Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner, - versus - versus G.R. No,.

%-(+&- . %-(+(+ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x-------------------------x PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, - versus THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNEL ANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE MONTECILLO, VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL, SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO, JAIME MARIA FLORES II, OSIMO MENDO A, MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE VERDADERO, ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE FERNANDE , AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN, PERCIVAL BRIGOLA, PAUL ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS !ARL B. PERE , RENATO BANTUG, JR., ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, "#$ RONAN DE GU MAN, Respondents. x-------------------------x FIDELITO DI ON, Petitioner, - versus G.R. No. %&&%+% PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x-------------------------x GERARDA H. VILLA, Petitioner,
3 2 1

G.R. No. %&%'&(

MANUEL LOREN O ESCALONA II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO CRU SARUCA, JR., "#$ ANSELMO ADRIANO, Respondents. G.R. No. %&)*&)

Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

DECISION SERENO, J.: The public outra e over the death of !eonardo "!enn#$ %illa & the victi' in this case & on () *ebruar# (++( led to a ver# stron cla'or to put an end to ha,in . (
-(.

/ue in lar e part to the brave efforts of his 'other, petitioner 0erarda %illa, roups his senseless and tra ic death. This 1idespread

1ere or ani,ed, conde'nin

conde'nation pro'pted Con ress to enact a special la1, 1hich beca'e effective in (++2, that 1ould cri'inali,e ha,in .3-3. The intent of the la1 1as to discoura e 'e'bers fro' 'a4in ha,in
7-7.

a re5uire'ent for 6oinin

their sororit#, fraternit#,

or ani,ation, or association.

Moreover, the la1 1as 'eant to counteract the

exculpator# i'plications of "consent$ and "initial innocent act$ in the conduct of initiation rites b# 'a4in the 'ere act of ha,in punishable or mala prohibita.8-8.

9adl#, the !enn# %illa tra ed# did not discoura e ha,in countr#.
2-2.

activities in the

;niversit# 9chool of !a1 si nified their intention to 6oin the A5uila !e is ?uris *raternit# FA5uila *raternit#G. The# 1ere Caesar "=o s$ Asuncion, 9a'uel "9a'$ =elle,a, =ienvenido "=ien$ Mar5ue, III, Roberto *rancis "=ert$ >avera, 0eroni'o "Rand#$ Recinto, *elix 9#, ?r., and !eonardo "!enn#$ %illa Fneoph#tesG. On the ni ht of E *ebruar# (++(, the neoph#tes 1ere 'et b# so'e 'e'bers of the A5uila *raternit# FA5uilansG at the lobb# of the Ateneo !a1 9chool. The# all proceeded to RufoHs Restaurant to have dinner. After1ards, the# 1ent to the house of Michael Musn i, also an A5uilan, 1ho briefed the neoph#tes on 1hat to expect durin the initiation rites. The latter 1ere infor'ed that there 1ould be ph#sical beatin s, and that the# could 5uit at an# ti'e. Their initiation rites 1ere scheduled to last for three da#s. After their "briefin ,$ the# 1ere brou ht to the Al'eda Co'pound in Caloocan Cit# for the co''ence'ent of their initiation. Dven before the neoph#tes ot off the van, the# had alread# received threats and insults fro' the A5uilans. As soon as the neoph#tes ali hted fro' the van and 1al4ed to1ards the pelota court of the Al'eda co'pound, so'e of the A5uilans delivered ph#sical blo1s to the'. The neoph#tes 1ere then sub6ected to traditional for's of A5uilan "initiation rites.$ These rites included the "Indian Run,$ 1hich re5uired the neoph#tes to run a auntlet of t1o parallel ro1s of A5uilans, each ro1 deliverin blo1s to the neoph#tes< the "=icol Dxpress,$ 1hich obli ed the neoph#tes to sit on the floor 1ith their bac4s a ainst the 1all and their le s outstretched 1hile the A5uilans 1al4ed, 6u'ped, or ran over their le s< the "Rounds,$ in 1hich the neoph#tes 1ere held at the bac4 of their pants b# the "auxiliaries$ Fthe A5uilans char ed 1ith the dut# of lendin assistance to neoph#tes durin initiation ritesG, 1hile the latter 1ere bein hit 1ith fist blo1s on their ar's or 1ith 4nee blo1s on their thi hs b# t1o A5uilans< and the "AuxiesH Privile e Round,$ in 1hich the auxiliaries 1ere iven the opportunit# to inflict ph#sical pain on the neoph#tes. /urin this ti'e, the neoph#tes 1ere also indoctrinated 1ith the fraternit# principles. The# survived their first da# of initiation.

