION
14
G.R. No. 209464
justice, however, and due to the novelty of the issue presented, the Court
deems it proper to open the whole case for review.37
Substantive Matter
In our contemporary society, hazing has been a nightmare of parents
who send their children to college or university. News of deaths and horrible
beatings primarily among college students due to hazing injuries continue to
haunt us. Horrid images of eggplant-like buttocks and thighs and pounded
arms and shoulders of young men are depicted as a fervent warning to those
who dare undergo the hazing rites. The meaningless death of these
promising students, and the agony, cries and ordeal of their families,
resonate through the very core of our beings. But no matter how modern and
sophisticated our society becomes, these barbaric acts of initiation of
fraternities, sororities and other organizations continue to thrive, even within
the elite grounds of the academe.
The history and phenomenon of hazing had been thoroughly discussed
in the recent case of Villareal v. People.38 It is believed that the fraternity
system and its accompanying culture of hazing were transported by the
Americans to the Philippines in the late 19th century.39 Thus, a study of the
laws and jurisprudence of the United States (US) on hazing can enlighten the
current predicament of violent initiations in fraternities, sororities and other
organizations.
United States Laws and
Jurisprudence on Hazing
There are different definitions of hazing, depending on the laws of the
states. In the case of People v. Lenti,41 the defendant therein challenged the
constitutionality of the state law defining hazing on the ground of vagueness.
The court rejected such contention and held that it would have been an
40
37
Exceptionally, even under the Rule 45, the Court could entertain questions of fact based on the following
grounds: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion: (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings
of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are without citation of specific evidence on
which the conclusions are based;(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; see
David v. Misamis Occidental II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 194785, July 11, 2012, 676 SCRA 367,
373-374.
38
G.R. Nos. 151258, 154954, 155101, 178057 & 178080, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 519.
39
Id. at 562.
40
Gregory L. Acquaviva, Protecting Students from the Wrongs of Hazing Rites: A Proposal for
Strengthening New Jersey's Anti-Hazing Act, 26 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 308 (2008).
41
253 N.Y. S 2d 9, 1964.
DECISION
15
G.R. No. 209464
impossible task if the legislature had attempted to define hazing specifically

because fraternal organizations and associations never suffered for ideas in
contriving new forms of hazing. Presently, the acceptable definition of
hazing is the practice of physically or emotionally abusing newcomers to an
organization as a means of initiation.42
Hazing can be classified into various categories including, but not
limited to, acts of violence, acts of humiliation, sexual-related acts, and
alcohol-related acts. 43 The physical form of hazing may include beating,
branding, paddling, excessive exercise, drinking, and using drugs. Sexual
hazing have included simulated sex acts, sodomy and forced kissing. 44
Moreover, hazing does not only result in physical injuries and
hospitalization, but also lead to emotional damage and traumatic stress.45
Based on statistics and alarming frequency of hazing, states have
attempted to combat hazing through the passage of state laws that prohibit
such acts. 46 Forty-four states, with the exception of Alaska, Hawaii,
Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming, have passed antihazing laws.47 The severity of these laws can range from minor penalties to a
prison sentence for up to six years.48 In the states of Illinois, Idaho, Missouri,
Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, hazing that result in death or great bodily
harm is categorized as a felony. 49
In Florida, the Chad Meredith Act,50 a law named after a student who
died in a hazing incident, was enacted on July 1, 2005. It provides that a
person commits a third degree felony when he or she intentionally or
recklessly commits any act of hazing and the hazing results in serious bodily
injury or death. If a person only creates substantial risk of physical injury or
death, then hazing is categorized as a first degree misdemeanor. A similar
provision can be observed in the Penal Law of New York.51
Interestingly, some states included notable features in their antihazing statute to increase its effectiveness. In Alabama, Arkansas,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas, the law imposes
42
Black Laws Dictionary, 9th Ed., p. 786 (2009).

Colleen McGlone & George Schaefer, After The Haze: Legal Aspects of Hazing, 6 ES L. J. 1 (2008),
citing Nadine Hoover, National Survey: Initiation rites and athletics for NCAA Sports Team (1999) and
Colleen McGlone, Hazing in N.C.A.A Division I Womens Athletics: An Exploratory Analysis (2005).
44
Id. at 39.
45
Hank Nuwer & Christopher Bollinger, Chapter 14 - Hazing, Violence Goes to College: The
Authoritative Guide to Prevention and Intervention, p. 207 (2009).
46
Tamara Saunders & Chelsee Bent, Hazing Adjudication Guide For College and Universities, p. 13
(2013).
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Supra note 43, at 30.
50
F.S. 1006.63; HB 193.
51
NY PEN. LAW 120.16 120.17.
43
DECISION
16
G.R. No. 209464
a duty on school personnel to report hazing.52 In fact, in Alabama, no person

