Dandy Dungco vs CA

8/18/2019 Dandy Dungco vs CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dandy-dungco-vs-ca 1/25

G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015

DANDY L. DUNGO and GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Petitioners,vs.EOLE O! "#E #ILIINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

$ENDO%A, J.:

The fraternal contract should not be signed in blood, celebrated ith pain, !arred b" in#uries, andperpetrated through suffering. That is the essence of Republic $ct %R.$.& No. '()* or the $nti+a-inga of /**0.

This is a petition for revie on certiorari see1ing to reverse and set aside the $pril 23, 2(/4Decision/ and the October ', 2(/4 Resolution2 of the Court of $ppeals %C$& in C$+5.R. CR+.C. No.(0()3, hich affir!ed the 6ebruar" 24, 2(// Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court, 7ranch 43,

Cala!ba Cit" %RTC&. The RTC found petitioners Dand" . Dungo %Dungo& and 5regorio $. Sibal, 8r.%Sibal&, guilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri!e of violation of Section ) of R.$. No. '()*, andsentenced the! to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua.

The 6acts

On 6ebruar" /, 2((3, the Office of the Cit" Prosecutor of Cala!ba, aguna, filed theInfor!ation) against the petitioners before the R TC, the accusator" portion of hich reads9 That onor about 294( in the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, at :illa Novaliches, 7rg". Pansol,Cala!ba ,Cit", Province of aguna and ithin the #urisdiction of the onorable Court, the above+na!ed accused, during an initiation rite and being then !e!bers of $lpha Phi O!ega fraternit" andpresent thereat, in conspirac" ith !ore or less tent" other !e!bers and officers, hose identit" is

not "et 1non, did then and there illfull", unlafull" and feloniousl" assault and use personalviolence upon one ;)+RON :I$N<E:$ " ;E8I$, a neoph"te thereof and as condition for hisad!ission to the fraternit", thereb" sub#ecting hi! to ph"sical har!, resulting to his death, to theda!age and pre#udice of the heirs of the victi!.

CONTR$R= TO $>.

On 6ebruar" ?, 2((3, upon !otion, the RTC ad!itted the $!ended Infor!ation0 hich reads9

That on or about 294( in the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, at :illa Novaliches, 7rg". Pansol,Cala!ba Cit", Province of aguna and ithin the #urisdiction of the onorable Court, the above+na!e accused, during a planned initiation rite and being then officers and !e!bers of $lpha Phi

O!ega fraternit" and present thereat, in conspirac" ith !ore or less tent" other !e!bers andofficers, hose identit" is not "et 1non, did then and there illfull", unlafull" and feloniousl"assault and use personal violence upon one ;$RON :I$N<E:$ " ;E8I$, a neoph"te thereof and as condition for his ad!ission to the fraternit", thereb" sub#ecting hi! to ph"sical har!, resultingto his death, to the da!age and pre#udice of the heirs of the victi!. CONTR$R= TO $>.

On 6ebruar" ?, 2((3, Dungo filed a !otion to @uash for lac1 of probable cause,3 but it as denied b"the trial court because the ground cited therein as not provided b" la and #urisprudence. >henarraigned, the petitioners pleaded not guilt" to the cri1!e charged.? Thereafter, trial ensued.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_209464_2015.html#fnt1
















:ersion of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented tent" %2(& itnesses to prove the cri!e charged. Their testi!onies aresu!!ari-ed as follos9

$t around 492( oAcloc1 in the !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, the victi! ;arlon :illanueva %:illanueva&

as brought to the e!ergenc" roo! of Dr. 8ose P. Ri-al District ospital %8P Ri-al ospital&. Dr.Ra!on ;asilungan %Dr. ;asilungan&, ho as then the attending ph"sician at the e!ergenc" roo!,observed that :illanueva as !otionless, not breathing and had no heartbeat. Dr. ;asilungan triedto revive :illlanueva for about /0 to 4( !inutes. :illanueva, hoever, did not respond to theresuscitation and as pronounced dead. Dr. ;asilungan noticed a big contusion he!ato!a on theleft side of the victi!As face and several in#uries on his ar!s and legs. e further attested that:illanueva As face as c"anotic, !eaning that blood as no longer running through his bod" due tolac1 of oB"gen and hen he pulled don :illanuevaAs pants, he sa large contusions on both legs,hich eBtended fro! the upper portion of the thighs, don to the coupleBial portion, or bac1 of the1nees.

Dr. ;asilungan disclosed that to %2& !en brought :illanueva to the hospital. The to told hi! that

the" found :illanueva l"ing !otionless on the ground at a store in 7rg". Pansol, Cala!ba Cit", andbrought hi! to the hospital. >hen he as1ed the! here the" ca!e fro!, one of the! ansered thatthe" ca!e fro! os 7aos, aguna, en route to San Pablo Cit". e @uestioned the! on ho the"found :illanueva, hen the latter as in 7rg". Pansol, Cala!ba Cit". One of the !en #ust said thatthe" ere headed so!ehere else.

Dr. ;asilungan reduced his findings in a !edico+legal report. ' Due to the nature, eBtent and locationof the in#uries, he opined that :illanueva as a victi! of ha-ing. e as fa!iliar ith ha-ing in#uriesbecause he had undergone ha-ing hi!self hen he as a student, and also because of hiseBperience in treating victi!s of ha-ing incidents.

Dr. Ro" Ca!arillo %Dr. Ca!arillo&, ;edico+egal Officer of the Philippine National Police Cri!eaborator" %PNP+C& in Region I:, Ca!p :icente i!, Canlubang, Cala!ba Cit", testified that heperfor!ed an autops" on the bod" of :illanueva on 8anuar" /), 2((3 and placed don his findingsin an autops" report.* <pon eBa!ination of the bod", he found various eBternal in#uries in the head,trun1 and eBtre!ities. There ere thirt"+three %44& eBternal in#uries, ith various severit" and nature.e concluded that the cause of death as subdural he!orrhage due to head in#ur" contusion+he!ato!a. 7ased on !ultiple in#uries and contusions on the bod", and his previous eBa!inations ofha-ing in#uries, Dr. Ca!arillo opined that these in#uries ere ha-ing+related. During the autops", heretrieved to %2& !atchstic1s fro! the cadaver ith the !ar1ing of $lpha Phi O!ega %$PO&6raternit"./(

Susan Ignacio %Ignacio& as the oner of the sari+sari store located at Puro1 0, Pansol, Cala!baCit", in front of :illa Novaliches Resort, hich as barel" ten steps aa". On 8anuar" /4, 2((3, ataround '94( to *9(( oAcloc1 in the evening, she as tending her store hen she sa a #eepne" ith

!ore than tent" %2(& persons arrive at the resort. Ignacio identified Dungo as the person seatedbeside the driver of the #eepne".// She esti!ated the ages of these persons in the group to bebeteen 2( to 4( "ears old. The" ere in civilian clothes, hile the other !en ore hite long+sleeved shirts. 7efore entering the resort, the !en and o!en shoo1 hands and e!braced eachother. Three %4& persons, riding on a single !otorc"cle, also arrived at the resort.

Ignacio sa about fifteen %/0& persons gather on top of the terrace of the resort ho loo1ed li1e the"ere pra"ing, and then the lights of the resort ere turned off. ater that evening, at least three %4& of these persons ent to her store to bu" so!e ite!s. During her testi!on", she as shon













photographs and she identified Christopher 7raseros and Sibal as to of those ho ent to herstore./2 It as onl" on the !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3 that she learned fro! the police!en visitingthe resort that the deceased person as :illanueva.

Donato ;agat %;agat&, a tric"cle driver pl"ing the route of Pansol, Cala!ba Cit", testified that ataround 49(( oAcloc1 in the !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, he as aiting for passengers at the co!er

of :illa Novaliches Resort. $ !an approached hi! and told hi! that so!eone inside the resortneeded a ride. ;agat ent to the resort and as1ed the to %2& !en at the gate ho needed a ride.

$fterards, he sa three %4& !en in their 2(As carr"ing another !an, ho loo1ed ver" ea1, li1e avegetable, toards his tric"cle. ;agat touched the bod" of the !an being carried and sensed it ascold.

;agat as1ed the !en hat happened to their co!panion. The" replied that he had too !uch todrin1. Then the" instructed ;agat to go to the nearest hospital. e drove the tric"cle to 8P Ri-alospital. <pon their arrival, to of his passengers brought their unconscious co!panion inside thee!ergenc" roo!, hile their other co!panion paid the tric"cle fare. ;agat then left to go ho!e.Several da"s after, he learned that the person brought to the hospital had died.

$belardo Natividad %Natividad& and Seferino Espina " 8aba" %Espina& ere the securit" guards ondut" at 8P Ri-al ospital, fro! // 9(( oAcloc1 in the evening of 8anuar" /4, 2((3 until ?9(( oAcloc1 inthe !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3. In the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, to !en, ho signed onthe logboo1/4 under the na!es 7randon 5on-ales and 8erico Paril, brought the lifeless bod" of aperson. Pursuant to the standard operating procedure of the hospital, the securit" guards did notallo the to !en to leave the hospital because the" called the police station .so that aninvestigation could be conducted. To police!en arrived later at the hospital. During his testi!on",Natividad identified Sibal and Dupgo as the to persons ho brought :illanueva to the hospital.

PO2 $laindelon Ignacio %P(2 Ignacio&. testified that on 8anuar" /), 2((3 at around 494( oAcloc1 inthe earl" !orning, Natividad called up the PNP Cala!ba Cit" Station to report that a lifeless bod" ofa !an as brought to 8P Ri-al ospital. >hen P(2 Ignacio arrived, he sa :illanuevaA s corpse ithcontusions and bite !ar1s all over his bod". P(2 Ignacio and his police!en co!panions then

brought Dungo and Sibal to the police station. e as1ed the! about hat happened, but the"invo1ed their right to re!ain silent. The police!en then proceeded to 7rg". Pansol at around *9((oAcloc1 in the !orning. $fter finding :illa Novaliches Resort, the" 1noc1ed on the door and thecareta1er, ;aricel Capillan %Capillan&, opened it.

The police as1ed Capillan if there ere <niversit" of the Philippines os 7aos %<P os 7aos&students ho rented the resort on the evening of 8anuar" /4, 2((3. Capillan said "es and added thatabout tent" %2(& persons arrived onboard a #eepne" and told her that the" ould be renting theresort fro! *94( oAcloc1 in the evening up to ?9(( oAcloc1 the folloing !orning.