:ithin a #ear of his death, six 'ore cases of ha,in -related deaths Araullo in

e'er ed & those of *rederic4 Cahi#an of the ;niversit# of %isa#as in Cebu< Raul Ca'ali an of 9an =eda Colle e< *elipe >arne of Pa'antasan n Cabanatuan Cit#< /ennis Cenedo,a of the Cavite >aval Trainin Man ;niversit# of the Philippines in =a uio Cit#.A-A. Althou h courts 'ust not re'ain indifferent to public senti'ents, in this case the eneral conde'nation of a ha,in -related death, the# are still bound to observe a funda'ental principle in our cri'inal 6ustice s#ste' & "->.o act constitutes a cri'eB unless it is 'ade so b# la1.$C-C. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Dven if an act is vie1ed b# a lar e section of the populace as i''oral or in6urious, it cannot be considered a cri'e, absent an# la1 prohibitin its co''ission. As interpreters of the la1, 6ud es are called upon to set aside e'otion, to resist bein s1a#ed b# stron public senti'ents, and to rule strictl# based on the ele'ents of the offense and the facts allo1ed in evidence. =efore the Court are the consolidated cases doc4eted as 0.R. >o. (2(32E FVillareal v. PeopleG, 0.R. >o. (28+28 FPeople v. Court of AppealsG, 0.R. >o. (22()( FDizon v. PeopleG, and 0.R. >os. (CE)2C and (CE)E) FVilla v. EscalonaG. FACTS The pertinent facts, as deter'ined b# the Court of Appeals FCAG E-E. and the trial court,+-+. are as follo1s: In *ebruar# (++(, seven fresh'en la1 students of the Ateneo de Manila
5

Center< ?oselito

a of the Philippine Merchant Marine Institute< and ?oselito @ernande, of the

On the 'ornin of their second da# & + *ebruar# (++( & the neoph#tes 1ere 'ade to present co'ic pla#s and to pla# rou h bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to 'e'ori,e and recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. :henever the# 1ould ive a 1ron ans1er, the# 1ould be hit on their ar's or le s. !ate in the afternoon, the

A5uilans revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to tor'ent the' ph#sicall# and ps#cholo icall#. The neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to the sa'e 'anner of ha,in that the# endured on the first da# of initiation. After a fe1 hours, the initiation for the da# officiall# ended. After a 1hile, accused non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers()-(). *idelito /i,on F/i,onG and Arte'io %illareal F%illarealG de'anded that the rites be reopened. The head of initiation rites, >elson %ictorino F%ictorinoG, initiall# refused. ;pon the insistence of /i,on and %illareal, ho1ever, he reopened the initiation rites. The fraternit# 'e'bers, includin /i,on and %illareal, then sub6ected the neoph#tes to "paddlin $ and to additional rounds of ph#sical pain. !enn# received several paddle blo1s, one of 1hich 1as so stron it sent hi' spra1lin to the round. The neoph#tes heard hi' co'plainin of intense pain and difficult# in breathin . After their last session of ph#sical beatin s, !enn# could no lon er 1al4. @e had to be carried b# the auxiliaries to the carport. A ain, the initiation for the da# 1as officiall# ended, and the neoph#tes started eatin dinner. The# then slept at the carport. After an hour of sleep, the neoph#tes 1ere suddenl# roused b# !enn#Hs shiverin and incoherent 'u'blin s. Initiall#, %illareal and /i,on dis'issed these cold, so'e of the A5uilans started helpin hi'. The# ru'blin s, as the# thou ht he 1as 6ust overactin . :hen the# reali,ed, thou h, that !enn# 1as reall# feelin re'oved his clothes and helped hi' throu h a sleepin ba to 4eep hi' 1ar'. :hen his condition 1orsened, the A5uilans rushed hi' to the hospital. !enn# 1as pronounced dead on arrival. Conse5uentl#, a cri'inal case for ho'icide 1as filed a ainst the follo1in 72 A5uilans:

