REPUBLIC ACT NO.

11053
ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
(Amending RA 8049 Anti-Hazing Act of 1995)

Atty. Norhanna A. Pangandaman-Paporo

 BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE ANTI-
HAZING LAW OF 1995*
• February 8, 9 and 10, 1991 → Aquila Legis senior members conducted initiation rites
for neophytes interested in joining the fraternity's ranks. As a result of the traditional
hazing ritual, fraternity neophyte Leonardo "Lenny" Villa died from serious physical
injuries at the Chinese General Hospital on February 10, 1991. Bienvenido Marquez,
another neophyte, was hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal
failure due to severe physical injuries inflicted during the same hazing ritual.

• In the wake of Villa's death, charges were filed against 26 members of the fraternity.
The lower court found the defendants guilty of the crime charged. CA however,
overturned the findings of the lower court and acquitted 19 of the 26 defendants.
The conviction of two Aquila Legis fraternity members, Fidelito Dizon and Artemio
Villareal, was upheld, while the sentences for four other fraternity members were
"downgraded from homicide to slight physical injuries". SC later elevated the
charges for the four to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, downgrading
Dizon’s charges to the same. Villareal died in 2011 while awaiting appeal.

• As a result of the controversy surrounding the death of Lenny Villa, Republic Act No.
8049 (more popularly known as the "Anti Hazing Law") was passed into law in 1995.
Up to today, the Lenny Villa case is considered as the first case that depicted the
fraternity violence that occurs during initiation rights.
* Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_Legis
 DEFINITION OF HAZING
Hazing → any act that results in physical/psychological suffering, harm, or injury
inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation or a
requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization.
Hazing → paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to
the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other
substance, or any other brutal treatment of forced physical activity which is likely
to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of such recruit,
neophyte, applicant, or member.

Hazing shall also include any activity, intentionally made or otherwise, by one
person alone or acting with others, that tends to humiliate or embarrass, degrade,
abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit, neophyte, applicant or member to do
menial, silly, or foolish tasks (Section 2 of RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No.
11053, June 29, 2018).
 ELEMENTS OF HAZING
1. Initiation rite/ practice made as a prerequisite for admission or
a requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity,
sorority, or organization;

2. During the initiation rite or practice, physical or psychological

suffering, harm, or injury is inflected on a recruit, neophyte,
applicant, or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization;
and

3. Consequences of hazing → death, rape and sodomy, or

mutilation results.
 INITIATION RITE OR PRACTICE

Initiation or initiation rites refer to ceremonies,

practices, rituals, or other acts, whether formal or
informal, that a person must perform or take part
in order to be accepted into a fraternity, sorority,
or organization as a full-fledged member. It
includes ceremonies, practices, rituals, and other
acts in all stages of membership in a fraternity,
sorority, or organization.
 ORGANIZATION
Organization refers to an organized body of people which
includes, but is not limited to, any club, association, group,
fraternity, and sorority. This term shall include:
1. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
2. Philippine National Police (PNP)
3. Philippine Military Academy (PMA)
4. Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA)
5. other similar to those abovementioned uniformed service learning
institutions.
6. Philippine Merchant Academy
7. Company or private corporation
 THE CONSEQUENCES: DEATH, RAPE,
SODOMY OR MUTILATION

RA No. 8049 (as amended by RA No. 11053),

declares all forms of hazing shall be prohibited
in fraternities, sororities, and organizations.
Section 14 thereof prescribes for penalties for all
forms of hazing. However, the penalty is higher
where death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results
from hazing.
 MALUM PROHIBITUM

Congress created a special law on hazing founded upon

the principle of mala prohibita where good faith is not a
defense.
The deliberation of the Senate shows that what is
important is not the intention to kill the neophyte during
the hazing but the result of the act hazing. Also, the
framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim
to be injured shall not be a defense in hazing. The very act
of inflicting physical or psychological pain is a punishable
act. Death is just an aggravating circumstance.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

1. Presence – Sec. 14, RA No. 11053 punishes all persons who are present
in the conduct of the hazing. However, the penalty is higher if the
persons, who are present during the hazing, are: (1) officers of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization; (2) former officers, nonresident
members, or alumni thereof; (3) members thereof who are intoxicated
or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.