5a" C-arina Sunga %Sunga& as a food technolog" student at <P os 7aos during the acade!ic"ear of 2((0+2((3 and a !e!ber of the S"!biosis <P7 7iological Societ". $round 49(( oAcloc1 in

the afternoon of 8anuar" /4, 2((3, she as at their organi-ationAs ta!ba"an in the <P7 7iologicalSciences 7uilding, hen she noticed three %4& !en seated to !eters aa" fro! her. She identifiedthe to of the three !en as Sibal and Dungo./) The" ere earing blac1 shirts ith the logo of $PO.ater at 09(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon, to !ore !en arrived and, ith their heads boed,approached the three !en. One of the! as :illanueva, ho as carr"ing a 0+gallon atercontainer. Dungo then stood up and as1ed :illanueva h" the latter did not report to hi! hen heas #ust at their ta!ba"an. Dungo then punched :illanueva tice, but the latter #ust 1ept @uiet ithhis head boed. 6ifteen !inutes later, all the !en left.










8oe" $tien-a %$tien-a& had been a good friend of :illanueva since 2((). The" ere roo!!ates atthe <P os 7aos ;enAs Dor!itor" and house!ates at the DPS $part!ent in <!ali Subdivision,os 7aos, aguna. $ccording to $tien-a, on 8anuar" *, 2((3, :illanueva introduced hi! to Dar"lDecena %Decena& as his $PO + Theta Chapter batch!ate, ho as also to undergo final initiationrites on 8anuar" /4, 2((3.

Severino Cuevas, Director of the Students $ffairs at <P os 7aos, testified that Dungo and Sibalere both !e!bers of the $PO 6raternit", and that there as no record of an" re@uest for initiationor ha-ing activit" filed b" the said fraternit".

;c$rthur Padua of the Office of the Registrar, <P os 7aos, testified that :illanueva as a 7.S. $gricultural Econo!ics student at the <P os 7aos,/0 as evidenced b" his official transcript ofrecord./3

$tt". Eleno Peralta and Dina S. Carlos, officers of the Student Disciplinar" Tribunal %SDT& of the <Pos 7aos, testified that an ad!inistrative disciplinar" case as filed on ;arch 4/, 2((3 against the

$PO 6raternit" regarding the death of :illanueva. The" confir!ed that Capilla of :illa NovalichesResort and Irene Tan %Tan& of $PO Sororit" Theta Chapter appeared as itnesses for the

co!plainant./?

Ro!an ;iguel De 8esus, <P + Office of the egal $id %<P+O$& supervising student, testified that he!et Tan of the $PO Sororit" so!eti!e beteen 8ul" and $ugust 2((3 in <P Dili!an9 to convince her to testif" in the cri!inal case. Tan, hoever, refused because she feared for her safet". She said thatafter testif"ing in the SDT hearing, her place in I!us, Cavite as padloc1ed and vandali-ed.

Evel"n :illanueva, !other of victi! :illanueva, testified that, as a result of the death of her son, herfa!il" incurred actual da!ages consisting of !edical, burial and funeral eBpenses in the aggregatea!ount of P/)(,(((.(( hich ere evidenced b" receipts./' er husband also incurred traveleBpenses in the a!ount of P?,(((.(( in returning to the Philippines to attend his sonAs a1e andburial, as supported b" a plane tic1et./* She further attested that she eBperienced !ental anguish,sleepless nights, substantial eight loss, and strained fa!il" relationship as a result of her sonAsdeath.

:ersion of the Defense

The defense presented seven %?& itnesses to prove the innocence of the petitioners. Theirtesti!onies are su!!ari-ed as follo9

Richard Cornelio %Cornelio&, an $PO 6raternit" !e!ber, testified that on 8anuar" /4, 2((3, around)9(( to )94( oAcloc1 in the afternoon, he !et Dungo at the <P os 7aos 5raduate School. Dungoas1ed hi! if he ould attend the initiation cere!on", and Cornelio ansered in the negativebecause he had other things to do. $t /(9(( oAcloc1 in the evening of the sa!e da", Cornelio again!et Dungo and his girlfriend hile eating a ha!burger at the 7urger ;achine along Ra"!undo

Street, <!ali Subdivision, os 7aos, aguna %Ra"!undo Street&. e as1ed Dungo if he ouldattend the initiation cere!on". Dungo replied that he ould not because he and his girlfriend hadso!ething to do.

$na Danife Rivera %Rivera&, the girlfriend of Dungo, testified that on 8anuar" /4, 2((3 at around / 9(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon, Dungo ca!e and visited her at her boarding house on Ra"!undo Street.

$round )9(( oAcloc1 of the sa!e afternoon, the" ent to the <P os 7aos 5raduate School andsa Cornelio. $fterards, the" ent bac1 to her boarding house and sta"ed there fro! 09(( oAcloc1in the afternoon to ?9(( oAcloc1 in the evening. Then, the" ent to acBo Restaurant for dinner and














left at around /(9(( oAcloc1 in the evening. On their a" bac1 to her boarding house, the"encountered Cornelio again at the 7urger ;achine. Dungo then sta"ed and slept at her boardinghouse. $round 29(( oAcloc1 in the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, the" ere roused fro! theirsleep b" a phone call fro! Sibal, as1ing Dungo to go to a resort in Pansol, Cala!ba Cit". Dungothen left the boarding house.

Dungo testified that around /9(( oAcloc1 in the earl" afternoon of 8anuar" /4, 2((3, he arrived at theboarding house of his girlfriend, Rivera, on Ra"!undo Street. $t around )9(( oAcloc1 in theafternoon, the" ent to the <P os 7aos 5raduate School and in@uired about the re@uire!ents fora !asterAs degree. The" al1ed bac1 to the boarding house and !et Cornelio. The" tal1ed abouttheir fraternit"As ,final initiation cere!on" for that night in Pansol, Cala!ba Cit". Dungo and Riverathen reached the latterAs boarding house around 09(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon. $t around ?9(( oAcloc1in the evening, the" ent out for dinner at the acBo Restaurant, near Crossing 8unction, os 7aos.The" ate and sta"ed at the restaurant for at least one and a half hours. Then the" al1ed bac1 to theboarding house of Rivera and, along the a", the" !et Cornelio again at the 7urger ;achine alongRa"!undo Street. Cornelio as1ed Dungo if he ould attend their fraternit"As final initiation cere!on",to hich he replied in the negative. Dungo and Rivera reached the boarding house around *9((oAcloc1 in the evening and the" slept there.

$round 29(( oAcloc1 in the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, Dungo as roused fro! his sleepbecause Sibal as palling hi! on his cellphone. Sibal as1ed for his help, re@uesting hi! to go to:illa Novaliches Resort in Pansol, Cala!ba Cit". <pon Dungo As arrival at the resort, Sibal led hi!inside. There, he sa Rudolfo Castillo %Castillo&, a fello $PO fraternit" brother, and :illanueva, hoas unconscious. Dungo told the! that the" should bring :illanueva to the hospital. The" all agreed,and Castillo called a tric"cle that brought the! to 8P Ri-al ospital. e identified hi!self before thesecurit" guard as 8erico Paril because he as scared to tell his real na!e.

5ilbert 5ope- %5ope-& testified that he as the 5rand Chancellor of the $PO +Theta Chapter for"ears 2((0+2((3. $t around ?9(( oAcloc1 in the evening of 8anuar" /4, 2((3, he as at theta!ba"an of their fraternit" in <P os 7aos because their neoph"tes ould be initiated that night.

$round '94( oAcloc1 in the evening, the" !et their fraternit" brothers in 7agong alsada, os 7aos.

e noticed that their neoph"te, :illanueva, as ith Castillo and that there as a bruise on the leftside of his face. Then the" boarded a #eepne" and proceeded to :illa Novaliches Resort in Pansol,Cala!ba Cit". There, 5ope- instructed Sibal to ta1e :illanueva to the second floor of the resort. econfronted Castillo as to hat happened to :illanueva. $round //9(( or //94( oAcloc1 in the evening,5ope- decided to cancel the final rites. e told Sibal to sta" at the resort and acco!pan" :illanuevaand Castillo. Together ith the other neoph"tes, 5ope- left the resort and ent bac1 to <P os7aos.

Sibal testified that he as a DOST Scholar at the <P os 7aos fro! 2((2 to 2((3, ta1ing up 7.S. $gricultural Che!istr". e as a 7rother $ctuar" of the $PO + Theta Chapter, and as in charge offraternit" activities, such as tree planting, free !edical and dental !issions, and blood donations. On8anuar" /4, 2((3, at around 39(( oAcloc1 in the evening, he as at the fraternit"As ta!ba"an for the

final initiation rites of their neoph"tes. $fter preparing the food for the initiation rites, Sibal, togetherith so!e neoph"tes, ent to 7agong alsada, os 7aos, here he sa fello fraternit" brotherCastillo ith their neoph"te :illanueva, ho had a bruised face. Thereafter, the" boarded a #eepne"and proceeded to :illa Novaliches Resort in Pansol, Cala!ba Cit". Once inside the resort, heacco!panied :illanueva upstairs for the latter to ta1e a rest. $ fe !inutes later, he ent don andconfronted Castillo about the bruises on :illanuevaAs face. e as angr" and irritated ith Castillo.e then sta"ed outside the resort until 5ope- and the other neoph"tes ca!e out and told hi! thatthe final initiation rite as cancelled, and that the" ere returning to <P os 7aos. Sibal anted togo ith the! but he as ordered to sta" ith :illanueva and Castillo.



$fter the group of 5ope- left, Sibal chec1ed on the condition of :illanueva, ho as sleeping on thesecond floor of the resort. Then he ent outside for one hour, or until / 9(( o Adoc1 in the earl"!orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3. Sibal entered the resort again and sa :illanueva, ho loo1edunconscious, seated in one of the benc3es on the ground floor. Sibal in@uired about :illanuevaAscondition but he as ignored b" Castillo. e then called Dungo for help. $fter Dungo arrived at theresort, the" hailed a tric"cle and brought :illanueva to 8P Ri-al ospital. There, he gave a false

na!e to the securit" guard as he heard that Dungo had done the sa!e.

