RA 11053: PHILIPPINE

ANTI- LAW

Presented by:
Edracel C. Del Rosario
Special Penal Laws G04
What is hazing?
According to RA 11053, Hazing is any act that results in
physical or psychological suffering, harm or injury inflicted on
a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an
initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for admission
or a requirement for continuing membership in a frathernity,
sorority, or organization including, but not limited to, 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 or
forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the
physical and psychological health of such recruit, neophyte,
applicant, or member. This shall also include any activity,
intentionally made or otherwise, by one person alone or
acting with others, that tends to humiliate, embarrass,
degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit, neophyte,
applicant, or member to do menial, silly, or foolish tasks.
 HAZING IN THE PHILIPPINES

Feb Sept Oct

1954 1991 1991 1991

First hazing-related death Death of Lenny Villa First conviction against First reported fatal
Gonzalo Mariano Albert of Villa's death led to the passage fraternity members incident of hazing
Upsilon Sigma Phi was mauled of the Anti-Hazing Act of 1995. Raul Camaligan was killed outside Metro Manila
by other fraternity members while undergoing initiation rites Frederick Cahiyang who
after failing to do assigned task. for Lex Talionis. A case was underwent initiation rites for
filed for murder but the Alpha Phi Omega while a
accused plead guilty to the student of University of
lesser offense of reckless Visayas i n Cebu.
imprudence resulting to
homicide.
 HAZING IN THE PHILIPPINES

1995 2001 2009 2015 2015

Anti-Hazing Act of 1995First conviction of PMA First and only known First and only conviction Anti-Hazing Act
RA 8049 is a national Cadets by a Civilian Court. fatal hazing incident under RA 8049 of 2018
legislation in the Edward Domingo underwent involving a female. Marlon Villanueva of UP RA 11053 amended RA
Philippines regulating the a fatal hazing for his entry to Glacy Monique Los Banos died during 8049, prohibiting hazing
act of hazing and other the level PMA Dimaranan, a 15-year-old initiation rites. Two Alpha in the Philippines.
initiation rites in fraternities upperclassman. Two cadets high school female Phi Omega members
and sororities in the were given the sentence student, died of a single were sentenced to
country. homicide by the Baguio City gunshot wound in the reclusion perpetua in a
Regional Trial Court for head during initiation rites. 2015 decision.
killing Domingo. A member of Scout Royal
Brotherhood in Laguna
accidentally pulled the
trigger of the gun he was
pointing at the victim.
Mel Honasan Lenny Villa Raul Camaligan Marc Andrei Marvin Reglos Guillo Servando Atio Castillo
Brother of Sen. Led to the The victim of the Marcos Servando was a
Latest fatal
Gringo Honasan passage of Anti- famous Al Marcos died in the same year as student in the De La
hazing incident.
Hazing Act of Argosino case. Reglos; both students of San Beda Salle - College of St.
1995. College; different fraternities. Benilde where
fraternities are
supposedly
prohibited.
 HAZING In Numbers
Number of hazing-related Number of fraternities Number of schools
deaths since 1954 involved involved

43+ 17+ (8/43 TGP) 28+ (9/43 UP)

Number of convictions Number of hazing-related

under RA 8084 deaths after RA 8084

1/14 cases 32/43 (74%)

 the case of lenny villa
FACTS: In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law
signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity).

The neophytes, including victim, Lenny Villa, were subjected to initiation rites. After the second day of initiation
rites has ended, accused alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal)
demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially refused.
Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity members,
including Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to "paddling" and to additional rounds of physical
pain. Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the ground. The
neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain and difficulty in breathing. After their last session of physical
beatings, Lenny could no longer walk. He had to be carried by the auxiliaries to the carport. Again, the initiation
for the day was officially ended, and the neophytes started eating dinner. They then slept at the carport.

After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys shivering and incoherent mumblings.
Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they thought he was just overacting. When they
realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him. They removed his
clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his condition worsened, the Aquilans
rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.

Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against 35 Aquilans.

 the case of lenny villa
FACTS: The trial court rendered judgment holding the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide. The criminal case against the remaining nine accused commenced anew.

The CA set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and modified the criminal liability of each of the
accused according to individual participation. One accused had by then passed away, so the following Decision
applied only to the remaining 25 accused:

1. Nineteen of the accused-appellants were acquitted, as their individual guilt was not established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Four of the accused-appellants were found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries.
3. Two of the accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal – were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
 VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE
FACTS: While the Petition was pending before the Court, counsel for petitioner Villareal filed a Notice of Death of
Party on 10 August 2011. According to the Notice, petitioner Villareal died on 13 March 2011. Counsel thus
asserts that the subject matter of the Petition previously filed by petitioner does not survive the death of the
accused.

