Artemio Villareal vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 151258
FACTS:
Seven Freshmen Law students of Ateneo de Manila University School of Law have been
initiated by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity on February 1991. The initiation rites started when
the neophytes were met by some members of the mentioned fraternity at the lobby of the Ateneo
Law School. They were consequently brought to a house and briefed on what will be happening
during the days when they will be initiated. They were informed that there will be physical
beatings and that the neophytes can quit anytime they want. They were brought to another house
to commence their initiation.
The neophytes were insulted and threatened even before they got off the van. Members
of the fraternity delivered blows to the neophytes as they alighted from the van. Several initiation
rites were experienced by the neophytes like the Indian run, Bicol express and rounds. They were
asked to recite provisions and principles of the fraternity and were hit every time they made a
mistake.
Accused fraternity members, Dizon and Villareal, asked the head of the initiation rites
(Victorino) to reopen the initiation. Fraternity members subjected neophytes to paddling and
additional hours of physical pain. After the last session of beatings, Lenny Villa could not walk.
Later that night, he was feeling cold and his condition worsened. He was brought to the hospital
but was declared dead on arrival.
Criminal case was filed against 26 fraternity members and was subsequently found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and penalized with reclusion perpetua.
On January 10 2002, CA modified the criminal liability of each of the accused according
to individual participation. 19 of the the accused were acquitted, 4 of the appellants were found
guilty of slight physical injuries, and 2 of the accused-appellants (Dizon and Villareal) were
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
Accused Villareal petitioned for review on Certriori under Rue 45 on the grounds that
the CA made 2 reversible errors: first, denial of due process and second, conviction absent proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, petitioner Villareal died on 13 March 2011 and filed a
Notice of Death of Party on 10 August 2011.



ISSUE:
1. Whether or not criminal liability for personal penalties of the accused is extinguished by
death?
2. Whether or not the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong does not apply to hazing?
RULING:
1. Yes, criminal liability of the accused is extinguished by death. The Court took note of
counsel for petitioners Notice of Death when it has been received while the petition was
pending resolution. Personal penalties refer to the service of personal or imprisonment penalties,
while pecuniary penalties refer to fines, costs, civil liability. Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code states that the criminal liability of a convict for personal penalties is totally extinguished by
death of the convict. His pecuniary penalty has been extinguished since the death of the accused
happened before his final judgment. Therefore, the death of the petitioner for both personal and
pecuniary penalties including his civil liability has ended. His petition has also been dismissed
and the criminal case against him has been closed and terminated.

2. Involving the Lenny Villa hazing incident, this incident took place before the 1995 Anti-
hazing Law. Thus, the SC concluded that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
existence of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries or animus interficendi as required in
mala in se cases considering the contextual background of Lennys death, the unique nature of
hazing and absent any law prohibiting hazing.
However, the absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean that the accused
fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The collective acts of the fraternity
members were tantamount to recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable
felony. Thus, 5 accused were found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is thus a vital ingredient in
establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide. Being mala in se, the felony
of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo immediately before or simultaneously with
the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill or animus interficendi cannot and should not be
inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. Furthermore, the victims
death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide. If death resulted from
an act executed without malice or criminal intent but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or
negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or simple negligence or imprudence resulting
in homicide.