2. Actual participation – The penalty for hazing is also higher if the person
actually participated in the conduct of hazing. The actual participants
are liable for hazing even if they are not members of the fraternity,
sorority, or organization.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

3. Planning – The law punishes all persons, who actually planned the
conduct of the hazing. Even though these planners were not
present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they
shall still be liable as principals.

4. Adviser – The law also punishes the adviser of a fraternity, sorority,

or organization who is present when the acts constituting the
hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the
same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the
law enforcement authorities if such adviser or advisers can do so
without peril to their person or their family.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

5. Inducement- Officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or

organization, who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the
hazing by inducing the victim to the present thereat, are
liable for hazing.

6. Incumbent officers- the incumbent officers of the fraternity,

sorority, or organization concerned shall be jointly liable with
those members who actually participated in the hazing.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

7. Owner or lessee – The law punishes the owner or lessee of the place
where hazing is conducted as principal for hazing, when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly report
the same to the law enforcement authorities if they can do so without
peril to their person or their family.

8. Parents- Under the law, if the hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, the
parents shall be held liable as principals for hazing when they have
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take
any action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly
report the same to the law enforcement authorities if such parents can
do so without peril to their person or their family.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

9. School Authorities - School authorities including faculty members as

well as barangay, municipal, or city officials shall be liable as an
accomplice for hazing conducted by fraternities, sororities, and other
organizations , if it can be shown that: (1) the school or barangay,
municipal, or city officials allowed or consented to the conduct pf
hazing; or (2) where there is actual knowledge of hazing, but such
officials failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
or failed to promptly report to the law enforcement authorities if the
same can be done without peril to their person or their family.
Even though school authorities and faculty members have
had no direct participation in hazing, they may nonetheless
be charged as accomplices if it is shown that:
(1) hazing occurred;
(2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members;
and
(3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action
against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof (People
v. Bayabos, supra) or to report The matter to the
authorities.
The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and
accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of
the offense (hazing) can be duly established in evidence, the
determination of the liability of the accomplice can proceed
independently of that of the principal ( People v. Bayabos, supra).

Under Section 7 of RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No. 11053, the

faculty adviser or advisers, who accepted his role after being
selected by an accredited fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall
be responsible for monitoring the activities of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization. In case of violation of any of the provisions of this
Act, it is presumed that the faculty adviser has knowledge and
consented to the commission of any of the unlawful acts stated
therein.
Under Section 4, 5, 10, and 11 of RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No.
11503, initiation rites are allowed if the fraternity, sorority, or
organization obtained approval from school authority, or punong
barangay, or city or municipal mayor, authorities upon writing
application undertaking that no harm of any kind shall be
committed. During approved initiation rites, at least two school or
barangay, or city or municipal representatives must be present. If
hazing is still committed despite their presence, no liability shall
attach to them unless it is proven that they failed to perform an overt
act to prevent or stop the commission thereof.

Failure to provide school representatives during the approved

initiations rites is also punishable.
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?

10. Obstruction of Justice- The law also punishes former

officers, nonresident members, or alumni of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after the commission
of hazing will perform any act to hide, conceal, or
otherwise hamper or obstruct any investigation that will be
conducted thereafter.
 Aejis Juris Fratman
(alumnus) John Paul
Solano found guilty for
Obstruction of Justice
(Sentenced 2 years and
4months to 4 years and 2
months in prison)

The Hazing Victim:

Horacio Castillo III
 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR HAZING?
11. Forcible Recruitment- The law also punishes any person who
shall intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or administer
any form of vexation against another person for the purpose
of recruitment in joining or promoting a particular fraternity,
sorority, or organization.