is allowed to knowingly permit, encourage, aid, or assist any person in
committing the offense of hazing, or willfully acquiesces in its
commission.53
Also, some states enacted statutes that have been interpreted to mean
that persons are guilty of hazing even if they have the consent of the
victim.54 In New Jersey, consent is not a defense to a hazing charge, and its
law permits the prosecution of offenders under other applicable criminal
statutes.55 By including these various provisions in their anti-hazing statutes,
these states have removed the subjective inquiry of consent from
consideration, thus, presumably allowing courts to effectively and properly
adjudicate hazing cases.56
In the US, hazing victims can either file a criminal action, based on
anti-hazing statutes, or a civil suit, arising from tort law and constitutional
law, against the members of the local fraternity, the national fraternity and
even against the university or college concerned.57 Hazing, which threatens
to needlessly harm students, must be attacked from whatever legal means are
possible.58
In State v. Brown,59 a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha at Kent State
University was indicted for complicity to hazing. The group physically
disciplined their pledges by forcing them to stand on their heads, beating
them with paddles, and smacking and striking initiates in the face and head.
The Ohio court held that evidence presented therein was more than sufficient
to sustain a conviction.
Excessive intake of alcohol in the fraternity initiations can be
considered as hazing. In Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity
Inc.,60 a 17-year old college freshman died as a result of aspirating his own
vomit after consuming excessive amounts of alcohol in a fraternity initiation
ritual. The defendants in the said case contended that they only furnished the
alcohol drinks to the victim. The court denied the defense because such acts
of the fraternity effectively contributed to the death of the victim as part of
their hazing.
52
Supra note 43, at 30, citing Marc Edelman, How to Prevent High School Hazing: A Legal, Ethical and
Social Primer, 81 N. DAK. L. REV. 309 (2005).
53
ALA CODE 16-1-23.
54
Hank Nuwer, Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking, p. 170 (2001).
55
N.J. STAT. ANN. 2C:40-3 to 2C:40-4.
56
Gregory Parks and Tiffany Southerland, The Psychology and Law of Hazing Consent, 97 MARQUETTE
L. REV. 13 (2013).
57
Michelle Finkel, Traumatic Injuries Caused By Hazing Practices 20 AM. J. E. M. 232 (2002).
58
Janis Doleschal, Legal Strategies to Confront High School Hazing Incidents in the United States, 2 INTL.
SPORTS. LAW. J. 11 (2002).
59
90 Ohio App.3d 684 (1993).
60
680 N.Y.S.2d 278-79 (1999).
DECISION
17
G.R. No. 209464
Even in high school, hazing could exist. In Nice v. Centennial Area

School District,61 a tenth-grade wrestler at William Tennet High School was
subjected to various forms of hazing, including a ritual where the victim was
forcibly held down, while a teammate sat on his face with his buttocks
exposed. The parents of the student sued the school because it failed to
prevent the incident despite its knowledge of the hazing rites. The court
approved the settlement of the parties in the amount of US$151,000.00.
More recently, the case of Yost v. Wabash College 62 involved the
hazing of an 18-year old freshman, who suffered physical and mental
injuries in the initiation rites conducted by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. As a
pledge, the victim was thrown into a creek and was placed in a chokehold,
until he lost consciousness. The court upheld that action against the local
fraternity because, even if the student consented, the fraternity had the duty
to ensure the safety of its activities.
The US anti-hazing laws and jurisprudence show that victims of
hazing can properly attain redress before the court. By crafting laws and
prosecuting offenders, the state can address the distinct dilemma of hazing.
Anti-Hazing Law in the
Philippines
R.A. No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995, has been enacted to
regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities,
and other organizations. It was in response to the rising incidents of death of
hazing victims, particularly the death of Leonardo Lenny Villa.63 Despite
its passage, reports of deaths resulting from hazing continue to emerge.
Recent victims were Guillo Servando of the College of St. Benilde, Marc
Andre Marcos and Marvin Reglos of the San Beda College - Manila, and
Cris Anthony Mendez of the University of the Philippines - Diliman. With
the continuity of these senseless tragedies, one question implores for an
answer: is R.A. No. 8049 a sufficient deterrent against hazing?
To answer the question, the Court must dissect the provisions of the
law and scrutinize its effect, implication and application.
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves
called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact
that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is
important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The
rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts
61
98 F.Supp.2d 665 (2000).

976 N.E.2d 724, 728 (2012).
63
Sponsorship Speech of former Senator Joey Lina, Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings No. 34 on
October 8, 1992 of the 9th Congress, 1st Regular Sess. at 21-22 (Senate TSP No. 34).
62
DECISION
18
G.R. No. 209464
mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act
is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.64 When the doing of an act
is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.65
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided
by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes
under special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. 66
Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as
technical malversation.67
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala
prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness
of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself,
then it is a crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but
there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then
it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves
moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all
the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.68
The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. The
Senate deliberations would show that the lawmakers intended the antihazing statute to be malum prohibitum, as follows:
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 GUINGONA. If it does not result in death, it may
be frustrated homicide or serious physical injuries.
SENATOR GUINGONA. Or, if the person who commits
sexual abuse does so it can be penalized under rape or acts of
lasciviousness.
64
Tan v. Ballena, 579 Phil. 503, 527-528 (2008).

LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE 56 (17th ed. 2008)
66
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290 (2001); see also Tan v. Ballena, ibid. and Garcia v. CA, 319
Phil. 591 (2008) for more examples of mala in se crimes in special laws. July 4, 2008.
67
Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code; see Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012, 685
SCRA 637.
68
Teves v. COMELEC, 604 Phil. 717, 729 (2009), citing Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 327 Phil. 1144, 11501151 (1996).
65
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
19
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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
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,
etcetera 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
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
20
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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
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, etcetera, where the prosecution will have a difficulty
proving the elements if they are separate offenses.
xxx
xxx
xxx
SENATOR LINA. x x x
I am very happy that the distinguished Minority Leader
brought out the idea of intent or whether it is mala in se or mala
DECISION
21
G.R. No. 209464
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.69
[Emphases Supplied]
Having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and
the core principle of mala in se adhered to under the RPC, the Congress did
not simply enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on
hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. 70 In Vedaa v.
Valencia, 71 the Court noted that in our nations very recent history, the
people had spoken, through the Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of
hazing, an act previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal.72 The
act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to
be against public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence
of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of
good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution. 73
Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 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. From the said definition, the
elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization;
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the
fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed 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.
From the said definition of hazing, it is apparent that there must be an

initiation rite or practice performed by the fraternities, sororities or
69
Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 63.

Villareal v. People, supra note 38, at 590.
71
Vedaa v. Valencia, 356 Phil. 317, 332 (1998).
72
73
See People v. Beriarmente, 418 Phil. 229 (2001).
70
DECISION
22
G.R. No. 209464
organization. The law, however, did not limit the definition of these groups
to those formed within academic colleges and universities. 74 In fact, the
second paragraph of Section 1 provides that the term "organization" shall
include any club or the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Philippine Military Academy (PMA), or officer and
cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army Training.
Even the president, manager, director or other responsible officer of a
corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment are covered
by the law.75
R.A. No. 8049 qualifies that 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 AFP and the PNP, as approved by the Secretary of National Defense
and the National Police Commission, duly recommended by the Chief of
Staff of the AFP and the Director General of the PNP, shall not be
considered as hazing.
And not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section
2 thereof provides that initiation rites of fraternities, sororities or
organizations shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met:
1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written
notice to the school authorities or head of organization;
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days
before the conduct of such initiation;
3. That the written notice shall indicate:
a. The period of the initiation activities, which
shall not exceed three (3) days;
b. The names of those to be subjected to such
activities; and
c. An undertaking that no physical violence be
employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation to the head of the

school or organization or their representatives that they must assign at least
two (2) representatives, as the case may be, to be present during these valid
initiations. The duty of such representative is to see to it that no physical
harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant.
74
See People v. Bayabas, G.R. No. 174786, February 18, 2015, where the Court discussed that the term
organization under R.A. No. 8049 is not limited to fraternities, sororities, educational institutions,
corporations, PNP and AFP.
75
Par. 8, Section 4, R.A. 8049.
DECISION
23
G.R. No. 209464
Noticeably, the law does not provide a penalty or sanction to

fraternities, sororities or organizations that fail to comply with the notice
requirements of Section 2. Also, the school and organization administrators
do not have a clear liability for non-compliance with Section 3.
Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in
accordance with Section 4 of the law, which provides different classes of
persons who are held liable as principals and accomplices.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the
hazing. 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. Interestingly,
the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.76
The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of
injury inflicted to the victim.77 The penalties appear to be similar to that of
homicide, serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight
physical injuries under the RPC,78 with the penalties for hazing increased
76
Par. 6, Sec. 4, R.A. 8049.