The RTC Ruling

On 6ebruar" 24, 2(//, the RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilt" of the cri!e of violating Section ) ofthe $nti+a-ing a and sentenced the! to suffer the penalt" of reclusion perpetua. The trial courtstated that the prosecution established the presence of Dungo and Sibal %/& at the <P os 7anosCa!pus on 8anuar" /4, 2((3 around 49(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon, b" the testi!on" of Sunga and%2& at the :illa Novaliches Resort around *9(( oAcloc1 in the evening of the sa!e da" b" thetesti!on" of Ignacio. >ith the eBtensive testi!onies of Dr. ;asilungan and Dr. Ca!arillo, theprosecution also proved that :illanueva died fro! ha-ing in#uries.

$ccording to the RTC, the evidence of the prosecution undeniabl" proved that :illanueva, a <P os7afios student, as a neoph"te of the $PO + Theta Chapter 6raternit" that Dungo and Sibal ere!e!bers of the said fraternit" that on the evening of 8anuar" /4, 2((3, Dungo and Sibal, togetherith the other fraternit" !e!bers, officers and alu!ni, brought and transported :illanueva and toother neoph"tes to :illa Novaliches Resort at 7aranga" Pansol, Cala!ba Cit", for the final initiationrites that the initiation rites ere conducted inside the resort, perfor!ed under the cover of dar1nessand secrec" that due to the in#uries sustained b" :illanueva, the fraternit" !e!bers and the otherto neoph"tes hapha-ardl" left the resort and that Dungo and Sibal boarded a tric"cle and broughtthe lifeless bod" of :illanueva to 8P Ri-al ospital, here :illanueva as pronounced dead.

The RTC eBplained that even if there as no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated to bodil"assault and har! the victi!, it as irrefutable that the" brought :illanueva to the resort for their finalinitiation rites. Clearl", the" did not !erel" induce :illanueva to attend the final initiation rites, but

the" also brought hi! to :illa Novaliches Resort.

The RTC held that the defense of denial and alibi ere self+serving negative assertions. The defenseof denial and alibi of Dungo, hich as corroborated b" the testi!on" of his girlfriend Rivera and hisco+fraternit" brother, could not be given credence. The itnesses presented b" the defense erepartial and could not be considered as disinterested parties. The defense of denial of Sibal li1eisefailed. The corroborative testi!onies of his fraternit" brothers ere suspect because the" had so!uch at sta1e in the outco!e of the cri!inal action.

The decretal portion of the decision reads9

>ERE6ORE, the Court finds the accused Dand" Dungo and 5regorio Sibal 5<IT= of violating

Section ) of the $nti+a-ing a and sentenced the! to suffer the penalt" of REC<SIONPERPET<$ and order the! to #ointl" and severall" pa" the fa!il" Fheirs of Deceased ;arlon:illanueva the folloing su!s of !one"9

/. P/)/,42).(( for and as actual da!ages

2. P2((,(((.(( for and as !oral da!ages



4. P/((,(((.(( for and as eBe!plar" da!ages and

). P0(,(((.(( for the death of ;arlon :illanueva.

SO ORDERED.2(

$ggrieved, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal. In their brief, the" contended that the prosecutionfailed to establish their guilt be"ond reasonable doubt for violating R.$. No. '()*. The" also assailedthe constitutionalit" of Section ) of the said la, hich stated that !ere presence in the ha-ing aspri!a facie evidence of participation therein, because it allegedl" violated the constitutionalpresu!ption of innocence of the accused.

The C$ Ruling

The C$ ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal as bereft of !erit. It stated that, in finding the!guilt" of violating R.$. No. '()*, the RTC properl" relied on circu!stantial evidence adduced b" theprosecution. The C$ painsta1ingl" discussed the unbro1en chain of circu!stantial evidence toconvict Dungo and Sibal as principals in the cri!e of ha-ing.

It further found that the defense of denial and alibi of Dungo and Sibal failed to cast doubt on thepositive identification !ade b" the prosecution itnesses and that denial, being inherentl" ea1,could not prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the cri!e. TheC$ also stated that Dungo and Sibal ere not onl" convicted based on their presence in the venueof the ha-ing, but also in their act of bringing the victi! to :illa Novaliches Resort for the finalinitiation rites.

The dispositive portion of the decision reads9

>ERE6ORE, pre!ises considered, the 6ebruar" 24, 2(// Decision of the Regional Trial Court,7ranch 43 of Cala!ba Cit" in CRI;. Case No. /4*0'+2((3+C, finding accused+appellant guilt"

be"ond reasonable doubt of :iolation of R.$. '()* is hereb" $66IR;ED in TOTO.

SO ORDERED.2/

Dungo and Sibal !oved for reconsideration but their !otion as denied b" the C$ in the assailedOctober ', 2(/4 Resolution.

ence, this petition.

SOE $SSI5N;ENT O6 ERROR E 8<D5;ENTS O6 TE RTC $ND TE C$ $ G<OCONSTIT<TE $ :IO$TION O6 TE CONSTIT<TION$ RI5T O6 TE $CC<SED TO 7EIN6OR;ED O6 TE N$T<RE $ND C$<SE O6 $CC<S$TION $5$INST TE; 7EC$<SE TE

O66ENSE PRO:ED $S 6O<ND $ND PRONO<NCED TERE7= IS DI66ERENT 6RO; T$TC$R5ED IN TE IN6OR;$TION, NOR DOES ONE INC<DE OR NECESS$RI= INC<DETE OTER.22

Petitioners Dungo and Sibal argue that the a!ended infor!ation charged the! as the" Hdid then andthere illfull", unlafull" and feloniousl" assault and use personal violence upon one ;arlon:illanueva " ;e#illa.H24 =et, both the RTC and the C$ found the! guilt" of violating R.$. No. '()*because the" HiJnduced the victi! to be presentH 2)during the initiation rites. The cri!e of ha-ing b"induce!ent does not necessaril" include the cri!inal charge of ha-ing b" actual participation. Thus,

















the" cannot be convicted of a cri!e not stated or necessaril" included in the infor!ation. 7" reasonof the foregoing, the petitioners contend that their constitutional right to be infor!ed of the natureand cause of accusation against the! has been violated.

In its Co!!ent,20 filed on ;a" 24, 2(/), the Office of the Solicitor 5eneral %DS5& asserted thatDungo and Sibal ere charged in the a!ended infor!ation ith the proper offense and convicted for

such. The phrases Hplanned initiationH and Hin conspirac" ith !ore or less tent" !e!bers andofficersH in the a!ended infor!ation sufficientl" cover H1noingl" cooperated in carr"ing out theha-ing b" inducing the victi! to be present thereat.H The planned initiation rite ould not have beenacco!plished ere it not for the acts of the petitioners in inducing the victi! to be present thereatand it as obviousl" conducted in conspirac" ith the others.23 In their Repl"2? filed on Septe!ber /(,2(/), Dungo and Sibal insisted that there as a variance beteen the, offense charged of Hactuall"participated in the infliction of ph"sical har!,H and the offense H1noingl" cooperated in carr"ing outthe ha-ing b" inducing the victi! to be present thereat.H2' The prosecution, !oreover, failed toestablish conspirac" because no act or circu!stance as proved pointing to a #oint purpose anddesign beteen and a!ong the petitioners and the other tent" accused.

The CourtAs Ruling

The petition lac1s !erit.

Procedural ;atter

$n appeal is a proceeding underta1en to have a decision reconsidered b" bringing it to a highercourt authorit".2*The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a co!ponent of due process. It isa !ere statutor" privilege, and !a" be eBercised onl" in the !anner and in accordance ith theprovisions of la.4(

Section /4%c&, Rule /2) of the Revised Rules of Cri!inal Procedure, as a!ended b" $.;. No. ((+0+(4, dated October /0, 2((), governs the procedure on the appeal fro! the C$ to the Court hen the

penalt" i!posed is either reclusion perpetua or life i!prison!ent.4/

$ccording to the said provision,HiJn cases here the Court of $ppeals i!poses reclusion perpetua, life i!prison!ent or a lesserpenalt", it shall render and enter #udg!ent i!posing such penalt". The #udg!ent !a" be appealed tothe Supre!e Court b" notice of appeal filed ith the Court of $ppeals.H

ence, an accused, upon ho! the penalt" of reclusion perpetua or life i!prison!ent had beeni!posed b" the C$, can si!pl" file a notice of appeal to allo hi! to pursue an appeal as a !atter of right before the Court. $n appeal in a cri!inal case opens the entire case for revie on an" @uestionincluding one not raised b" the parties.42Section /4%c&, Rule /2) recogni-es the constitutionall"conferred #urisdiction of the Court in all cri!inal cases in hich the penalt" i!posed is reclusionperpetua or higher .44

$n accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an appeal b" certiorari to the Court via

Rule )0 under the Rules of Court. $n appeal to this Court b" petition for revie on certiorari shallraise onl" @uestions of la.4);oreover, such revie is not a !atter of right, but of sound #udicialdiscretion, and ill be granted onl" hen there are special and i!portant reasons.40 In other ords,hen the C$ i!posed a penalt" of reclusion perpetua or life i!prison!ent, an accused !a"9 %/& filea notice of appeal under Section /4% c &, Rule /2) to avail of an appeal as a !atter of right beforethe Court and open the entire case for revie on an" @uestion or %2& file a petition for revie oncertiorari under Rule )0 to resort to an appeal as a !atter of discretion and raise onl" @uestions ofla.





























In this case, the C$ affir!ed the R TC decision i!posing the penalt" of reclusion perpetua upon thepetitioners. The latter opted to appeal the C$ decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule )0.Conse@uentl", the" could onl" raise @uestions of la. Oddl", the petitioners began to assail theeBistence of conspirac" in their repl",43 hich is a @uestion of fact that ould re@uire an eBa!inationof the evidence presented. In the interest of #ustice, hoever, and due to the novelt" of the issuepresented, the Court dee!s it proper to open the hole case for revie.4?Substantive ;atter

In our conte!porar" societ", ha-ing has been a night!are of parents ho send their children tocollege or universit". Nes of deaths and horrible beatings pri!aril" a!ong college students due toha-ing in#uries continue to haunt us. orrid i!ages of eggplant+li1e buttoc1s and thighs and poundedar!s and shoulders of "oung !en are depicted as a fervent arning to those ho dare undergo theha-ing rites. The !eaningless death of these pro!ising students, and the agon", cries and ordeal oftheir fa!ilies, resonate through the ver" core of our beings. 7ut no !atter ho !ode! andsophisticated our societ" beco!es, these barbaric acts of initiation of fraternities, sororities and other organi-ations continue to thrive, even ithin the elite grounds of the acade!e.