ISSUE: Did the death of Villareal extinguish his criminal liability?

RULING: According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal penalties is totally
extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the
offender dies prior to final judgment. The term "personal penalties" refers to the service of personal or
imprisonment penalties, while the term "pecuniarypenalties" (las pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs, including
civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However, civil liability
based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable
through a separate civil action.

Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal liability for both personal and
pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability directly arising from the delict complained of. Consequently, his
Petition is hereby dismissed, and the criminal case against him deemed closed and terminated.
 PEOPLE VS. CA
FACTS: This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of the CAs Decision, insofar as it acquitted
19 (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the accused Aquilans of the lesser crime of slight physical
injuries. According to the Solicitor General, the CA erred in holding that there could have been no conspiracy to
commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity initiation had not yet been criminalized at the time Lenny died. Since the
injuries led to the victims death, petitioner posits that the accused Aquilans are criminally liable for the resulting
crime of homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Did the CA err in convicting accused of the lesser offense of slight physical injuries instead of homicide?

RULING: Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon as if only their acts, in and of themselves,
caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings. From proof that the death of the victim was
the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered, the only logical conclusion is that criminal responsibility
should redound to all those who have been proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries
on Lenny. The accumulation of bruising on his body caused him to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordingly, we find that
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama,
Almeda, and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries. As an allowable exception to the rule on double
jeopardy, we therefore give due course to the Petition.
 DIZON VS. PEOPLE
FACTS: Petitioner Dizon sets forth two main issues first, that he was denied due process when the CA sustained
the trial courts forfeiture of his right to present evidence; and, second, that he was deprived of due process when
the CA did not apply to him the same "ratio decidendi that served as basis of acquittal of the other accused.

ISSUE: Was Dizon deprived of due process?

RULING: In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called
upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to
present evidence. In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned of the consequences of another
failure to attend the succeeding hearings. The court must first explain to the accused personally in clear terms the
exact nature and consequences of a waiver.
 VILLA VS. ESCALONA
FACTS: Petitioner Villa assails the CAs dismissal of the criminal case involving 4 of the 9 accused, namely,
Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. She argues that the accused failed to assert their right to speedy trial
within a reasonable period of time. She also points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the delay, as the
original records and the required evidence were not at its disposal, but were still in the appellate court.

ISSUE: Did the CA err in dismissing the case for violation of the accused's right to speedy trial?

RULING:
The absence of the records in the trial court [was] due to the fact that the records of the case were elevated to
the Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions failure to comply with the order of the court a quo requiring it to
secure certified true copies of the same. It appears, however, that even until August 5, 2002, the said records
were still not at the disposal of the trial court because the lack of it was made the basis of the said court in
granting the motion to dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion.

It is likewise noticeable that for a period of almost seven years, there was no action at all on the part of the court
a quo. The case remained dormant for a considerable length of time. This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is
precisely the kind of delay that the constitution frowns upon.
 the case of lenny villa
RULING:
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to recklessness, which made the
resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It must be remembered that organizations owe to their initiates a duty
of care not to cause them injury in the process.269 With the foregoing facts, we rule that the accused are guilty of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the NBI medico-legal officer found that the victim’s death was
the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly participated
in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries.

Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have all been
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).272 Since there was no law
prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time of
his death. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Victorino et al.’s
individual participation in the infliction of physical injuries upon Lenny Villa.273 As to accused Villareal, his
criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his death, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Fidelito Dizon, Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined and penalized under Article
365 in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as maximum.
 the anti-hazing law of 1995
What does the law say?

According to the law, initiation rites can still push through if:

• There is written notice addressed to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days prior
• There are at least two representatives from the school present
• The written notice should include details about the activity, including how long it will last, the names of
those who will undergo the initiation rites, and an "undertaking that no physical violence will be
employed."

Meanwhile, those who have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted but did not do anything about it –
such as owners of the place where it was held, school authorities, and other members of the organization –
can be considered as accomplices.

Members of organizations – regardless whether fraternity, sorority, or otherwise – directly involved in the
infliction of harm will be liable if the person who went through the hazing or any form of initiation rites
“suffers any physical injury or dies,” according to the law. The law does not penalize the actual act of
initiation rites.

If a neophyte dies, has been raped, sodomized, or mutilated, those responsible can face life imprisonment.
 dungo vs. people
first conviction under anti-hazing law

FACTS: Villanueva, a UP Los Baños student, was a neophyte of the APO – Theta Chapter Fraternity and
that Dungo and Sibal, as members of the said fraternity, 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 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, while 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 the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.
 dungo vs. people
RULING:

Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

From the definition, the elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
sorority or organization;
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to
physical or psychological suffering or injury.
 dungo vs. people
RULING:

Classes of direct participants are:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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. The last class of principals
would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.