Par. 1, Sec.4 of R.A. 8049 prescribe the following penalties:
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
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
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.
78
Art. 249, 263, 265 and 266 of the Revised Penal Code.
77
DECISION
24
G.R. No. 209464
one degree higher. Also, the law provides several circumstances which
would aggravate the imposable penalty.79
Curiously, although hazing has been defined as consisting of those
activities involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the
penalties for hazing only covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the
only psychological injury recognized would be causing insanity to the victim.
Conversely, even if the victim only sustained physical injuries which did not
incapacitate him, there is still a prescribed penalty.80
The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers,
or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually
planned the hazing. 81 Although these planners were not present when the
acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be liable as
principals. The provision took in consideration the non-resident members of
the organization, such as their former officers or alumni.
The third class of principals would be officers or members of an
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat.82 These
officers or members are penalized, not because of their direct participation in
the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime
by inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's
adviser who was present when the acts constituting hazing were committed,
and failed to take action to prevent them from occurring.83 The liability of
the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing, but also his
failure to prevent the same.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or
members of the fraternity, group, or organization.84 The hazing must be held
in the home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual
79
Sec. 4 xxx
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.
80
Par. 1 (8), Section 4, R.A. 8049.
81
Par. 5, Sec.4, R.A. 8049.
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Par. 3, Sec.4, R.A. 8049.
DECISION
25
G.R. No. 209464
knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes and failed to take any
action to avoid the same from occurring.
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The
school authorities, including faculty members, who consented 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. 85
Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also
be an accomplice to the crime.86 The owner of the place shall be liable when
he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to
take any steps to stop the same.
Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law
provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to
the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a
wrong.87 Also, the framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim
shall not be a defense in hazing. During the discussion of whether sodomy
shall be included as a punishable act under the law, the issue of consent was
tackled:
SENATOR LINA. x x x
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.
85
Par. 4, Sec.4, R.A. 8049.

Par. 3, Sec.4, R.A. 8049.
87
Par. 7, Sec.4, R.A. 8049.
86
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
26
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.88
[Emphasis supplied]
Further, the law acknowledges that the offended party in the crime of
hazing can seek different courses of action. It provides that 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.89 Necessarily, the offended party can file either administrative,
civil, or criminal actions against the offenders.90
The study of the provisions of R.A. No. 8049 shows that, on paper, it
is complete and robust in penalizing the crime of hazing. It was made malum
prohibitum to discount criminal intent and disallow the defense of good faith.
It took into consideration the different participants and contributors in the
hazing activities. While not all acts cited in the law are penalized, the
penalties imposed therein involve various and serious terms of imprisonment
to discourage would-be offenders. Indeed, the law against hazing is ideal and
profound. As to whether the law can be effectively implemented, the Court
begs to continue on the merits of the case.
The
Information
properly
charged the offense proved
The petitioners claim that the amended information avers a criminal
charge of hazing by actual participation, but the only offense proved during
the trial was hazing by inducement. Their contention must fail. The
Amended Information reads:
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, during a planned initiation rite and being then officers and
members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and present thereat, in
conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers,
whose identity is not yet known, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one
MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as
88
Senate TSP No. 62, supra note 63, at 13-15.

Par. 2, Sec.4, R.A. 8049
90
See Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993, 222 SCRA 644, 656,
where it was stated that an administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students' participation in a
hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding.
89
DECISION
27
G.R. No. 209464
condition for his admission to the fraternity, thereby subjecting him

to physical harm, resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice
of the heirs of the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.91
On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9,

Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, is enlightening:
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but
in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of
the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.92
The Court agrees with the OSG that the planned initiation rite as
stated in the information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it.
In ordinary parlance, a planned event can be understood to have different
phases. Likewise, the hazing activity had different stages and the
perpetrators had different roles therein, not solely inflicting physical injury
to the neophyte. One of the roles of the petitioners in the hazing activity was
to induce Villanueva to be present. Dungo and Sibal not only induced
Villanueva to be present at the resort, but they actually brought him there.
They fulfilled their roles in the planned hazing rite which eventually led to
the death of Villanueva. The hazing would not have been accomplished were
it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present.
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of
hazing. 93 To require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned
initiation rite in the information at the inception of the criminal case, when
details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would be an arduous task, if
not downright impossible. The law does not require the impossible (lex non
cognit ad impossibilia).
The proper approach would be to require the prosecution to state
every element of the crime of hazing, the offenders, and the accompanying
circumstances in the planned initiation activity, which has been satisfied in
91
Id. at 49.
People v. Puig, 585 Phil. 555, 562 (2008), citing People v. Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482, 495 (2002).
93
Elizabeth J. Allan & Mary Madden, Hazing in View: College Students at Risk, NATIONAL STUDY OF
STUDENT HAZING, p. 24 (2008).
92
DECISION
28
G.R. No. 209464
the present case. Accordingly, the amended information sufficiently

informed the petitioners that they were being criminally charged for their
roles in the planned initiation rite.
Conspiracy
of
offenders
was
proven
the
duly
The petitioners assail that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of
conspiracy.
The Court disagrees.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To
determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.94
The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to
his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal
plan.95
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common
design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime,
usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together,
indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.96 Responsibility of a
conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of
conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended.97
The lawmakers deliberated on whether the prosecution was still
obliged to prove the conspiracy between the offenders under R.A. 8049, to
wit:
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
94
Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014.