+. (). ((. (3. (7. (8. (2. (A. (C. (E. (+. 3). 3(. 33. 37. 38. 32. 3A.

Dulo io 9abban F9abbanG ?oseph !ledo F!ledoG Dtienne 0uerrero F0uerreroG Michael Musn i FMusn iG ?onas Iarl Pere, FPere,G Paul An elo 9antos F9antosG Ronan de 0u,'an F/e 0u,'anG Antonio 0eneral F0eneralG ?ai'e Maria *lores II F*loresG /al'acio !i', ?r. F!i'G Drnesto ?ose Montecillo FMontecilloG 9antia o Ranada III FRanadaG Josi'o Mendo,a FMendo,aG %icente %erdadero F%erdaderoG A'ante Purisi'a II FPurisi'aG ?ude *ernande, F?. *ernande,G Adel Abas FAbasG Percival =ri ola F=ri olaG

In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) (. 3. 7. 8. 2. A. C. E. +. Manuel Dscalona II FDscalonaG Crisanto 9aruca, ?r. F9arucaG Ansel'o Adriano FAdrianoG Marcus ?oel Ra'os FRa'osG Re#naldo Concepcion FConcepcionG *lorentino A'pil FA'pilG Dnrico de %era III F/e %eraG 9tanle# *ernande, F9. *ernande,G >oel Caban on FCaban onG

T1ent#-six of the accused A5uilans in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G 1ere 6ointl# tried.((-((. On the other hand, the trial a ainst the re'ainin nine accused in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) 1as held in abe#ance due to certain 'atters that had to be resolved first.(3-(3. On E >ove'ber (++7, the tr/"0 1ourt rendered 6ud 'ent in Cri'inal Case >o.

In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G (. 3. 7. 8. 2. A. C. E.

10

C-7E78)F+(G, holdin the '2 "11u,e$ 3u/0t4 be#ond reasonable doubt of the 1r/me o5 6om/1/$e, penali,ed 1ith reclusion temporal under Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code.(7-(7. A fe1 1ee4s after the trial court rendered its 6ud 'ent, or on 3+
11

*idelito /i,on F/i,onG Arte'io %illareal F%illarealG Dfren de !eon F/e !eonG %incent Tecson FTecsonG ?unel Anthon# A'a FA'aG Antonio Mariano Al'eda FAl'edaG Renato =antu , ?r. F=antu G >elson %ictorino F%ictorinoG

12

13

>ove'ber (++7, Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) a ainst the re'ainin co''enced ane1.
(8-(8.

nine accused On 2 Au ust 3))3, the trial court in Cri'inal Case >o. 7E78) dis'issed the char e a ainst accused Concepcion on the round of violation of his ri ht to speed# trial.(A-(A. Mean1hile, on different dates bet1een the #ears 3))7 and 3))2, the trial court denied the respective Motions to /is'iss of accused Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano.(C-(C. On 32 October 3))A, the CA in CA-0.R. 9P >os. E+)A) K +)(27 (E-(E. reversed the trial courtHs Orders and dis'issed the cri'inal case a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano on the basis of violation of their ri ht to speed# trial.(+-(+.

