ANTI-HAZING LAW CASES

VILLAREAL VS PEOPLE

- the victim was a freshman law student in Ateneo who was a neophyte in the
aquila legis juris underwent initiation rites.
- After several beatings, he had high fever and chilling. He was brought in the
hospital but declared dead on arrival
- 26 frat members were found guilty for the crime of homicide
- CA modified the judgement in accordance to the individual participation.
o 19 accused were acquitted
o 4 were charged for slight physical injuries
o Dizon and Villareal were charged of homicide
- Elements of dolo or malice
o Freedom, intelligence, intent
- MR BY VILLA
o Violation of the right of Escalona etal to speedy trial led to the
dismissal of the case, hence acquittal
o No grave abuse of discretion
- MR BY OSG (act of the accused must be accounted of the gravity of the
actions of the accused; insisted that the imposable penalty must be for
intentional penalty)
o Felony in culpa and dolo are not the same
o Reckless imprudence is voluntary but without malice
o Court ruled that there is no malicious intent but they will still be
punished in accordance to Art. 3 imprudence, negligence.
o Intentional felonies a deliberate malicious intent to do an unlawful act
- MC BY TECSON (CA decision charging them of SPI already lapsed into
finality; they argue that they can no longer be convicted of RI resulting in
homicide
o They filed probation on the wrong court it was not the court of origin
of the criminal case: it must be in the court which rendered the
decision
o Court ruled that they may apply for probation

PEOPLE VS BAYABOS

- Balidoy was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the PMMA, in order to

reach active status, all new entrants were required to undergo mandatory
indoctrination and orientation period
- Alvarez, Montez, Reyes, Simpas were charged as principals to the crime of
hazing
 o The school authorities as accomplices to hazing
o The principal accused had already been dismissed with finality by RTC
o The respondents contend that there being no more principals with who
they could have cooperated in the execution of the offense, the cause
against them must be dismissed/
- Prosec: material facts sufficiently established the presence of the essential
ingredients of the crime of accomplice to hazing
o There is nothing in the law requiring that the principals must
prosecuted first before a case could be filed against the accomplices
o Sandigan bayan: no criminal responsibility to the principals means to
criminal liability to the accomplices
- Issues:
o WN the prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing can proceed
in spite the dismissal of the charges against the principal accused
o WN information filed against respondents contains all material
averments for the prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing
under the AHL
- Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case on the ground the principal had
already been dismissed. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal,
accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. The determination of
liability can proceed based on the established evidence.
- MR regarding the quashal of the Information was affirmed
o Sec. 14, Art. III of the Constitution, recognizes the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them. It requires that the information must be sufficient.
- Elements of the crime of hazing
1. A person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situation or
subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and
2. these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person's admission or
entry into an organization