People v. Caballero, 448 Phil. 514, 528-529 (2003).
96
People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014, 715 SCRA 452, 461.
97
People v. Collado, G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013, 698 SCRA 628, 650.
95
DECISION
29
G.R. No. 209464
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.98
The Court does not categorically agree that, under R.A. No. 8049, the
prosecution need not prove conspiracy. Jurisprudence dictates that
conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.
Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough
to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in
the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.99
R.A. No. 8049, nevertheless, presents a novel provision that
introduces a disputable presumption of actual participation; and which
modifies the concept of conspiracy. Section 4, paragraph 6 thereof provides
that the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation as principal, unless he prevented the commission of the
punishable acts. This provision is unique because a disputable presumption
arises from the mere presence of the offender during the hazing, which can
be rebutted by proving that the accused took steps to prevent the commission
of the hazing.
The petitioners attempted to attack the constitutionality of Section 4 of
R.A. No. 8049 before the CA, but did not succeed. [A] finding of prima
facie evidence x x x does not shatter the presumptive innocence the accused
enjoys because, before prima facie evidence arises, certain facts have still to
be proved; the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence, because
precisely, it is merely prima facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Neither can it rely on
the weak defense the latter may adduce.100
Penal laws which feature prima facie evidence by disputable
presumptions against the offenders are not new, and can be observed in the
following: (1) the possession of drug paraphernalia gives rise to prima facie
98
Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 63.

Ladonga v. People, 414 Phil. 86, 101 (2005).
100
Agullo v. Sandiganbayan, 414 Phil. 86, 101 (2001).
99
DECISION
30
G.R. No. 209464
evidence of the use of dangerous drug;101 (2) the dishonor of the check for
insufficient funds is prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit;102 and (3) the possession of any good which
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.103
Verily, the disputable presumption under R.A. No. 8049 can be
related to the conspiracy in the crime of hazing. The common design of
offenders is to haze the victim. Some of the overt acts that could be
committed by the offenders would be to (1) plan the hazing activity as a
requirement of the victims initiation to the fraternity; (2) induce the victim
to attend the hazing; and (3) actually participate in the infliction of physical
injuries.
In this case, there was prima facie evidence of the petitioners
participation in the hazing because of their presence in the venue. As
correctly held by the RTC, the presence of Dungo and Sibal during the
hazing at Villa Novaliches Resort was established by the testimony of
Ignacio. She testified that she saw Sibal emerge from the resort and
approach her store, to wit:
MR. DIMACULANGAN
Q:
And how many persons from this group did you see again?
WITNESS
A:
Three (3), sir.
Q:
Where did they come from, did they come out from the
resort? Where did this 3 people or this group of people
coming from?
A:
Inside the resort, sir.
Q:
And around what time was this?
A:
Around 9:00, sir.
Q:
And what did they do if any if they came out of the resort?
A:
They went to my store, sir.

xxxx
Q:
Did you have any other visitors to your store that night?
xxxx
101
Sec. 12, R.A. 9165, as amended.

Sec. 2, B.P. 22.
103
Sec. 5, P.D. 1612.
102
DECISION
31
G.R. No. 209464
A:
Meron po.
Q:
Who were these visitors?
A:
I dont know their names but I recognize their faces, sir.
Q:
If I show you pictures of these people, will you be able to

identify them before this Court.
A:
Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q:
Mrs. Ignacio, I am showing you this picture of persons

marked as Exhibit L in the Pre-Trial, can you please look
over this document carefully and see if any of the persons
whom you said visited your store is here?
xxxx
A:
Siya rin po.
COURT:
Make it of record that the witness pinpointed to the first
picture appearing on the left picture on the first row.
xxxx
ATTY. PAMAOS:
For the record, your Honor, we manifest that the picture and
the name pointed by the witness has been previously marked
as Exhibit L-3 and previously admitted by the defense as
referring to Gregorio Sibal, Jr., accused in this case104
Ignacio, also positively identified Dungo as among the guests of Villa

Novaliches Resort on the night of the hazing, to wit:
COURT
Q:
x x x Now, when you say other people you could identify who
are not in the pictures then how would you know that these
people are indeed those people you could identify?
WITNESS
104
A:
Iyon pongdi ba po nagkuwento ako na dumating sila tapos

nag shake hands at saka iyong nagyakapan po
Q:
And what will be the significance of the alleged embrace and

shake hands for you to say that you could identify those
people?
TSN Vol. I, June 28, 2006, p. 23-31.
DECISION
32
G.R. No. 209464
A:
Hindi po. Noong dumating po sila nasa isang jeep, meron

pong lalaki doon sa may tabi ng driver bumaba siya tapos po
noong bumaba siya tapos iyong mga kasamahan nya sa likod
nagbaba-an din, iyon po nagbati-an po sila.
Q:
And from these greeting, how could you identify these

people?
A:
Ngayon ko lang po napag masdan ang taong iyon, hindi ko

po alam na akusado po sa kabila iyon.
Q:
And who was that person?
A:
Siya po, iyon po.
Q:
Who are you pointing to?
A:
Iyon pong naka-dilaw na (Witness pointing to Dandy