On () ?anuar# 3))3, the CA in FCA-0.R. >o. (223)G(2-(2. ,et ",/$e t6e 5/#$/#3 o5 1o#,p/r"14 74 t6e tr/"0 1ourt in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G and mo$/5/e$ t6e 1r/m/#"0 0/"7/0/t4 of each of the accused "11or$/#3 to /#$/8/$u"0 p"rt/1/p"t/o#. Accused /e !eon had b# then passed a1a#, so the follo1in /ecision applied onl# to the re'ainin 32 accused, viz: (. N/#etee# o5 t6e "11u,e$9"ppe00"#t, & %ictorino, 9abban, !ledo, 0uerrero, Musn i, Pere,, /e 0u,'an, 9antos, 0eneral, *lores, !i', Montecillo, Ranada, Mendo,a, %erdadero, Purisi'a, *ernande,, Abas, and =ri ola FV/1tor/#o et al.G & 1ere "1:u/tte$, as their individual doubt. uilt 1as not established b# proof be#ond reasonable

*ro' the afore'entioned /ecisions, the five F2G consolidated Petitions 1ere individuall# brou ht before this Court.

G.R. No. %&%'&( > Villareal v. People The instant case refers to accused %illarealHs Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari under Rule 82. The Petition raises t1o reversible errors alle edl# co''itted b# the CA in its /ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 in CA-0.R. >o. (223) & first, denial of due process< and, second, conviction absent proof be#ond reasonable doubt.3)-3). :hile the Petition 1as pendin before this Court, counsel for petitioner

3.

Four o5 t6e "11u,e$9"ppe00"#t, & %incent Tecson, ?unel Anthon# A'a, Antonio Mariano Al'eda, and Renato =antu , ?r. F Te1,o# et al.G & 1ere found uilt# of the cri'e of ,0/36t p64,/1"0 /#;ur/e, and sentenced to 3) da#s of arresto menor. The# 1ere also ordered to 6ointl# pa# the heirs of the victi' the su' of 7),))) as inde'nit#.

%illareal filed a >otice of /eath of Part# on () Au ust 3)((. Accordin to the >otice, 7. T<o o5 t6e "11u,e$9"ppe00"#t, & F/$e0/to D/=o# and Artem/o V/00"re"0 & 1ere found uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the cri'e of 6om/1/$e under Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code. @avin found no 'iti atin or a ravatin circu'stance, the CA sentenced the' to
16

petitioner %illareal died on (7 March 3)((. Counsel thus asserts that the sub6ect 'atter of the Petition previousl# filed b# petitioner does not survive the death of the accused.

an indeter'inate sentence of () #ears of prision mayor to (C #ears of reclusion temporal. The# 1ere also ordered to inde'nif#, 6ointl# and severall#, the heirs of !enn# %illa in the su' of 2),))) and to pa# the additional a'ount of (,))),))) b# 1a# of 'oral da'a es.
14

17

18

19

15

20

G.R. No. %&&%+% > Dizon v. People Accused /i,on filed a Rule 82 Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari, 5uestionin the CAHs /ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Au ust 3))3 in CA-0.R. >o. (223).3(-3(. Petitioner sets forth t1o 'ain issues & first, that he 1as denied due process 1hen the CA sustained the trial courtHs forfeiture of his ri ht to present evidence< and, second, that he 1as deprived of due process 1hen the CA did not appl# to hi' the sa'e "ratio eci en i that served as basis of ac5uittal of the other accused.$
33-33.