The histor" and pheno!enon of ha-ing had been thoroughl" discussed in the recent case of:illareal v. People.4' It is believed that the fraternit" s"ste! and its acco!pan"ing culture of ha-ing

ere transported b" the $!ericans to the Philippines in the late /*th centur".4*

Thus, a stud" of thelas and #urisprudence of the <nited States %<S& on ha-ing can enlighten the current predica!ent of violent initiations in fraternities, sororities and other organi-ations.

United States Laws and Jurisprudence on Hazing

There are different definitions of ha-ing, depending on the las of the states.)( In the case of Peoplev. enti,)/ the defendant therein challenged the constitutionalit" of the state la defining ha-ing on theground of vagueness. The court re#ected such contention and held that it ould have been ani!possible tas1 if the legislature had atte!pted to define ha-ing specificall"

because fraternal organi-ations and associations never suffered for ideas in contriving ne for!s ofha-ing. Presentl", the acceptable definition of ha-ing is the practice of ph"sicall" or e!otionall"abusing neco!ers to an organi-ation as a !eans of initiation.)2

a-ing can be classified into various categories including, but not li!ited to, acts of violence, acts ofhu!iliation, seBual+related acts, and alcohol+related acts.)4 The ph"sical for! of ha-ing !a" includebeating, branding, paddling, eBcessive eBercise, drin1ing, and using drugs. SeBual ha-ing haveincluded si!ulated seB acts, sodo!" and forced 1issing. )) ;oreover, ha-ing does not onl" result inph"sical in#uries and hospitali-ation, but also lead to e!otional da!age and trau!atic stress.)0

7ased on statistics and alar!ing fre@uenc" of ha-ing, states have atte!pted to co!bat ha-ingthrough the passage of state las that prohibit such acts.)3 6ort"+four states, ith the eBception of

$las1a, aaii, ;ontana, Ne ;eBico, South Da1ota, and >"o!ing, have passed anti+ha-ing

las.)? The severit" of these las can range fro! !inor penalties to a prison sentence for up to siB"ears.)' In the states of Illinois, Idaho, ;issouri, TeBas, :irginia, >isconsin, ha-ing that result in deathor Hgreat bodil" har!H is categori-ed as a felon".)*

In 6lorida, the Chad ;eredith $ct,0( a la na!ed after a student ho died in a ha-ing incident, asenacted on 8ul" /, 2((0. It provides that a person co!!its a third degree felon" hen he or sheintentionall" or rec1lessl" co!!its an" act of ha-ing and the ha-ing results in serious bodil" in#ur" or death. If a person onl" creates substantial ris1 of ph"sical in#ur" or death, then ha-ing is categori-edas a first degree !isde!eanor. $ si!ilar provision can be observed in the Penal a of Ne =or1.0/







































Interestingl", so!e states included notable features in their anti+ha-ing statute to increase itseffectiveness. In $laba!a, $r1ansas, ;assachusetts, Ne a!pshire, South Carolina and TeBas,the la i!poses a dut" on school personnel to report ha-ing.02 In fact, in $laba!a, no person isalloed to 1noingl" per!it, encourage, aid, or assist an" person in co!!itting the offense ofha-ing, or illfull" ac@uiesces in its co!!ission.04

$lso, so!e states enacted statutes that have been interpreted to !ean that persons are guilt" ofha-ing even if the" have the consent of the victi!.0) In Ne 8erse", consent is not a defense to aha-ing charge, and its la per!its the prosecution of offenders under other applicable cri!inalstatutes.00 7" including these various provisions in their anti+ha-ing statutes, these states havere!oved the sub#ective in@uir" of consent fro! consideration, thus, presu!abl" alloing courts toeffectivel" and properl" ad#udicate ha-ing cases.03

In the <S, ha-ing victi!s can either file a cri!inal action, based on anti+ha-ing statutes, or a civilsuit, arising fro! tort la and constitutional la, against the !e!bers of the local fraternit", thenational fraternit" and even against the universit" or college concerned.0? a-ing, hich threatens toneedlessl" har! students, !ust be attac1ed fro! hatever legal !eans are possible.0'

In State v. 7ron,0*

a !e!ber of the $lpha appa $lpha at ent State <niversit" as indicted forco!plicit" to ha-ing. The group ph"sicall" disciplined their pledges b" forcing the! to stand on theirheads, beating the! ith paddles, and s!ac1ing and stri1ing initiates in the face and head. TheOhio court held that evidence presented therein as !ore than sufficient to sustain a conviction.

EBcessive inta1e of alcohol in the fraternit" initiations can be considered as ha-ing. In O#a v. 5randChapter of Theta Chi 6raternit" Inc.,3( a /?+"ear old college fresh!an died as a result of aspiratinghis on vo!it after consu!ing eBcessive a!ounts of alcohol in a fraternit" initiation ritual. Thedefendants in the said case contended that the" onl" furnished the alcohol drin1s to the victi!. Thecourt denied the defense because such acts of the fraternit" effectivel" contributed to the death ofthe victi! as part of their ha-ing.

Even in high school, ha-ing could eBist. In Nice v. Centennial $rea School District,3/ a tenth+graderestler at >illia! Tennet igh School as sub#ected to various for!s of ha-ing, including a ritualhere the victi! as forcibl" held don, hile a tea!!ate sat on his face ith his buttoc1seBposed. The parents of the student sued the school because it failed to prevent the incident despiteits 1noledge of the ha-ing rites. The court approved the settle!ent of the parties in the a!ountof<SK/0/,(((.((.

;ore recentl", the case of =ost v. >abash College 32 involved the ha-ing of an /'+"ear old fresh!an,ho suffered ph"sical and !ental in#uries in the initiation rites conducted b" the Phi appa Psifraternit". $s a pledge, the victi! as thron into a cree1 and as placed in a cho1ehold, until helost consciousness. The court upheld that action against the local fraternit" because, even if thestudent consented, the fraternit" had the dut" to ensure the safet" of its activities.

The <S anti+ha-ing las and #urisprudence sho that victi!s of ha-ing can properl" attain redressbefore the court. 7" crafting las and prosecuting offenders, the state can address the distinctdile!!a of ha-ing.

Anti-Hazing Law in thePhilippines

R.$. No. '()*, or the $nti+a-ing a .of /**0, has been enacted to regulate ha-ing and otherfor!s of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities, and other organi-ations. It as in response to the





























rising incidents of death of ha-ing victi!s, particularl" the death of eonardo Henn"H :illa. 34 Despiteits passage, reports of deaths resulting fro! i ha-ing continue to e!erge. Recent victi!s ere 5uilloServando of the College of St. 7enilde, ;arc $ndre ;arcos and ;arvin Reglos of the SanA, 7edaCollege + ;anila, and Cris $nthon" ;ende- of the <niversit" of the Philippines + Dili!an. >ith thecontinuit" of these senseless tragedies, one @uestion i!plores for an anser9 is R.$. No. '()* asufficient deterrent against ha-ingL

To anser the @uestion, the Court !ust dissect the provisions of the la and scrutini-e its effect,i!plication and application.

Cri!inal la has long divided cri!es into acts rong in the!selves called acts !ala in se and actshich ould not be rong but for the fact that positive la forbids the!, called acts !ala prohibita.This distinction is i!portant ith reference to the intent ith hich a rongful act is done. The ruleon the sub#ect is that in acts !ala in se, the intent governs but in acts !ala prohibita, the onl"in@uir" is, has the la been violatedL >hen an act is illegal, the intent of the offender isi!!aterial.3) >hen the doing of an act is prohibited b" la, it is considered in#urious to public elfare,and the doing of the prohibited act is the cri!e itself. 30

$ co!!on !isconception is that all !ala in se cri!es are found in the Revised Penal Code %RPC&,hile all !ala prohibita cri!es are provided b" special penal las. In realit", hoever, there !a" be!ala in se cri!es under special las, such as plunder under R.$. No. ?('(, as a!ended. 33 Si!ilarl",there !a" be !ala prohibita cri!es defined in the RPC, such as technical !alversation.3?

The better approach to distinguish beteen !ala in se and !ala prohibita cri!es is thedeter!ination of the inherent i!!oralit" or vileness of the penali-ed act. If the punishable act or.o!ission is i!!oral in itself, then it is a cri!e !ala in se,+ on the contrar", if it is not i!!oral initself, but there is a statute prohibiting its co!!ission b&H. reasons of public polic", then it is !alaprohibita. In the final anal"sis, hether or not a cri!e involves !oral turpitude is ulti!atel" a@uestion of fact and fre@uentl" depends on all the circu!stances surrounding the violation of thestatute.3'

The cri!e of ha-ing under R.$. No. '()* is !alu! prohibitu!. The Senate deliberations ould shothat the la!a1ers intended the anti+ha-ing statute to be !aFu! prohibitu!, as follos9 SEN$TOR5<IN5ON$9 ;ost of these acts, if not all, are alread" punished under the Revised Penal Code.

SEN$TOR IN$. That is correct, ;r. President.

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$ If ha-ing is done at present and it results in death, the charge ould be!urder or ho!icide.


SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. If it does not result in death, it !a" be frustrated ho!icide or seriousph"sical in#uries.


SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. Or, if the person ho co!!its seBual abuse does so it can be penali-edunder rape or acts of lasciviousness.



















SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. So, hat is the rationale for !a1ing a ne offense under this definition ofthe cri!e of ha-ingL

SEN$TOR IN$. To discourage persons or group of persons either co!posing a sororit", fraternit"or an" association fro! !a1ing this re@uire!ent of initiation that has alread" resulted in thesespecific acts or results, ;r. President.

That is the !ain rationale. >e ant to send a strong signal across the land that no group orassociation can re@uire the act of ph"sical initiation before a person can beco!e a !e!ber ithoutbeing held cri!inall" liable.

B B B B B B B B B

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. =es, but hat ould be the rationale for that i!positionL 7ecause thedistinguished Sponsor has said that he is not punishing a !ere organi-ation, he is not see1ing thepunish!ent of an initiation into a club or organi-ation, he is see1ing the punish!ent of certain actsthat resulted in death, etcetera as a result of ha-ing hich are alread" covered cri!es.

