Case Digest: Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015

RA 8049  Anti-Hazing Law | Criminal Law

Facts:

Marlon Villanueva, a UP Los Baños student, was a neophyte of the APO - Theta Chapter Fraternity. Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal were members of the said fraternity.

On the evening of January 13, 2006, Dungo and Sibal, together with the other fraternity members, officers and alumni, brought and transported Villanueva and two other neophytes to Villa Novaliches Resort at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City, for the final initiation rites. The initiation rites were conducted inside the resort, performed under the cover of darkness and secrecy. Due to the injuries sustained by Villanueva, the fraternity members and the other two neophytes haphazardly left the resort. Dungo and Sibal boarded a tricycle and brought the lifeless body of Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital, where Villanueva was pronounced dead.

The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Even if there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated to bodily assault and harm the victim, it was irrefutable that they brought Villanueva to the resort for their final initiation rites. 

Appellate Court: Guilty of of violating R.A. No. 8049.

Issue:

WoN the judgements of the RTC and the CA a quo constitute a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them because the offense proved as found and pronounced thereby is different from that charged in the information, nor does one include or necessarily include the other.

Held:

Guilty of violating R.A. No. 8049

Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua

The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. The Senate deliberations would show that the lawmakers intended the anti-hazing statute to be malum prohibitum. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution.

Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Also, the framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing. 

The Information properly charged the offense proved

It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.

The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation rite" as stated in the information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. Dungo and Sibal not only induced Villanueva to be present at the resort, but they actually brought him there. They fulfilled their roles in the planned hazing rite which eventually led to the death of Villanueva. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present.

The proper approach would be to require the prosecution to state every element of the crime of hazing, the offenders, and the accompanying circumstances in the planned initiation activity which has been satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the amended information sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were being criminally charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite.

Conspiracy of the offenders was duly proven

Because of the uncontroverted prima facie evidence against the petitioners, it was shown that they performed an overt act in the furtherance of the criminal design of hazing. Not only did they induce the victim to attend the hazing activity, the petitioners also actually participated in it based on the prima facie evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish their roles in the conspiracy of hazing.

Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.  Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.

The guilt of the petitioners was proven nbeyond reasonable doubt

The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming enough to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt. The unbroken chain of events laid down by the CA leaves us no other conclusion other than the petitioners' participation in the hazing. They took part in the hazing and, together; with their fellow fraternity officers and members, inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a requirement of his initiation to the fraternity. The physical injuries eventually took a toll on the body of the victim, which led to his death. 

Also, the petitioners did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

RA 8049 Anti-Hazing Law.

Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with Section 4 of the RA 8049, which provides different classes of persons who are held liable as principals and accomplices.

The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of injury inflicted to the victim. The penalties appear to be similar to that of homicide, serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, and slight physical injuries under the RPC, with the penalties for hazing increased one degree higher. Also, the law provides several circumstances which would aggravate the imposable penalty.

Curiously, although hazing has been defined as consisting of those activities involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the penalties for hazing only covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the only psychological injury recognized would be causing insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim only sustained physical injuries which did not incapacitate him, there is still a prescribed penalty.

The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be liable as principals. The provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alumni.

The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat. These officers or members are penalized, not because of their direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing.

The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action to prevent them from occurring. The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same.

The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes and failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring.

The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices. Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime. The owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop the same.

Recit Version:

Facts:

Marlon Villanueva was a neophyte of the APO - Theta Chapter Fraternity, and Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal were members of the same fraternity. On January 13, 2006, Dungo and Sibal, along with other fraternity members, officers, and alumni, brought Villanueva and two other neophytes to a resort for their final initiation rites. The initiation rites were conducted in secrecy, and due to injuries sustained by Villanueva, the fraternity members and other neophytes left the resort haphazardly. Dungo and Sibal brought Villanueva's lifeless body to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 

The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for bringing Villanueva to the resort for their final initiation rites.

Appellate Court: Guilty of of violating R.A. No. 8049.

Issue:

WoN the judgements of the RTC and the CA a quo constitute a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them because the offense proved as found and pronounced thereby is different from that charged in the information. 

Held:

Guilty of homicide.

Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited. The existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith and consent of the victim cannot be raised in its prosecution.

Any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. 

The Information properly charged the offense proved:

The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation rite" as stated in the information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. Dungo and Sibal not only induced Villanueva to be present at the resort, but they actually brought him there. They fulfilled their roles in the planned hazing rite which eventually led to the death of Villanueva. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present. The amended information sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were being criminally charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite.

Conspiracy of the offenders was duly proven: 

Because of the uncontroverted prima facie evidence against the petitioners, it was shown that they performed an overt act in the furtherance of the criminal design of hazing. Not only did they induce the victim to attend the hazing activity, the petitioners also actually participated in it based on the prima facie evidence. These acts are sufficient to establish their roles in the conspiracy of hazing.

Hence, generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.  Under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.

The guilt of the petitioners was proven beyond reasonable doubt: 

The circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming enough to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt. The unbroken chain of events laid down by the CA leaves us no other conclusion other than the petitioners' participation in the hazing. They took part in the hazing and, together; with their fellow fraternity officers and members, inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a requirement of his initiation to the fraternity. The physical injuries eventually took a toll on the body of the victim, which led to his death. Also, the petitioners did not present credible and disinterested witnesses to substantiate their defenses of denial and alibi.