"on the contrar#, /r. Ari,ala testified that the in6uries suffered b# !enn# could not be considered fatal if ta4en individuall#, but if ta4en collectivel#, the result is the violent death of the victi'.$3A-3A. Petitioner then counters the findin of the CA that he 1as 'otivated b# ill 1ill. @e clai's that !enn#Hs father could not have stolen the par4in space of /i,onHs father, since the latter did not have a car, and their fathers did not 1or4 in the sa'e place or office. Reven e for the loss of the par4in space 1as the alle ed ill 'otive of /i,on. Accordin to petitioner, his utterances re ardin a stolen par4in space 1ere onl# part of the "ps#cholo ical initiation.$ @e then cites the testi'on# of !enn#Hs coneoph#te & 1itness Mar5ue, & 1ho ad'itted 4no1in "it 1as not true and that he 1as 6ust 'a4in it upB.$3C-3C. *urther, petitioner ar ues that his alle ed 'otivation of ill 1ill 1as ne ated b# his sho1 of concern for %illa after the initiation rites. /i,on alludes to the testi'on# of one of the neoph#tes, 1ho 'entioned that the for'er had 4ic4ed the le of the neoph#te and told hi' to s1itch places 1ith !enn# to prevent the latterHs chills. :hen the chills did not stop, /i,on, to ether 1ith %ictorino, helped !enn# throu h a sleepin ba and 'ade hi' sit on a chair. Accordin to petitioner, his alle ed ill 'otivation is contradicted b# his 'anifestation of co'passion and concern for the victi'Hs 1ellbein . G.R. No. %&)*&) > People v. Court of Appeals This Petition for Certiorari under Rule A2 see4s the reversal of the CAHs /ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Au ust 3))3 in CA-0.R. >o. (223), insofar as it ac5uitted (+ F%ictorino et al.G and convicted 8 FTecson et al.G of the accused A5uilans of the lesser cri'e of sli ht ph#sical in6uries.3E-3E. Accordin to the 9olicitor 0eneral, the CA erred in holdin conspirac# to co''it ha,in , as ha,in cri'inali,ed at the ti'e !enn# died.
26

As re ards the first issue, the trial court 'ade a rulin , 1hich forfeited /i,onHs ri ht to present evidence durin presented separate evidence durin trial. The trial court expected /i,on to to /i,on, his ri ht should not for a present evidence on an earlier date since a co-accused, Antonio 0eneral, no lon er trial. Accordin have been considered as 1aived because he 1as 6ustified in as4in

postpone'ent. @e ar ues that he did not as4 for a resettin of an# of the hearin dates and in fact insisted that he 1as read# to presentevidence on the ori inal preassi ned schedule, and not on an earlier hearin date. Re ardin the second issue, petitioner contends that he should have

li4e1ise been ac5uitted, li4e the other accused, since his acts 1ere also part of the traditional initiation rites and 1ere not tainted b# evil 'otives. 37-37. @e clai's that the additional paddlin session 1as part of the official activit# of the fraternit#. @e also points out that one of the neoph#tes ad'itted that the chairperson of the initiation rites "decided that -!enn#. 1as fit enou h to under o the initiation so Mr. %illareal proceeded to do the paddlin B.$38-38. *urther, petitioner echoes the ar u'ent of the 9olicitor 0eneral that "the individual blo1s inflicted b# /i,on and %illareal could not have resulted in !enn#Hs death.$ 32-32. The 9olicitor 0eneral purportedl# averred that,
21

that there could have been no

or fraternit# initiation had not #et been

22

23

24

27

25

28

In the alternative, petitioner clai's that the rulin

of the trial court should

accused failed to assert their ri ht to speed# trial 1ithin a reasonable period of ti'e. 9he also points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the dela#, as the ori inal records and the re5uired evidence 1ere not at its disposal, but 1ere still in the appellate court. :e resolve herein the various issues that 1e roup into five.

have been upheld, inas'uch as it found that there 1as conspirac# to inflict ph#sical in6uries on !enn#. 9ince the in6uries led to the victi'Hs death, petitioner posits that the accused A5uilans are cri'inall# liable for the resultin cri'e of ho'icide, pursuant to Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code.
3+-3+.

The said article provides: "Cri'inal liabilit#

shall be incurredB -b.# an# person co''ittin a felon# F elitoG althou h the 1ron ful act done be different fro' that 1hich he intended.$ Petitioner also ar ues that the rule on double 6eopard# is inapplicable. Accordin to the 9olicitor 0eneral, the CA acted 1ith rave abuse of discretion, (. a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction, in settin aside the trial courtHs findin of conspirac# and in rulin that the cri'inal liabilit# of all the accused 'ust be based on their individual participation in the co''ission of the cri'e. 3. G.R. No,. %-(+&- "#$ %-(+(+ > Villa v. Escalona Petitioner %illa filed the instant Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari, pra#in for the reversal of the CAHs /ecision dated 32 October 3))A and Resolution dated (C Ma# 3))C in CA-0.R. 9.P. >os. E+)A) and +)(27.
7)-7).

