The neophytes were subjected to the same manner of

Before the Court are the consolidated cases docketed as hazing that they endured on the first day of initiation.
G.R. No. 151258 (Villareal v. People), G.R. No. 154954 After a few hours, the initiation for the day officially
(People v. Court of Appeals), G.R. No. 155101 (Dizon v. ended.
People), and G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 (Villa v.
Escalona). After a while, accused non-resident or alumni fraternity
member Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal
People v. Court of Appeals (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened. The
G.R. No. 154954 head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino),
initially refused.
FACTS:
Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he
In February 1991, 7 freshmen law students of the ADMU reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity members,
School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila including Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the
Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). One of them neophytes to paddling and to additional rounds of
was Leonardo Lenny Villa. physical pain.

On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was
met by some members of the Aquila Fraternity so strong it sent him sprawling to the ground.
(Aquilans) and proceeded to have dinner. Afterwards,
they went to the house of Michael Musngi, also an The neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain
Aquilan, who briefed the neophytes on what to expect and difficulty in breathing.
during the initiation rites.
After their last session of physical beatings, Lenny could
They were informed that there would be physical no longer walk. He had to be carried by the auxiliaries to
beatings, and that they could quit at any time. Their the carport. Again, the initiation for the day was
initiation rites were scheduled to last for three days. officially ended, and the neophytes started eating
After their briefing, they were brought to the Almeda dinner. They then slept at the carport.
Compound in Caloocan City for the commencement of
their initiation. After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly
roused by Lennys shivering and incoherent mumblings.
Even before the neophytes got off the van, they Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings,
had already received threats and insults from the as they thought he was just overacting.
Aquilans. As soon as the neophytes alighted from the
van and walked towards the pelota court of the Almeda When they realized, though, that Lenny was really
compound, some of the Aquilans delivered physical feeling cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him.
blows to them.
They removed his clothes and helped him through a
The neophytes were then subjected to traditional forms sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his condition
of Aquilan initiation rites. (Indian Run, Bicol Express, the worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital.
Rounds, Auxies Privilege Round) They survived their first Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.
day of initiation.
Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was
On the morning of their SECOND DAY 9 February filed against the following 35 Aquilans.
1991 the neophytes were made to present comic plays RTC:
and to play rough basketball. They were also required to The trial court rendered judgment holding acquitted 19
memorize and recite the Aquila Fraternitys principles. (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the
Whenever they would give a wrong answer, they would accused Aquilans of the lesser crime of slight physical
be hit on their arms or legs. Late in the afternoon, the injuries.
Aquilans revived the initiation rites proper and
proceeded to torment them physically and
psychologically. The case then elevated in the CA. This Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of the
CAs Decision insofar as it acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.)
and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the accused Aquilans Constitution as one of the fundamental rights of the
of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries. citizen,viz:

According to the Solicitor General, the CA erred in Article III Bill of Rights
holding that there could have been no conspiracy to
commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity initiation had not Section 21. No person shall be twice put
yet been criminalized at the time Lenny died. in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law
In the alternative, petitioner claims that the ruling of the and an ordinance, conviction or
trial court should have been upheld, inasmuch as it acquittal under either shall constitute a
found that there was conspiracy to inflict physical bar to another prosecution for the same
injuries on Lenny. act.