Dungo)
Q:
So, are you telling the Court that this person you positively
saw seated beside the driver came out and subsequently
embraced and shook hands with the other people from the
jeepney, is that your testimony?
A:
Yes, your Honor.105
The testimony of Ignacio was direct and straightforward. Her

testimony was given great weight because she was a disinterested and
credible witness. The prosecution indubitably established the presence of
Dungo and Sibal during the hazing. Such gave rise to the prima facie
evidence of their actual participation in the hazing of Villanueva. They were
given an opportunity to rebut and overcome the prima facie evidence of the
prosecution by proving that they prevented the commission of the hazing,
yet they failed to do so.
Because of the uncontroverted prima facie evidence against the
petitioners, it was shown that they performed an overt act in the furtherance
of the criminal design of hazing. Not only did they induce the victim to
attend the hazing activity, the petitioners also actually participated in it
based on the prima facie evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish their
roles in the conspiracy of hazing.
Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in
itself amount to conspiracy. 106 Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the
participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by
the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they
prevented the commission of the acts therein.
105
106
Id. at 89-90.
People v. Labagala, 640 Phil. 311 (2010).
DECISION
33
G.R. No. 209464
The
guilt
of
the
petitioners was proven
beyond reasonable doubt
Aside from inducing Villanueva to attend the initiation rites and their
presence during the hazing, the petitioners guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt by the sequence of circumstantial evidence presented by
the prosecution. Their involvement in the hazing of Villanueva is not merely
based on prima facie evidence but was also established by circumstantial
evidence.
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws own
starting perspective on the status of the accused in all criminal
prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary
is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 107 In criminal law, proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof that produces absolute
certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.108
While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude
resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available.
Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an
accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the
prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its
burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where
concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all
circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes
in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove.109
Needless to state, the crime of hazing is shrouded in secrecy.
Fraternities and sororities, especially the Greek organizations, are secretive
in nature and their members are reluctant to give any information regarding
initiation rites.110 The silence is only broken after someone has been injured
so severely that medical attention is required. It is only at this point that the
secret is revealed and the activities become public.111 Bearing in mind the
concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for the prosecution to
resort to the presentation of circumstantial evidence to prove it.
The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an
accused through circumstantial evidence require the existence of the
107
People v. Capuno, 635 Phil. 226, 236 (2011).

People v. Javier, 659 Phil. 653, 657 (2008).
109
People v. Sace, 631Phil. 335, 343 (2010).
110
Stephen Sweet, Understanding Fraternity Hazing, THE HAZING READER 2 (2004).
111
Supra note 43, at 14.
108
DECISION
34
G.R. No. 209464
following requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2) the
inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all
circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused. 112 To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the
combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt
in the mind as to the criminal liability of the accused. Jurisprudence requires
that the circumstances must be established to form an unbroken chain of
events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.113
The CA meticulously wrote in detail the unbroken chain of
circumstantial evidence which established the petitioners guilt in the death
of Villanueva as follows:
1. Marlon Villanueva is a neophyte of Alpha Phi Omega, as
testified by his roommate Joey Atienza.
2. At around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon of January 13, 2006,
Sunga was staying at their tambayan, talking to her
organization mates. Three men were seated two meters way
from her. She identified two of the men as appellants Sibal and
Dungo, while she did not know the third man. The three men
were wearing black shirts with the seal of the Alpha Phi Omega.
3. Later at 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, two more men coming
from the entomology wing arrived and approached the three
men. Among the men who just arrived was the victim, Marlon
Villanueva. One of the men wearing black APO shirts handed
over to the two fraternity neophytes some money and told the
men Mamalengke na kayo. He later took back the money and
said, Huwag na, kami na lang.
4. One of the men wearing a black APO shirt, who was later
identified as appellant Dungo, stood up and asked Marlon if the
latter already reported to him, and asked him why he did not
report to him when he was just at the tambayan. Dungo then
continuously punched the victim on his arm. This went on for
five minutes. Marlon just kept quiet with his head bowed down.
Fifteen minutes later, the men left going towards the
Entomology wing.
5. The deceased Marlon Villanueva was last seen alive by Joey
Atienza at 7:00 in the evening of 13 January 2006, from whom
he borrowed the shoes he wore at the initiation right [sic].
Marlon told Joey that it was his finals night.
112
113
Sec.4, Rule 133, Rules of Court.

