Case No.: G.R. No.

209464
Case Title: Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. v. People of the Philippines
Date: July 1, 2015

Summary of Facts:
Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr., members of the Alpha Phi Omega (APO) fraternity, were charged
for the death of Marlon Villanueva during an initiation rite on January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Calamba
City. They were accused of assaulting Villanueva as part of the initiation process. The charge against them
was violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.

Issues:
1. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether there was a variance between the offense charged and the offense for which they were convicted,
violating their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Ruling and Decision:

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Dungo and Sibal guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to
reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's decision. Dungo and Sibal filed a petition for
review on certiorari, arguing insufficiency of evidence and variance in the offense charged. The Supreme Court
denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision.

Doctrine:
1. Presence as Prima Facie Evidence of Participation: Under R.A. No. 8049, the presence of any person
during hazing is considered prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless they can prove that they
prevented the commission of the punishable acts. Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not
automatically indicate conspiracy, but the burden is on the accused to prove non-participation.
2. Conspiracy and Circumstantial Evidence: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a
felony and decide to carry it out, with their assent inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime. Guilt
can be proven beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, especially in cases like hazing
incidents where crimes are committed under conditions of secrecy and concealment.
3. Amendments to Anti-Hazing Law: While R.A. No. 8049 is a step in the right direction in combating hazing,
amendments should be considered to address its flaws, such as considering intoxication and the presence of
non-resident fraternity members as aggravating circumstances, and imposing penalties for noncompliance with
certain provisions of the law. Additionally, penalties should reflect the psychological harm inflicted on hazing
victims.

This case underscores the seriousness of hazing incidents and the need for strict enforcement of anti-hazing
laws to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals, particularly students and young adults involved in
fraternity culture.

In the context of this case, the cause of the accusation is relevant because it pertains to whether there was a
variance between the offense charged and the offense for which the petitioners were convicted. The
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them is crucial in ensuring
due process.

If there is a substantial variance between the offense charged and the offense for which the accused is
convicted, it could potentially violate the accused's constitutional rights. This variance could lead to confusion
or ambiguity regarding the legal basis for the conviction, affecting the accused's ability to mount an effective
defense.

In this case, the petitioners argued that there was a variance between the offense charged in the amended
information and the offense for which they were convicted. They contended that this violated their constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted that the amended information charged them with
the proper offense, and their actions were covered under the charges. The OSG argued that the planned
initiation rite would not have been possible without the actions of the petitioners, and their involvement was
clearly established.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. While the
cause of the accusation was a point of contention raised by the petitioners, the Court determined that there
was no substantial variance between the offense charged and the offense for which they were convicted, thus
upholding their constitutional rights in this regard.