The penalt" is increased in one, because e ould li1e to discourage ha-ing, abusive ha-ing, but it!a" be a legiti!ate defense for invo1ing to or !ore charges or offenses, because these ver" sa!eacts are alread" punishable under the Revised Penal Code

That is !" difficult", ;r. President.

SEN$TOR IN$. B B B

$nother point, ;r. President, is this, and this is a ver" telling difference9 >hen a person or group ofpersons resort to ha-ing as a re@uire!ent for gaining entr" into an organi-ation, the intent to co!!ita rong is not visible or is not present, ;r. President. >hereas, in these specific cri!es, ;r.President, let us sa" there is death or there is ho!icide, !utilation, if one files a case, then the

intention to co!!it a rong has to be proven. 7ut if the cri!e of ha-ing is the basis, hat isi!portant is the result fro! the act of ha-ing.

To !e, that is the basic difference and that is hat ill prevent or deter the sororities or fraternitiesthat the" should reall" shun this activit" called Hha-ing.H 7ecause, initiall", these fraternities orsororities do not even consider having a neoph"te 1illed or !ai!ed or that acts of lasciviousness areeven co!!itted initiall", ;r. President.

So, hat e ant to discourage, is the so+called initial innocent act. That is h" there is need toinstitute this 1ind of ha-ing. 5ani"an po ang nang"ari. $ng fraternit" o ang sororit" a" !agre+recruit.>ala talaga silang intensi"bng !a1a!ata". indi 1o na babanggitin at buha" pa i"ong 1aso. Perodito sa ani! o pito na na!ata" nitong na1araang taon, alang intensi"ong pata"in talaga i"ong

neoph"te. So, 1ung !aghihinta" pa ta"o, na sa1a la!ang natin isasa1dal ng !urder 1ung na!ata"na, a" after the fact ho i"on. Pero, 1ung sasabihin natin sa !ga 1abataan na9 Huag nin"onggagain i"ong ha-ing. I"an a" 1asalanan at 1ung !a!ata" di"an, !ataas ang penalt" sa in"o.H

B B B B B B B B B

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. I #oin the loft" !otives, ;r. President, of the distinguished Sponsor. 7ut I a!again disturbed b" his state!ent that the prosecution does not have to prove the intent that resultedin the death, that resulted in the serious ph"sical in#uries, that resulted in the acts of lasciviousness



or deranged !ind. >e do not have to prove the illful intent of the accused in proving or establishingthe cri!e of ha-ing. This see!s, to !e, a novel situation here e create the special cri!e ithouthaving to go into the intent, hich is one of the basic ele!ents of an" cri!e.

If there is no intent, there is no cri!e. If the intent ere !erel" to initiate, then there is no offense. $nd even the distinguished Sponsor ad!its that the organi-ation, the intent to initiate, the intent to

have a ne societ" or a ne club is, per se, not punishable at all. >hat are punishable are the actsthat lead to the result. 7ut if these results are not going to be proven b" intent, but #ust because thereas ha-ing, I a! afraid that it ill disturb the basic concepts of the Revised Penal Code, ;r.President.

SEN$TOR IN$. ;r. President, the act of ha-ing, precisel", is being cri!inali-ed because in theconteBt of hat is happening in the sororities and fraternities, hen the" conduct ha-ing, no one illad!it that their intention is to !ai! or to 1ill. So, e are alread" cri!inali-ing the fact of inflictingph"sical pain. ;r. President, it is a cri!inal act and e ant it stopped, deterred, discouraged.

If that occurs, under this la, there is no necessit" to prove that the !asters intended to 1ill or the!asters intended to !ai!. >hat is i!portant is the result of the act of ha-ing. Otherise, the

!asters or those ho inflict the ph"sical pain can easil" escape responsibilit" and sa", H>e did nothave the intention to 1ill. This is part of our initiation rites. This is nor!al. >e do not have an"intention to 1ill or !ai!.H

This is the lusot, ;r. President. The" !ight as ell have been charged therefore ith the ordinar"cri!e of ho!icide, !utilation, etcetera, here the prosecution ill have a difficult" proving theele!ents if the" are separate offenses.

B B B B B B B B B

SEN$TOR IN$. B B B

I a! ver" happ" that the distinguished ;inorit" eader brought out the idea of intent or hether it is!ala in se or !ala prohibita. There can be a radical a!end!ent if that is the point that he ants togo to.

If e agree on the concept, then, !a"be, e can #ust !a1e this a special la on ha-ing. >e ill notinclude this an"!ore under the Revised Penal Code. That is a possibilit". I ill not foreclose thatsuggestion, ;r. President.3*

E!phases SuppliedJ

aving in !ind the potential conflict beteen the proposed la and the core principle of !ala in seadhered to under the RPC, the Congress did not si!pl" enact an a!end!ent thereto. Instead, it

created a special la on ha-ing, founded upon the principle of !ala prohibita.?(

In :edana v.:alencia,?/ the Court noted that in our nationAs ver" recent histor", the people had spo1en, throughthe Congress, to dee! conduct constitutive of ha-ing, an act previousl" considered har!less b"custo!, as cri!inal.?2 The act of ha-ing itself is not inherentl" i!!oral, but the la dee!s the sa!eto be against public polic" and !ust be prohibited. $ccordingl", the eBistence of cri!inal intent isi!!aterial in the cri!e of ha-ing. $lso, the defense of good faith cannot be raised in itsprosecution.?4
















Section / of R.$. No. '()* defines ha-ing as an initiation rite or practice as a prere@uisite forad!ission into !e!bership in a fraternit", sororit" or organi-ation b" placing the recruit, neoph"te orapplicant in so!e e!barrassing or hu!iliating situations such as forcing hi! to do !enial, sill",foolish and other si!ilar tas1s or activities or otherise sub#ecting hi! to ph"sical or ps"chologicalsuffering or in#ur". 6ro! the said definition, the ele!ents of the cri!e of ha-ing can be deter!ined9

/. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prere@uisite for ad!ission into !e!bershipin a fraternit", sororit" or organi-ation

2. That there !ust be a recruit, neoph"te or applicant of the fraternit", sororit" ororgani-ation and

4. That the recruit, neoph"te or applicant is placed in so!e e!barrassing or hu!iliatingsituations such as forcing hi! to do !enial, sill", foolish and other si!ilar tas1s or activitiesor otherise sub#ecting hi! to ph"sical or ps"chological suffering or in#ur".

6ro! the said definition of ha-ing, it is apparent that there !ust be an initiation rite or practiceperfor!ed b" the fraternities, sororities or organi-ation. The la, hoever, did not li!it the definition

of these groups to those for!ed ithin acade!ic colleges and universities.?)

In fact, the secondparagraph of Section / provides that the ter! Horgani-ationH shall include an" club or the $r!ed6orces of the Philippines %$6P&, Philippine National Police %PNP&, Philippine ;ilitar" $cade!"%P;$&, or officer and cadet corp of the Citi-enAs ;ilitar" Training and Citi-enAs $r!" Training. Eventhe president, !anager, director or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in ha-ing as are@uire!ent for e!plo"!ent are covered b" the la.?0 R.$. No. '()* @ualifies that the ph"sical,!ental and ps"chological testing and training procedure and practices to deter!ine and enhance theph"sical, !ental and ps"chological fitness of prospective regular !e!bers of the $6P and the PNP,as approved b" the Secretar" of National Defense and the National Police Co!!ission, dul"reco!!ended b" the Chief of Staff of the $6P and the Director 5eneral of the PNP, shall not beconsidered as ha-ing.

$nd not all for!s of initiation rites are prohibited b" the la. Section 2 thereof provides that initiationrites of fraternities, sororities or organi-ations shall be alloed provided that the folloing re@uisitesare !et9

/. That the fraternit", sororit" or organi-ation has a prior ritten notice to the schoolauthorities or head of organi-ation

2. The said ritten notice !ust be secured at least seven %?& da"s before the conduct ofsuch initiation

4. That the ritten notice shall indicate9

a. The period of the initiation activities, hich shall not eBceed three %4& da"s

b. The na!es of those to be sub#ected to such activities and

c. $n underta1ing that no ph"sical violence be e!plo"ed b" an"bod" during suchinitiation rites. Section 4 of R.$. No. '()* i!poses an obligation to the head of theschool or organi-ation or their representatives that the" !ust assign at least to %2&representatives, as the case !a" be, to be present during these valid initiations. The








dut" of such representative ,is to see to it that no ph"sical har! of an" 1ind shall beinflicted upon a recruit, neoph"te or applicant.

Noticeabl", the la does not provide a penalt" or sanction to fraternities, sororities or organi-ationsthat fail to co!pl" ith the notice re@uire!ents of Section 2. $lso, the school and organi-ationad!inistrators do not have a clear liabilit" for non+co!pliance ith Section 4.

$n" person ho co!!its the cri!e of ha-ing shall be liable in accordance ith Section ) of the la,hich provides different classes of persons ho are held liable as principals and acco!plices.

The first class of principals ould be the actual participants in the ha-ing. If the person sub#ected toha-ing or other for!s of initiation rites suffers an" ph"sical in#ur" or dies as a result thereof, theofficers and !e!bers of the fraternit", sororit" or organi-ation ho actuall" participated in theinfliction of ph"sical har! shall be liable as principals. Interestingl", the presence of an" personduring the ha-ing is pri!a facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented theco!!ission of the acts punishable herein.?3

The prescribed penalt" on the principals depends on the eBtent of in#ur" inflicted to the victi!.?? The

penalties appear to be si!ilar to that of ho!icide, serious ph"sical in#uries, less serious ph"sicalin#uries, and slight ph"sical in#uries under the RPC,?' ith the penalties for ha-ing increased onedegree higher. $lso, the la provides several circu!stances hich ould aggravate the i!posablepenalt".?*

Curiousl", although ha-ing has been defined as consisting of those activities involving ph"sical orps"chological suffering or in#ur", the penalties for ha-ing onl" covered the infliction of ph"sical har!.