People v. Sevellino, 469 Phil. 209, 220 (2004).
DECISION
35
G.R. No. 209464
6. On January 13, 2006 at around 8:30 to 9:00 oclock in the

evening, Susan Ignacio saw more than twenty (20) persons
arrive at the Villa Novaliches Resort onboard a jeepney. She
estimated the ages of these persons to be between 20 to 30 years
old. Three (3) persons riding a single motorcycle likewise
arrived at the resort.
7. Ignacio saw about fifteen (15) persons gather on top of the
terrace at the resort who looked like they were praying. Later
that evening, at least three (3) of these persons went to her store
to buy some items. She did not know their names but could
identity [sic] their faces. After she was shown colored
photographs, she pointed to the man later identified as Herald
Christopher Braseros. She also pointed out the man later
identified as Gregorio Sibal, Jr.
8. Donato Magat, a tricycle driver plying the route of Pansol,
Calamba City, testified that around 3:00 oclock in the morning
of January 14, 2006, he was waiting for passengers at the corner
of Villa Novaliches Resort when a man approached him and told
him that someone inside the resort needed a ride. Magat then
went to the resort and asked the two (2) men standing by the
gate who will be riding his tricycle.
9. The four (4) men boarded his tricycle but Magat noticed that
when he touched the body of the man who was being carried, it
felt cold. The said man looked very weak like a vegetable.
10. Seferino Espina y Jabay testified that he worked as a security
guard at the J.P. Rizal Hospital and was assigned at the
emergency room. At around 3:00 oclock in the early morning of
January 14, 2006, he was with another security guard, Abelardo
Natividad and hospital helper Danilo Glindo a.k.a. Gringo, when
a tricycle arrived at the emergency room containing four (4)
passengers, excluding the driver. He was an arms length away
from said tricycle. He identified two of the passengers thereof as
appellants Dungo and Sibal. Espina said he and Glindo helped
the passengers unload a body inside the tricycle and brought it
to the emergency room.
11. Afterwards, Espina asked the two men for identification cards.
The latter replied that they did not bring with them any I.D. or
wallet. Instead of giving their true names, the appellants listed
down their names in the hospital logbook as Brandon Gonzales
y Lanzon and Jericho Paril y Rivera. Espina then told the two
men not to leave, not telling them that they secretly called the
police to report the incident which was their standard operating
procedure when a dead body was brought to the hospital.
12. Dr. Ramon Masilungan, who was then the attending physician
at the emergency room, observed that Marlon was motionless,
had no heartbeat and already cyanotic.
DECISION
36
G.R. No. 209464
13. Dr. Masilungan tried to revive Marlon for about 15 to 20

minutes. However, the latter did not respond to resuscitation
and was pronounced dead. Dr. Masilungan noticed a big
contusion hematoma on the left side of the victims face and
several injuries on his arms and legs. He further attested that
Marlons face was already cyanotic.
14. When Dr. Masilungan pulled down Marlons pants, he saw a
large contusion on both legs which extended from the upper
portion of his thigh down to the couplexial portion or the back of
the knee.
15. Due to the nature, extent and location of Marlons injuries, Dr.
Masilungan opined that he was a victim of hazing. Dr.
Masilungan is familiar with hazing injuries, having undergone
hazing when he was a student and also because of his experience
treating victims of hazing incidents.
16. Dr. Roy Camarillo, Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory in Region IV, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang,
Calamba City, testified that he performed an autopsy on the
cadaver of the victim on January 14, 2006; that the victims
cause of death was blunt head trauma. From 1999 to 2006, he
was able to conduct post-mortem examination of the two (2)
persons whose deaths were attributed to hazing. These two (2)
persons sustained multiple contusions and injuries on different
parts of their body, particularly on the buttocks, on both upper
and lower extremities. Both persons died of brain hemorrhage.
Correlating these two cases to the injuries found on the victims
body, Dr. Camarillo attested that the victim, Marlon Villanueva,
sustained similar injuries to those two (2) persons. Based on the
presence of multiple injuries and contusions on his body, he
opined that these injuries were hazing-related.114
Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand, presented the defense
of denial and alibi. These defenses, however, must fail. Time and time again,
this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses,
because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.115 As properly held by the
RTC, these defenses cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal
identification of the petitioners by prosecution witnesses Sunga and Ignacio.
The testimonies of the defense witnesses also lacked credibility and
reliability. The corroboration of defense witness Rivera was suspect because
she was the girlfriend of Dungo, and it was only logical and emotional that
she would stand by the man she loved and cared for. The testimonies of their
fellow fraternity brothers, likewise, do not hold much weight because they
had so much at stake in the outcome of the case. Stated differently, the
petitioners did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to
substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.
114
115
Rollo, pp. 81-84.