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 ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
What does the law say?

• All forms of hazing in fraternities, sororities, school- and community-based

organizations are new prohibited.
• The law also prohibits hazing in the recruitment of citizens’ military and army
training. But it was clarified, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police may still conduct physical, mental and psychological
testing and training for prospect members on the condition that said training is not
considered as hazing.
• It was also specified businesses or corporations cannot require hazing as part of
employment procedure.
• The law will also require all fraternities, sororities and organizations to register,
including those not organized by the school. A faculty adviser will also be a
requisite in their accreditation.
• Under the law, all who participated in planning and conducting, even those who
were merely present during the hazing are considered liable.
 THE ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
What does the law say?

• Violators of the law will be sanctioned with reclusion perpetua and a fine of P3
million, if their involvement in the hazing caused death, rape, sodomy, or
mutilation.
• Reclusion perpetua and a fine of P2 million will be imposed on those who planned
or participated in hazing under the influence of alcohol or drugs; reclusion
temporal and a P1-million fine for those involved in the hazing; and prision
correccional on anyone who forced or threatened another person to join a
fraternity or organization.
• Schools and owners or lessee of the place where the hazing was conducted may
also face penalties.
• The law also provided that if the offenders are members of the Bar, they will be
subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme Court. If the offenders are in
another profession, they will be subject to regulation by the Professional
Regulation Commission.
 comparison
BEFORE RA 8049 THE ANTI-HAZING THE ANTI-HAZING
ACT OF 1995 ACT OF 2018
Source Revised Penal Code Special Penal Law Special Penal Law
Criminal Intent Necessary Not necessary Not necessary
Prohibition Not prohibited Not prohibited, only Prohibited
regulated
Penalty Depends on the Prision correccional to Prision correccional to
applicable crime reclusion perpetua; no reclusion perpetua; fine
fine from P1M to P3M
Persons liable Depends on the Officers and members who Persons who actually participated;
officers, advisers, former officers
degree of actually participated,
present; members who induced
owner of the place or victim; members intoxicated while
involvement parents, school present; any member who will
authorities, officers who conceal; any form of vexation to
influence; school; owner of the
planned hazing, any
place; any person present.
person present
T H A N K Y O U
 References
• "AnimatED: Kapatiran ng kamatayan" [AnimatED: Brotherhood of death]. Rappler (in Filipino). 2 October 2017. Retrieved 4 October 2017.

• Romero, Purple (21 February 2012). "SC punishes 5 frat members for Lenny Villa's death". Rappler. Retrieved 24 September 2017.

• https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/626572/aguirre-taxi-driver-tomas-bagcal-now-under-nbi-protective-custody/story/

• https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1995/ra_8049_1995.html

• http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2018/06jun/20180629-RA-11053-RRD.pdf

• https://www.bworldonline.com/duterte-signs-anti-hazing-law/

• https://www.pinayjurist.com/dungo-v-people-g-r-no-209464-july-01-2015-r-a-no-8049-anti-hazing-law-of-2018-malum-prohibitum-2/

• https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/183279-fast-facts-anti-hazing-law-philippines

• http://chroniclesofaloststudent.blogspot.com/2017/10/villareal-people-case-digest.html

• https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/05/villareal-v-people-gr-no-151258.html

• https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/149207/supreme-court-writes-finis-to-lenny-villa-case

• https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/149417/what-went-before-the-lenny-villa-case

• https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/pdf/gr_209464_2015.pdf

• https://www.rappler.com/nation/161836-hazing-cases-philippines

• https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/626568/senator-cites-pnp-data-only-9-out-of-105-hazing-cases-in-15-years-resolved/story/

• http://www.stuartxchange.org/Hazing

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hazing_deaths_in_the_Philippines

• Honasan, Alya B. "Forgiving like Daddy"

• Artemio Villareal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151258 (Supreme Court of the Philippines February 2012) ("The public outrage over the death of Leonardo Lenny Villa the victim in this case on 10 February 1991 led to a very strong clamor
to put an end to hazing.").

• "Cardinal Vidal Condemns Fraternity Hazing Death". UCNA News. 21 October 1991. Retrieved 6 October 2017.

• Dumlao, Artemio (20 November 2002). "PMA hazing: Two cadets get 12 years". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 4 October 2017.

• "Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Second Division G.R. No. 209464"

• Lopez, Virgil (4 October 2017). "Atio Castillo camp to include UST Law dean Divina in hazing death case". GMA News. Retrieved 4 October 2017.