$t best, the onl" ps"chological in#ur" recogni-ed ould be causing insanit" to the victi!. Conversel",even if the victi! onl" sustained ph"sical in#uries hich did not incapacitate hi!, there is still aprescribed penalt".'(

The second class of principals ould be the officers, for!er officers, or alu!ni of the organi-ation,

group, fraternit" or sororit" ho actuall" planned the ha-ing.'/

$lthough these planners ere notpresent hen the acts constituting ha-ing ere co!!itted, the" shall still be liable as principals. Theprovision too1 in consideration the non+resident !e!bers of the organi-ation, such as their for!erofficers or alu!ni.

The third class of principals ould ht officers or !e!bers of an organi-ation group, fraternit" orsororit" ho 1noingl" cooperated in carr"ing out the ha-ing b" inducing the victi! to be presentthereat.'2 These officers or !e!bers are penali-ed, not because of their direct participation in theinfliction of har!, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the cri!e b" inducing the victi! toattend the ha-ing.

The neBt class of principals ould be the fraternit" or sororit"As adviser ho as present hen theacts constituting ha-ing ere co!!itted, and failed to ta1e action to prevent the! fro!

occurring.'4 The liabilit" of the adviser arises, not onl" fro! his !ere presence in the ha-ing, but alsohis failure to prevent the sa!e.

The last class of principals ould be the parents of the officers or !e!bers of the fraternit", group,or organi-ation.')The ha-ing !ust be held in the ho!e of one of the officers or !e!bers. Theparents !ust have actual 1noledge of the ha-ing conducted in their ho!es and failed to ta1e an"action to avoid the sa!e fro! occurring.























The la also provides for acco!plices in the cri!e of ha-ing. The school authorities, includingfacult" !e!bers, ho consented to the ha-ing or ho have actual 1noledge thereof, but failed tota1e an" action to prevent the sa!e fro! occurring shall be punished as acco!plices.'0 i1eise, theoner of the place here the ha-ing as conducted can also be an acco!plice to the cri!e. '3 Theoner of the place shall be liable hen he has actual 1noledge of the ha-ing conducted thereinand he failed to ta1e an" steps to stop the sa!e. Recogni-ing the !alu! prohibitu! characteristic of

ha-ing, the la provides that an" person charged ith the said cri!e shall not be entitled to the!itigating circu!stance that there as no intention to co!!it so grave a rong.'? $lso, the fra!ersof the la intended that the consent of the victi! shall not be a defense in ha-ing. During thediscussion of hether sodo!" shall be included as a punishable act under the la, the issue ofconsent as tac1led9 SEN$TOR IN$ B B B

7ut sodo!" in this case is connected ith ha-ing, ;r. President. Such that the act !a" even beentered into ith consent. It is not onl" sodo!". The infliction of pain !a" be done ith the consentof the neoph"te. If the la is passed, that does not !a1e the act of ha-ing not punishable becausethe neoph"te accepted the infliction of pain upon hi!self.

If the victi! suffers fro! serious ph"sical in#uries, but the initiator said, H>ell, he alloed it upon

hi!self. e consented to it.H So, if e allo that reasoning that sodo!" as done ith the consentof the victi!, then e ould not have passed an" la at all. There ill be no significance if e passthis bill, because it ill ala"s be a defense that the victi! alloed the infliction of pain or suffering.e accepted it as part of the initiation rites.

7ut precisel", ;r. President that is one thing that e ould ant to prohibit. That the defense ofconsent ill not appl" because the ver" act of inflicting ph"sical pain or ps"chological suffering is, b"itself, a punishable act. The result of the act of ha-ing, li1e death or ph"sical in#uries !erel"aggravates the act ith higher penalties. 7ut the defense of consent is not going to nullif" thecri!inal nature of the act.

So, if e accept the a!end!ent that sodo!" can onl" aggravate the offense if it is co!!ittedithout consent of the victi!, then the hole foundation of this proposed la ill collapse.

SEN$TOR 7I$MON. Than1 "ou, ;r. President.

SEN$TOR IN$. Than1 "ou ver" !uch.

TE PRESIDENT. Is there an" ob#ection to the co!!ittee a!end!entL %Silence.& The Chair hearsnone the sa!e is approved.''

E!phasis suppliedJ

6urther, the la ac1noledges that the offended part" in the cri!e of ha-ing can see1 differentcourses of action. n A.Aprovides that the responsible officials of the school or of the police, !ilitar" orciti-enAs ar!" training organi-ation, !a" i!pose the appropriate ad!inistrative sanctions on theperson or the persons charged under this provision even before their conviction. '* Necessaril", theoffended part" can file either ad!inistrative, civil, or cri!inal actions against the offenders.*(

The stud" of the provisions of R.$. No. '()* shos that, on paper, it is co!plete and robust inpenali-ing the cri!e of ha-ing. It as !ade !alu! prohibitu! to discount cri!inal intent anddisallo the defense of good faith. It too1 into consideration the different participants andcontributors in the ha-ing activities. >hile not all acts cited in the la are penali-ed, the penalties


















i!posed therein involve various and serious ter!s of i!prison!ent to discourage ould+beoffenders. Indeed, the la against ha-ing is ideal and profound. $s to hether the la can beeffectivel" i!ple!ented, the Court begs to continue on the !erits of the case.

The Infor!ation properl"

charged the offense proved

The petitioners clai! that the a!ended ,infor!ation avers a cri!inal charge of ha-ing b" actualparticipation, but the onl" offense proved during the trial as ha-ing b" induce!ent. Their/contention !ust fail. The $!ended Infor!ation reads9

That on or about 294( in the earl" !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, at :illa Novaliches, 7rg". Pansol,Cala!ba Cit", Province of aguna and ithin the #urisdiction of the onorable Court, the above+na!ed accused, during a planned initiation rite and being then officers and !e!bers of $lpha PhiO!ega fraternit" and present thereat, in conspirac" ith !ore or less tent" other !e!bers andofficers, hose identit" is not "et 1non, did then and there illfull", unlafull" and feloniousl"assault and use personal violence upon one ;$RON :I$N<E:$ " ;E8I$, a neoph"te thereof

and as condition for his ad!ission to the fraternit", thereb" sub#ecting hi! to ph"sical har!, resultingto his death, to the da!age and pre#udice of the heirs of the victi!. CONTR$R= TO $>.*/

On the !anner of ho the Infor!ation should be orded, Section *, Rule //( of the Rules of Court,is enlightening9

Section *. Cause of the accusation. The acts or o!issions co!plained of as constituting the offenseand the @ualif"ing and aggravating circu!stances !ust be stated in ordinar" and concise languageand not necessaril" in the language used in the statute but in ter!s sufficient to enable a person ofco!!on understanding to 1no hat offense is being charged as ell as its @ualif"ing andaggravating circu!stances and for the court to pronounce #udg!ent.

It is evident that the Infor!ation need not use the eBact language of the statute in alleging the acts or o!issions co!plained of as constituting the offense. The test is hether it enables a person ofco!!on understanding to 1no the charge against hi!, and the court to render #udg!ent properl".*2

The Court agrees ith the OS5 that the Hplanned initiation riteH as stated in the infor!ation includedthe act of inducing :illanueva to attend it. In ordinar" parlance, a planned event can be understoodto have different phases. i1eise, the ha-ing activit" had different stages and the perpetrators haddifferent roles therein, not solel" inflicting ph"sical in#ur" to the neoph"te. One of the roles of thepetitioners in the ha-ing activit" as to induce :illanueva to be present. Dungo and Sibal not onl"induced :illanueva to be present at the resort, but the" actuall" brought hi! there. The" fulfilled their roles in the planned ha-ing rite hich eventuall" led to the death of :illanueva. The ha-ing ould nothave been acco!plished ere it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victi! to bepresent.

Secrec" and silence are co!!on characteri-ations of the d"na!ics of ha-ing.*4 To re@uire theprosecutor to indicate ever" step of the planned initiation rite in the infor!ation at the inception of thecri!inal case, hen details of the clandestine ha-ing are al!ost nil, ould be an arduous tas1, if notdonright i!possible. The la does not re@uire the i!possible %leB non cognit ad i!possibilia&.

The proper approach ould be to re@uire the prosecution to state ever" ele!ent of the cri!e ofha-ing, the offenders, and the acco!pan"ing circu!stances in the planned initiation activit" hich









has been satisfied in the present case. $ccordingl", the a!ended infor!ation sufficientl" infor!edthe petitioners that the" ere being cri!inall" charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite.

Conspiracy of theoffenders was duly proven

The petitioners assail that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of conspirac".

The Court disagrees.

$ conspirac" eBists hen to or !ore persons co!e to an agree!ent concerning the co!!ission of a felon" and decide to co!!it it. To deter!ine conspirac", there !ust be a co!!on design toco!!it a felon".*) The overt act or acts of the accused !a" consist of active participation in theactual co!!ission of the cri!e itself or !a" consist of !oral assistance to his co+conspirators b"!oving the! to eBecute or i!ple!ent the cri!inal plan.*0

In conspirac", it need not be shon that the parties actuall" ca!e together and agreed in eBpresster!s to enter into and pursue a co!!on design. The assent of the !inds !a" be and, fro! the

secrec" of the cri!e, usuall" inferred fro! proof of facts and circu!stances hich, ta1en together,indicate that the" are parts of so!e co!plete hole.*3Responsibilit" of a conspirator is not confinedto the acco!plish!ent of a particular purpose of conspirac" but eBtends to collateral acts andoffenses incident to and groing out of the purpose intended.*?

The la!a1ers deliberated on hether the prosecution as still obliged to prove the conspirac"beteen the offenders under R.$. '()*, to it9

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. ;r. President, assu!ing there as a group that initiated and a person died.The charge is !urder. ;" @uestion is9 <nder this bill if it beco!es a la, ould the prosecution haveto prove conspirac" or not an"!oreL

SEN$TOR IN$. ;r. President, if the person is present during ha-ing B B B

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. The persons are present. 6irst, ould the prosecution have to proveconspirac"L Second, ould the prosecution have to prove intent to 1ill or notL

SEN$TOR IN$. No !ore. $s to the second @uestion, ;r. President, if that occurs, there is no needto prove intent to 1ill.

SEN$TOR 5<IN5ON$. 7ut the charge is !urder.