Since the injuries led to the victims death, petitioner

Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, which
posits that the accused Aquilans are criminally liable for
implements this particular constitutional right, provides
the resulting crime of homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of
as follows:
the Revised Penal Code.
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal;
The said article provides: Criminal liability shall be
double jeopardy. When an accused has
incurred [b]y any person committing a felony (delito)
been convicted or acquitted, or the case
although the wrongful act done be different from that
against him dismissed or otherwise
which he intended.
terminated without his express consent
by a court of competent jurisdiction,
Petitioner also argues that the rule on double jeopardy
upon a valid complaint or information
is inapplicable.
or other formal charge sufficient in form
According to the Solicitor General, the CA acted with and substance to sustain a conviction
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of and after the accused had pleaded to
jurisdiction, in setting aside the trial courts finding of the charge, the conviction or acquittal
conspiracy and in ruling that the criminal liability of of the accused or the dismissal of the
all the accused must be based on their individual case shall be a bar to another
participation in the commission of the crime. prosecution for the offense charged, or
for any attempt to commit the same or
ISSUE: frustration thereof, or for any offense
WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when which necessarily includes or is
it pronounced (4 of the accused) Tecson, Ama, Almeda, necessarily included in the offense
and Bantug guilty only of slight physical injuries. charged in the former complaint or
information.
HELD:
The rule on double jeopardy thus prohibits the
The rule on double jeopardy is one of the pillars of our state from appealing the judgment in order to reverse
criminal justice system. It dictates that when a person is the acquittal or to increase the penalty imposed either
charged with an offense, and the case is terminated through a regular appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of
either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner Court or through an appeal by certiorari on pure
without the consent of the accused the accused cannot questions of law under Rule 45 of the same Rules.
again be charged with the same or an identical offense.
The requisites for invoking double jeopardy are
This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice
the following: (a) there is a valid complaint or
and conscience. It is embodied in the civil law
information; (b) it is filed before a competent court; (c)
maxim non bis in idem found in the common law of
the defendant pleaded to the charge; and (d) the
England and undoubtedly in every system of
defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case
jurisprudence. It found expression in the Spanish Law, in
against him or her was dismissed or otherwise
the Constitution of the United States, and in our own
terminated without the defendants express consent.
 As we have reiterated in People v. Court of The Solicitor General filed a Rule 65 Petition
Appeals and Galicia, [a] verdict of acquittal is for Certiorari, which seeks the reversal of (1) the
immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of acquittal of Victorino et al. and (2) the conviction of
such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the Tecson et al. for the lesser crime of slight physical
accused in jeopardy for the same offense. injuries, both on the basis of a misappreciation of facts
and evidence.
The finality-of-acquittal doctrine has several avowed
purposes. Primarily, it prevents the State from using its According to the Petition, the decision of the CA is not in
criminal processes as an instrument of harassment to accordance with law because private complainant and
wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with petitioner were denied due process of law when the
accumulated trials. public respondent completely ignored the a) Position
Paper x x x b) the Motion for Partial Reconsideration x x
It also serves the additional purpose of precluding the x and c) the petitioners Comment x x x.
State, following an acquittal, from successively retrying
the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. Allegedly, the CA ignored evidence when it adopted the
theory of individual responsibility; set aside the finding
And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, of conspiracy by the trial court; and failed to apply
from retrying the defendant again in the hope of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
securing a greater penalty. We further stressed that an
acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as The Solicitor General also assails the finding that the
a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. physical blows were inflicted only by Dizon and Villareal,
as well as the appreciation of Lenny Villas consent to
This prohibition, however, is not absolute. The hazing.
state may challenge the lower courts acquittal of the
accused or the imposition of a lower penalty on the In our view, what the Petition seeks is that we
latter in the following recognized exceptions: reexamine, reassess, and reweigh the probative value of
the evidence presented by the parties.
1 where the prosecution is deprived of a fair
opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, In People v. Maquiling, we held that grave abuse of
tantamount to a deprivation of due process; discretion cannot be attributed to a court simply
because it allegedly misappreciated the facts and the
2 where there is a finding of mistrial; or evidence.

3 where there has been a grave abuse of discretion. Mere errors of judgment are correctible by an appeal or
a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
The 3rd instance refers to this Courts judicial Court, and not by an application for a writ of certiorari.
power under Rule 65 to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack Therefore, pursuant to the rule on double jeopardy, we
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or are constrained to deny the Petition contra Victorino et
instrumentality of the government. al. the 19 acquitted fraternity members.