The persistent and repeated proposal or invitation made to a

person who had twice refused to participate or join to the
proposed fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall be prima
facie evidence of vexation for purpose of this crime.
12. Corporate or Company Officers- Under RA No. 8049, in no
case shall hazing be made a recruitment for employment in
any business or corporation. The president, manager,
director, or other responsible officer of business or
corporations engaged in hazing as a recruitment for
employment also criminally liable.
 COMMON DEFENSE
In hazing, taking action to prevent the occurrence of hazing or reporting
the matter to the police is a defense by the following offenders:
1. Adviser;
2. Owner or lessee of the place of hazing;
3. Parents of the member or officer of fraternity, sorority, or organization;
4. School authorities and faculty members, barangay, municipal, or city
officials if they being charged on the basis of their knowledge of the
conduct of hazing.

N.B: Those who took preventive measures or those who reported the matter
to the authorities will not be liable under the Anti-Hazing Law.
 REGULATED HAZING?
Not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 of RA
No. 8049 provides that initiation rites of fraternities, sororities, or
organizations shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are
met:

1. That the fraternity, sorority, or organizations has a prior written notice to

the school authorities or head of organization;

2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven days before the
conduct of such initiation;
 REGULATED HAZING
3. That the written notice shall indicate:
(a) The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three
days;
(b) The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and
(c) An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites(Dungo v. People, supra; 2002 Bar Exam).

RA No. 8049 qualifies that the physical, mental and psychological testing and
training procedure and practices members to determine and enhance the
physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular of the AFP and
the PNP, as approved by the secretary National Defense and the National
Police Commission, duly recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the
director General of the PNP, shall not be considered as hazing.
 PENALTIES FOR HAZING (RA 11053)

• 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P3M shall be imposed

upon those who actually planned or participated in the hazing if, as a
consequence of the hazing, death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results
therefrom.

• 2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P2M shall be imposed

upon those who actually planned or participated in the hazing, All officers of
the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are actually present during the
hazing, faculty adviser who was present but failed to take action to prevent
the hazing or promptly report the same to law enforcement authorities,
former officers or alumni of the fraternity present during the hazing, officers or
members thereof who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present thereat and members who were present
during the hazing when they are intoxicated or under the influence of
alcohol or illegal drugs.
 PENALTIES FOR HAZING (RA 11053)
• 3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4
months and 1 day to 20 years) and a fine of P1M shall be imposed upon all
persons who are present in the conduct of the hazing.

• 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal and a fine of P1M shall be imposed

upon former officers, members or alumni of the fraternity, sorority or
organization will perform any act to hide, conceal, or otherwise hamper or
obstruct any investigation that will be conducted thereafter.

• 5. The penalty of prision correcional in its minimum period shall be imposed

upon any person who shall intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or
administer any form of vexation against another person for the purpose of
recruitment in joining or promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or
organization.
 PENALTIES FOR HAZING (RA 11053)
• 6. A fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the
school if the fraternity, sorority, or organization filed a written
application to conduct an initiation which was subsequently
approved by the school and hazing occurred during the initiation rites
or when no representatives from the school were present during the
initiation.
• Third parties are also punished by RA 8049. In fact, the owner or lessee
of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as a principal
when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but
failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring or did
not report the same to the police. The school authorities, barangay,
municipal, or city officials shall be liable as an accomplice if it can be
shown that they allowed or consented to the conduct of hazing, but
such officials failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report to the law enforcement
authorities if the same can be done without peril to their person or
their family.
• In view of the stiffer penalties for hazing, fraternities, sororities and
organizations are advised to stop such practice. In fact, the law states
that the presence of any person, even if such person is not a member
of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, during the hazing is prima
facie evidence of participation therein as a principal. Such
presumption is negated when the person prevented the commission
of the acts punishable herein or promptly reported the same to the
law enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril, to their
person or their family.