SEN$TOR IN$. That is h" I said that it should not be !urder. It should be ha-ing, ;r. President.*'

The Court does not categoricall" agree that, under R.$. No. '()*, the prosecution need not proveconspirac". 8urisprudence dictates that conspirac" !ust be established, not b" con#ectures, but b"positive and conclusive evidence. Conspirac" transcends !ere co!panionship and !ere presenceat the scene of the cri!e does not in itself a!ount to conspirac". Even 1noledge, ac@uiescence inor agree!ent to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a part" to a conspirac", absent an"active participation in the co!!ission of the cri!e ith a vie to the furtherance of the co!!ondesign and purpose.**
















R.$. No. '()*, nevertheless, presents a novel provision that introduces a disputable presu!ption ofactual participation and hich !odifies the concept of conspirac". Section ), paragraph 3 thereofprovides that the presence of an" person during the ha-ing is pri!a facie evidence of participationas principal, unless he prevented the co!!ission of the punishable acts. This provision is uni@uebecause a disputable presu!ption arises fro! the !ere presence of the offender during the ha-ing,hich can be rebutted b" proving that the accused too1 steps to prevent the co!!ission of the

ha-ing.

The petitioners atte!pted to attac1 the constitutionalit" of Section ) of R.$. No. '()* before the C$,hut did not succeed. H$J finding of pri!a facie evidence B B B does not shatter the presu!ptiveinnocence the accused en#o"s because, before pri!a facie evidence arises, certain facts have still tobe proved the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence, because precisel", it is !erel"pri!a facie. It !ust still satisf" that the accused is guilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of the offensecharged. Neither can it rel" on the ea1 defense the latter !a" adduce.H /((

Penal las hich feature pri!a facie evidence b" disputable presu!ptions against the offenders arenot ne, and can be observed in the folloing9 %/& the possession of drug paraphernalia gives rise topri!a facie evidence of the use of dangerous drug/(/ %2& the dishonor of the chec1 for insufficient

funds is pri!a facie evidence of 1noledge of such insufficienc" of funds or credit/(2

and %4& thepossession of an" good hich has been the sub#ect of robber" or thiever" shall be pri!a facieevidence of fencing./(4

:eril", the disputable presu!ption under R.$. No. '()* can be related to the conspirac" in the cri!eof ha-ing. The co!!on design of offenders is to ha-e the victi!. So!e of the overt acts that couldbe co!!itted b" the offenders ould be to %/& plan the ha-ing activit" as a re@uire!ent of thevicti!As initiation to the fraternit" %2& induce the victi! to attend the ha-ing and %4& actuall"participate in the infliction of ph"sical in#uries.

In this case, there as pri!a facie evidence of the petitionersA participation in the ha-ing because oftheir presence in the venue. $s correctl" held b" the RTC, the presence of Dungo and Sibal duringthe ha-ing at :illa Novaliches Resort as established b" the testi!on" of Ignacio. She testified that

she sa Sibal e!erge fro! the resort and approach her store, to it9

;R. DI;$C<$N5$N

G9 $nd ho !an" persons fro! this group did "ou see againL

>ITNESS

$9 Three %4&, sir.

G9 >here did the" co!e fro!, did the" co!e out fro! the resortL >here did this 4 people or thisgroup of people co!ing fro!L

$9 Inside the resort, sir.

G9 $nd around hat ti!e as thisL

$9 $round *9((, sir.

G9 $nd hat did the" do if an" if the" ca!e out of the resortL












$9 The" ent to !" store, sir.

B B B B

G9 Did "ou have an" other visitors to "our store that nightL

B B B B

$9 H;eron poH.

G9 >ho ere these visitorsL

$9 I donAt 1no their na!es but I recogni-e their faces, sir.

G9 If I sho "ou pictures of these people, ill "ou be able to identif" the! before this Court.

$9 =es, sir.

B B B B

G9 ;rs. Ignacio, I a! shoing "ou this picture of persons !ar1ed as EBhibit HH in the Pre+Trial, can"ou please loo1 over this docu!ent carefull" and see if an" of the persons ho! "ou said visited"our store is hereL

B B B B

$9 HSi"a rin po.H

CO<RT9

;a1e it of record that the itness pinpointed to the first picture appearing on the left picture on thefirst ro.

B B B B

$TI=. P$;$OS9

6or the record, "our onor, e !anifest that the picture and the na!e pointed b" the itness hasbeen previousl" !ar1ed as EBhibit H+4H and previousl" ad!itted b" the defense as referring to5regorio Sibal, 8r., accused in this case/()

Ignacio, also positivel" identified Dungo as a!ong the guests of :illa Novaliches Resort on the nightof the ha-ing, to it9

CO<RT

G9 BB B No, hen "ou sa" other people "ou could identif" ho are not in the pictures then hoould "ou 1no that these people are indeed those people "ou could identif"L

>ITNESS





$9 HI"on pong ... di ba po nag1uento a1o na du!ating sila tapos nag sha1e hands at sa1a i"ongnag"a1apan po ... H

G9 $nd hat ill be the significance of the alleged e!brace and sha1e hands for "ou to sa" that "oucould identif" those peopleL

$9 Hindi po. Noong du!ating po sila nasa isang #eep, !eron pong lala1i doon sa !a" tabi ng driverbu!aba si"a tapos po noong bu!aba si"a tapos i"ong !ga 1asa!ahan n"a sa li1od nagbaba+andin, i"on po nagbati+an po sila.H

G9 $nd fro! these greeting, ho could "ou identif" these peopleL

$9 HNga"on 1o lang po napag !asdan ang taong i"on, hindi 1o po ala! na a1usado po sa 1abilai"on.H

G9 $nd ho as that personL

$9 HSi"a po, i"on po.H

G9 >ho are "ou pointing toL

$9 HI"on pong na1a+dila na ... H %>itness pointing to Dand" Dungo&

G9 So, are "ou telling the Court that this person "ou positivel" sa seated beside the driver ca!e outand subse@uentl" e!braced and shoo1 hands ith the other people fro! the #eepne", is that "ourtesti!on"L

$9 =es, "our onor./(0

The testi!on" of Ignacio as direct and straightforard. er testi!on" as given great eightbecause she as a disinterested and credible itness. The prosecution indubitabl" established thepresence of Dungo and Sibal during the ha-ing. Such gave rise to the pri!a facie evidence of theiractual participation in the ha-ing of :illanueva. The" ere given an opportunit" to rebut andoverco!e the pri!a facie evidence of the prosecution b" proving that the" prevented theco!!ission of the ha-ing, "et the" failed to do so.

7ecause of the uncontroverted pri!a facie evidence against the petitioners, it as shon that the"perfor!ed an overt act in the furtherance of the cri!inal design of ha-ing. Not onl" did the" inducethe victi! to attend the ha-ing activit", the petitioners also actuall" participated in it based on thepri!a facie evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish their roles in the conspirac" of ha-ing.

ence, generall", !ere presence at the scene of the cri!e does not in itself a!ount to

conspirac"./(3 EBceptionall", under R.$. No. '()*, the participation of the offenders in the cri!inalconspirac" can be proven b" the pri!a facie evidence due to their presence during the ha-ing,unless the" prevented the co!!ission of the acts therein.

The guilt of the petitioners was proven

eyond reasonale dout








$side fro! inducing :illanueva to attend the initiation rites and their presence during the ha-ing, thepetitionersL guilt as proven be"ond reasonable doubt b" the se@uence of circu!stantial evidencepresented b" the prosecution. Their involve!ent in the ha-ing of :illanueva is not !erel" based onpri!a facie evidence but as also established b" circu!stantial evidence.

In considering a cri!inal case, it is critical to start ith the laAs on starting perspective on the

status of the accused + in all cri!inal prosecutions, he is presu!ed innocent of the charge laidunless the contrar" is proven be"ond reasonable doubt./(? In cri!inal la, proof be"ond reasonabledoubt does not !ean such degree of proof that produces absolute certaint". Onl" !oral certaint" isre@uired or that degree of proof hich produces conviction in an unpre#udiced !ind./('

>hile it is established that nothing less than proof be"ond reasonable doubt is re@uired for aconviction, this eBacting standard does not preclude resort to circu!stantial evidence hen directevidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine @ua non to prove the guilt of anaccused be"ond reasonable doubt. 6or in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution !a"resort to adducing circu!stantial evidence to discharge its burden. Cri!es are usuall" co!!itted insecret and under conditions here conceal!ent is highl" probable. If direct evidence is insisted onunder all circu!stances, the prosecution of vicious felons ho co!!it heinous cri!es in secret or

secluded places ill be hard, if not i!possible, to prove./(*

Needless to state, the cri!e of ha-ing isshrouded in secrec". 6raternities and sororities, especiall" the 5ree1 organi-ations, are secretive innature and their !e!bers are reluctant to give an" infor!ation regarding initiation rites.//( The silenceis onl" bro1en after so!eone has been in#ured so severel" that !edical attention is re@uired. It isonl" at this point that the secret is revealed and the activities beco!e public. /// 7earing in !ind theconceal!ent of ha-ing, it is onl" logical and proper for the prosecution to resort to the presentationof circu!stantial evidence to prove it.

The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused through circu!stantialevidence re@uire the eBistence of the folloing re@uisites9 %/& there are !ore than one circu!stance%2& the inference !ust be based on proven facts and %4& the co!bination of all circu!stancesproduces a conviction be"ond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. //2 To #ustif" a convictionupon circu!stantial evidence, the co!bination of circu!stances !ust be such as to leave no

reasonable doubt in the !ind as to the cri!inal liabilit" of the accused. 8urisprudence re@uires thatthe circu!stances !ust be established to for! an unbro1en chain of events leading to one fairreasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the eBclusion of all others, as the author of thecri!e.//4

The C$ !eticulousl" rote in detail the unbro1en chain of circu!stantial evidence hich establishedthe petitionersA gult in the death of :illanueva as follos9

/. ;arlon :illanueva is a neoph"te of $lpha Phi O!ega, as testified b" his roo!!ate 8oe" $tien-a.

2. $t around 49(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon of 8anuar" /4, 2((3, Sunga as sta"ing at their

ta!ba"an, tal1ing to her organi-ation !ates. Three !en ere seated to !eters a" fro!her. She identified to of the !en as appellants Sibal and Dungo, hile she did not 1no thethird !an. The three !en ere earing blac1 shirts ith the seal of the $lpha Phi O!ega.