Here, the party asking for the review must show the We, however, modify the assailed judgment as
presence of a whimsical or capricious exercise of regards Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug the four
judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; a patent and fraternity members convicted of slight physical injuries.
gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty Indeed, we have ruled in a line of cases that the rule on
imposed by law or to act in contemplation of law; an double jeopardy similarly applies when the state seeks
exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner the imposition of a higher penalty against the accused.
by reason of passion and hostility; or a blatant abuse of
authority to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive We have also recognized, however, that certiorari may
the court of its very power to dispense justice. be used to correct an abusive judgment upon a clear
demonstration that the lower court blatantly abused its
In such an event, the accused cannot be considered to authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very
be at risk of double jeopardy. power to dispense justice.
The present case is one of those instances of grave Considering that the CA found that the physical
abuse of discretion. punishment heaped on [Lenny Villa was] serious in
nature, it was patently erroneous for the court to limit
In imposing the penalty of slight physical the criminal liability to slight physical injuries, which is a
injuries on Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug, the CA light felony.
reasoned thus:
Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the
Based on the medical findings, perpetrator shall be liable for the consequences of an
it would appear that with the exclusion act, even if its result is different from that intended.
of the fatal wounds inflicted by the
accused Dizon and Villareal, Thus, once a person is found to have committed an
the injuries sustained by the victim as a initial felonious act, such as the unlawful infliction of
result of the physical punishment physical injuries that results in the death of the victim,
heaped on him were serious in nature. courts are required to automatically apply the legal
framework governing the destruction of life. This rule is
However, by reason of the mandatory, and not subject to discretion.
death of the victim, there can be no
precise means to determine the The CAs application of the legal framework governing
duration of the incapacity or the physical injuries punished under Articles 262 to 266 for
medical attendance required. To do so, intentional felonies and Article 365 for culpable felonies
at this stage would be merely is therefore tantamount to a whimsical, capricious, and
speculative. In a prosecution for this abusive exercise of judgment amounting to lack of
crime where the category of the offense jurisdiction.
and the severity of the penalty depend
on the period of illness or incapacity for According to the Revised Penal Code, the mandatory
labor, the length of this period must and legally imposable penalty in case the victim dies
likewise be proved beyond reasonable should be based on the framework governing the
doubt in much the same manner as the destruction of the life of a person, punished under
same act charged [People v. Codilla, CA- Articles 246 to 261 for intentional felonies and Article
G.R. No. 4079-R, June 26, 1950]. 365 for culpable felonies, and not under the
And when proof of the said period is aforementioned provisions.
absent, the crime committed should be
deemed only as slight physical We emphasize that these two types of felonies are
injuries [People v. De los Santos, CA, 59 distinct from and legally inconsistent with each other, in
O.G. 4393, citing People v. Penesa, 81 that the accused cannot be held criminally liable for
Phil. 398]. As such, this Court is physical injuries when actual death occurs.
constrained to rule that the injuries
inflicted by the appellants, Tecson, Ama, Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon
Almeda and Bantug, Jr., are only slight as if only their acts, in and of themselves, caused the
and not serious, in nature.[93] (Emphasis death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings.
supplied and citations included)
From proof that the death of the victim was the
On the contrary, the CAs ultimate conclusion cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered,
that Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug were liable the only logical conclusion is that criminal responsibility
merely for slight physical injuries grossly contradicts its should redound to all those who have been proven to
own findings of fact. have directly participated in the infliction of physical
injuries on Lenny.
According to the court, the 4 accused were
found to have inflicted more than the usual The accumulation of bruising on his body caused him to
punishment undertaken during such initiation rites on suffer cardiac arrest. Accordingly, we find that the CA
the person of Villa. It then adopted the NBI medico-legal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
officers findings that the antecedent cause of Lenny or excess of jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda,
Villas death was the multiple traumatic injuries he and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries.
suffered from the initiation rites.
As an allowable exception to the rule on double
jeopardy, we therefore give due course to the Petition in
G.R. No. 154954.

DECISION:

The appealed Judgment in G.R. No. 154954 finding (4

accused) - Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony
Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson guilty of
the crime of slight physical injuries is
also MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART. Instead,
Fidelito Dizon, Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony
Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide defined and penalized
under Article 365 in relation to Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code. The appealed Judgment in G.R. No.
154954, acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby AFFIRMED

They are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate

prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. In
addition, accused are ORDERED jointly and severally to
pay the heirs of Lenny Villa civil indemnity ex delicto in
the amount of ₱50,000, and moral damages in the
amount of ₱1,000,000, plus legal interest on all
damages awarded at the rate of 12% from the date of
the finality of this Decision until satisfaction. Costs de
oficio.