People v. Ayade, 624 Phil. 237, 245 (2010).
DECISION
37
G.R. No. 209464
After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees with the CA
and the RTC that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
was overwhelming enough to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a
reasonable doubt. The unbroken chain of events laid down by the CA leaves
us no other conclusion other than the petitioners participation in the hazing.
They took part in the hazing and, together with their fellow fraternity
officers and members, inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a
requirement of his initiation to the fraternity. The physical injuries
eventually took a toll on the body of the victim, which led to his death.
Another young life lost.
With the fact of hazing, the identity of the petitioners, and their
participation therein duly proven, the moral certainty that produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind has been satisfied.
Final Note
Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the countrys
educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten to
death as part of fraternities violent initiation rites supposedly to seal
fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence, R.A. No.
8049 was signed into to law on June 7, 1995. Doubts on the effectiveness of
the law were raised. The Court, however, scrutinized its provisions and it is
convinced that the law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing.
Hopefully, the present case will serve as a guide to the bench and the
bar on the application of R.A. No. 8049. Through careful case-build up and
proper presentation of evidence before the court, it is not impossible for the
exalted constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused to be
overcome and his guilt for the crime of hazing be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution must bear in mind the secretive nature of hazing, and
carefully weave its chain of circumstantial evidence. Likewise, the defense
must present a genuine defense and substantiate the same through credible
and reliable witnesses. The counsels of both parties must also consider
hazing as a malum prohibitum crime and the laws distinctive provisions.
While the Court finds R.A. No. 8049 adequate to deter and prosecute
hazing, the law is far from perfect. In Villareal v. People, 116 the Court
suggested that the fact of intoxication and the presence of non-resident or
alumni fraternity members during hazing should be considered as
116
DECISION
38
G.R. No. 209464
aggravating circumstances that would increase the applicable penalties.

Equally, based on the discussion earlier, this Court suggests some further
amendments to the law. First, there should be a penalty or liability for noncompliance with Section 2, or the written notice requirement, and with
Section 3, or the representation requirement. Second, the penalties under
Section 4 should also consider the psychological harm done to the victim of
hazing. With these additional inputs on R.A. No. 8049, the movement
against hazing can be invigorated.
R.A. No. 8049 is a democratic response to the uproar against hazing.
It demonstrates that there must, and should, be another way of fostering
brotherhood, other than through the culture of violence and suffering. The
senseless deaths of these young men shall never be forgotten, for justice is
the spark that lights the candles of their graves.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 26, 2013
Decision and the October 8, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 05046 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretary of the

Department of Justice as guidance for the proper implementation and
prosecution of violators of R.A. No. 8049; and 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 penalty for noncompliance with its Section 2 and 3, and the penalty for the psychological
harms to the surviving victims of hazing.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
G.R. No. 209464
39
WE CONCUR:
az::.1
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
~
CI----~-J
ANTONIO T. CAR
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
-
DECISION
40
G.R. No. 209464
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Sibal V People GR No. 209464

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sibal V People GR No. 209464

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sibal V People GR No. 209464

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~~1

l\epubltc of tbe llbilippines

G.R. No. 209464

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 209464

On February 7, 2006, upon motion, the RTC admitted the Amended

On February 7, 2006, Dungo filed a motion to quash for lack of

G.R. No. 209464

Version of the Prosecution

G.R. No. 209464

G.R. No. 209464

Abelardo Natividad (Natividad) and Seferino Espina y Jabay (Espina)

Records, Vol. I, pp. 331-332.

G.R. No. 209464

Joey Atienza (Atienza) had been a good friend of Villanueva since

TSN, Vol. II, September 12, 2007, p. 8.

G.R. No. 209464

Version of the Defense

G.R. No. 209464

G.R. No. 209464

After the group of Gopez left, Sibal checked on the condition of

G.R. No. 209464

defense of denial of Sibal likewise failed. The corroborative testimonies of

P141,324.00 for and as actual damages;

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal. In their brief, they

G.R. No. 209464

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Petitioners Dungo and Sibal argue that the amended information

G.R. No. 209464

planned initiation and in conspiracy with more or less twenty members

G.R. No. 209464

perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter

People v. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014.

G.R. No. 209464

G.R. No. 209464

impossible task if the legislature had attempted to define hazing specifically

Black Laws Dictionary, 9th Ed., p. 786 (2009).

G.R. No. 209464

a duty on school personnel to report hazing.52 In fact, in Alabama, no person

G.R. No. 209464

Even in high school, hazing could exist. In Nice v. Centennial Area

98 F.Supp.2d 665 (2000).

G.R. No. 209464

Tan v. Ballena, 579 Phil. 503, 527-528 (2008).

G.R. No. 209464

SENATOR GUINGONA. So, what is the rationale for making

SENATOR GUINGONA. Yes, but what would be the

G.R. No. 209464

namatay nitong nakaraang taon, walang intensiyong patayin talaga

SENATOR GUINGONA. I join the lofty motives, Mr.

G.R. No. 209464

prohibita. There can be a radical amendment if that is the point

From the said definition of hazing, it is apparent that there must be an

Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 63.

G.R. No. 209464

Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation to the head of the

G.R. No. 209464

Noticeably, the law does not provide a penalty or sanction to

Par. 6, Sec. 4, R.A. 8049.