4. ater at 09(( oAcloc1 in the afternoon, to !ore !en co!ing fro! the ento!olog" ingarrived and approached the three !en. $!ong the !en ho #ust arrived as the victi!,;arlon :illanueva. One of the !en earing blac1 $PO shirts handed over to the tofraternit" neoph"tes so!e !one" and told the !en H;a!aleng1e na 1a"o.H e later too1bac1 the !one" and said, Huag na, 1a!i na lang.H


















). One of the !en earing a blac1 $PO shirt, ho as later identified as appellant Dungo,stood up and as1ed ;arlon if the latter alread" reported to hi!, and as1ed hi! h" he didnot report to hi! hen he as #ust at the ta!ba"an. Dungo then continuousl" punched thevicti! on his ar!. This ent on for five !inutes. ;arlon #ust 1ept @uiet ith his head boeddon. 6ifteen !inutes later, the !en left going toards the Ento!olog" ing.

0. The deceased ;arlon :illanueva as Alast seen alive b" 8oe" $tien-a at ?9(( in theevening of /4 8anuar" 2((3, fro! ho! he borroed the shoes he ore at the initiation rightsicJ. ;arlon told 8oe" that it as his HfinalsH night.

3. On 8anuar" /4, 2((3 at around '94( to *9(( oAcloc1 in the evening, Susan Ignacio sa!ore than tent" %2(& persons arrive at the :illa Novaliches Resort onboard a #eepne".!"wphi! Sheesti!ated the ages of these persons to be beteen 2( to 4( "ears old. Three %4& personsriding a single !otorc"cle li1eise arrived at the resort.

?. Ignacio sa about fifteen %/0& persons gather on top of the terrace at the resort holoo1ed li1e the" ere pra"ing. ater that evening, at least three %4& of these persons ent toher store to bu" so!e ite!s. She did not 1no their na!es but could identit" sicJ their faces.

$fter she as shon colored photographs, she pointed to the !an later identified as eraldChristopher 7raseros. She also pointed out the !an later identified as 5regorio Sibal, 8r.

'. Donato ;agat, a tric"cle driver pl"ing the route of Pansol, Cala!ba Cit", testified thataround 49(( oAcloc1 in the !orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, he as aiting for passengers atthe corner of :illa Novaliches Resort hen a !an approached hi! and told hi! thatso!eone inside the resort needed a ride. ;agat then ent to the resort and as1ed the to%2& !en standing b" the gate ho ill be riding his tric"cle.

*. The four %)& !en boarded his tric"cle but ;agat noticed that hen he touched the bod" ofthe !an ho as being carried, it felt cold. The said !an loo1ed ver" ea1 li1e a vegetable.

/(. Seferino Espina " 8aba" testified that he or1ed as a securit" guard at the 8.P. Ri-alospital and as assigned at the e!ergenc" roo!. $t around 49(( oAcloc1 in the earl"!orning of 8anuar" /), 2((3, he as ith another securit" guard, $belardo Natividad andhospital helper Danilo 5lindo a.1.a. 5ringo, hen a tric"cle arrived at the e!ergenc" roo!containing four %)& passengers, eBcluding the driver. e as an ar!As length aa" fro! saidtric"cle. e identified to of the passengers thereof as appellants Dungo and Sibal. Espinasaid he and 5linda helped the passengers unload a bod" inside the tric"cle and brought it tothe e!ergenc" roo!.

//. $fterards, Espina as1ed the to !e@ for identification cards. The latter replied that the"did not bring ith the! an" I.D. or allet. !"wphi! Instead of giving their true na!es, the appellantslisted don their na!es in the hospital logboo1 as 7randon 5on-ales " an-on and 8erichoParil " Rivera. Espina then told the to !en not to leave, not telling the! that the" secretl"

called the police to report the incident hich as their standard operating procedure hen adead bod" as brought to the hospital.

/2. Dr. Ra!on ;asilungan, ho as then the attending ph"sician at the e!ergenc" roo!,observed that ;arlon as !otionless, had no heartbeat and alread" c"anotic.

/4. Dr. ;asilungan tried to revive ;arlon for about /0 to 2( !inutes. oever, the latter didnot respond to resuscitation and as pronounced dead. Dr. ;asilungan noticed a big



contusion he!ato!a on the left side of the victi!As face and several in#uries on his ar!s andlegs. e further attested that ;arlonAs face as alread" c"anotic.

/). >hen Dr. ;asilungan pulled don ;arlonAs pants, he sa a large contusion on both legshich eBtended fro! the upper portion of his thigh don to the coupleBial portion or the bac1of the 1nee.

/0. Due to the nature, eBtent and location of ;arlonAs in#uries, Dr. ;asilungan opined that heas a victi! of ha-ing. Dr. ;asilungan is fa!iliar ith ha-ing in#uries, having undergoneha-ing hen he as a student and also because of his eBperience treating victi!s of ha-ingincidents.

/3. Dr. Ro" Ca!arillo, ;edico+egal Officer of the PNP Cri!e aborator" in Region I:,Ca!p :icente i!, Canlubang, Cala!ba Cit", testified that he perfor!ed an autops" on thecadaver of the victi! on 8anuar" /)# 2((3 that the victi!As cause of death as blunt headtrau!a. 6ro! /*** to 2((3, he as able to conduct post+!orte! eBa!ination of the to %2&persons hose deaths ere attributed to ha-ing. These to %2& persons sustained !ultiplecontusions and in#uries on different parts of their bod", particularl" on the buttoc1s, on both

upper and loer eBtre!ities. 7oth persons died of brain he!orrhage. Correlating these tocases to the in#uries found on the victi!As bod", Dr. Ca!arillo attested that the victi!, ;arlon:illanueva, sustained si!ilar in#uries to those to %2& persons. 7ased on the presence of!ultiple in#uries and contusions on his bod", he opined that these in#uries ere ha-ing+related.//)

Petitioners Dungo and Sibal, on the other hand, presented the defense of denial and alibi. Thesedefenses, hoever, !ust fail. Ti!e and ti!e again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are theea1est of all defenses, because the" are eas" to concoct and fabricate.//0 $s properl" held b" theRTC, these defenses cannot prevail over the positive and une@uivocal identification of the petitionersb" prosecution itnesses Sunga and Ignacio. The testi!onies of the defense itnesses also lac1edcredibilit" and reliabilit". The corroboration of defense itness Rivera as suspect because she asthe girlfriend of Dungo, and it as onl" logical and e!otional that she ould stand b" the !an she

loved and cared for. The testi!onies of their fello fraternit" brothers, li1eise, do not hold !ucheight because the" had so !uch at sta1e in the outco!e of the case. Stated differentl", thepetitioners did not present credible and. disinterested itnesses to substantiate their defenses ofdenial and alibi.

$fter a careful revie of the records, the Court agrees ith the C$ and the R TC that thecircu!stantial evidence presented b" the prosecution as overhel!ing enough to establish theguilt of the petitioners be"ond a reasonable doubt. The unbro1en chain of events laid don b" theC$ leaves us no other conclusion other than the petitionersA participation in the ha-ing. The" too1part in the ha-ing and, together ith their fello fraternit" officers and !e!bers, inflicted ph"sicalin#uries to :illanueva as a re@uire!ent of his initiation to the fraternit". The ph"sical in#urieseventuall" too1 a toll on the bod" of the victi!, hich led to his death. $nother "oung life lost.

>ith the fact of ha-ing, the identit" ,of the petitioners, and their participation therein dul" proven, the!oral certaint" that produces conviction in an unpre#udiced !ind has been satisfied.

6inal Note

a-ing has been a pheno!enon that has beleaguered the countr"As educational institutions andco!!unities. Nes of "oung !en beaten to death as part of fraternitiesA violent initiation ritessupposedl" to seal fraternal bond has sent disturbing aves to la!a1ers. ence, R.$. No. '()*







as signed into to la on 8une ?, /**0. Doubts on the effectiveness of the la ere raised. TheCourt, hoever, scrutini-ed its provisions and it is convinced that the la is rigorous in penali-ing thecri!e of ha-ing.

opefull", the present case ill serve as a guide to the bench and the bar on the application of R.$.No. '()*. Through careful case+build up and proper presentation of evidence before the court, it is

not i!possible for the eBalted constitutional presu!ption of innocence of the accused to beoverco!e and his guilt for the cri!e of ha-ing be proven be"ond reasonable doubt. The prosecution!ust bear in !ind the secretive nature of ha-ing, and carefull" eave its chain of circu!stantialevidence. i1eise, the defense !ust present a genuine defense and substantiate the sa!e throughcredible and reliable itnesses. The counsels of both parties !ust also consider ha-ing as a !alu!prohibitu! cri!e and the laAs distinctive provisions.

>hile the Court finds R.$. No. '()* ade@uate to deter and prosecute ha-ing, the la is far fro!perfect. In :illareal v. People,//3 the Court suggested that the fact of intoBication and the presence ofnon+resident or alu!ni fraternit" !e!bers during ha-ing should be considered as aggravatingcircu!stances that ould increase the applicable penalties. E@uall", based on the discussion earlier,this Court suggests so!e further a!end!ents to the la. 6irst, there should be a penalt" or liabilit"

for nonco!pliance ith Section 2, or the ritten notice re@uire!ent, and ith Section 4, or therepresentation re@uire!ent. Second, the penalties under Section ) should also consider theps"chological har! done to the victi! of ha-ing. >ith these additional inputs on R.$. No. '()*, the!ove!ent against ha-ing can be invigorated. R.$. No. '()* is a de!ocratic response to the uproaragainst ha-ing. It de!onstrates that there !ust, and should, be another a" of fosteringbrotherhood, other than through the culture of violence and suffering. The senseless deaths of these"oung !en shall never be forgotten, for #ustice is the spar1 that lights the candles of their graves.

>ERE6ORE, the petition is DENIED. The $pril 23, 2(/4 Decision and the October ', 2(/4Resolution of the Court of $ppeals in C$5.R. CR+.C. No. (0()3 are hereb" $66IR;ED in toto. etcopies of this Decision be furnished to the Secretar" of the Depart!ent of 8ustice as guidance forthe proper i!ple!entation and prosecution of violators of R.$. No. '()* and to the SenatePresident and the Spea1er of the ouse of Representatives for possible consideration of the

a!end!ent of the $nti+a-ing a to include the penalt" for nonco!pliance ith its Section 2 and4, and the 9penalt" for the ps"chological har!s to the surviving victi!s of ha-ing.

SO ORDERED.




Dandy Dungco vs CA

Documents

Transcript of Dandy Dungco vs CA