ISSUES :hether the forfeiture of petitioner /i,onHs ri ht to present evidence constitutes denial of due process< :hether the CA co''itted rave abuse of discretion, a'ountin to lac4 or

excess of 6urisdiction 1hen it dis'issed the case a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano for violation of the ri ht of the accused to speed# trial< 7. :hether the CA co''itted rave abuse of discretion, a'ountin to lac4 or

The Petition involves the

excess of 6urisdiction, 1hen it set aside the findin of conspirac# b# the trial court and ad6udicated the liabilit# of each accused accordin to individual participation< 8. 2. :hether accused /i,on is uilt# of ho'icide< and :hether the CA co''itted rave abuse of discretion 1hen it pronounced uilt# onl# of sli ht ph#sical in6uries. Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu

dis'issal of the cri'inal char e filed a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano. /ue to "several pendin incidents,$ the trial court ordered a separate trial for accused Dscalona, 9aruca, Adriano, Ra'os, A'pil, Concepcion, /e %era, 9. *ernande,, and Caban on FCri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)G to co''ence after proceedin s a ainst the 3A other accused in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G shall have ter'inated. On E >ove'ber (++7, the trial court found the 3A accused uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedin s in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) involvin the nine other co-accused reco''enced on 3+ >ove'ber (++7. *or

DISCUSSION Re,o0ut/o# o# Pre0/m/#"r4 M"tter, G.R. No. %&%'&( > Villareal v. People In a >otice dated 3A 9epte'ber 3)(( and 1hile the Petition 1as pendin resolution, this Court too4 note of counsel for petitionerHs >otice of /eath of Part#. Accordin to Article E+F(G of the Revised Penal Code, cri'inal liabilit# for

"various reasons,$ the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E March 3))2, or al'ost (3 #ears after the arrai n'ent of the nine accused. Petitioner %illa assails the CAHs dis'issal of the cri'inal case involvin 8 of the + accused, na'el#, Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano. 9he ar ues that the
29

30

personal penalties is totall# extin uished b# the death of the convict. In contrast,

cri'inal liabilit# for pecuniar# penalties is extin uished if the offender dies prior to final 6ud 'ent. The ter' "personal penalties$ refers to the service of personal or i'prison'ent penalties,7(-7(. 1hile the ter' "pecuniar# penalties$ Flas pecuniariasG refers to fines and costs,
73-73.

accused 1ho had alread# testified.7C-7C. =ecause of this develop'ent and pursuant to the trial courtHs Order that the parties "should be read# at all ti'es do1n the line,$ the trial court expected /i,on to present evidence on the next trial date & 32 Au ust (++7 & instead of his ori inall# assi ned dates. The ori inal dates 1ere supposed to start t1o 1ee4s later, or on E 9epte'ber (++7. 7E-7E. Counsel for accused /i,on 1as not able to present evidence on the accelerated date. To address the situation, counsel filed a Constancia on 32 Au ust (++7, alle in that he had to appear in a previousl# scheduled case, and that he 1ould be read# to present evidence on the dates ori inall# assi ned to his clients.7+-7+. The trial court denied the Manifestation on the sa'e date and treated the Constancia as a 'otion for postpone'ent, in violation of the three-da#-notice rule under the Rules of Court.8)-8). Conse5uentl#, the trial court ruled that the failure of /i,on to present evidence a'ounted to a 1aiver of that ri ht. 8(
-8(.

includin civil liabilit# predicated on the cri'inal offense elictoG.

77-77.

co'plained of Fi.e., civil liabilit# e! source of obli ation other than the

@o1ever, civil liabilit# based on a

elict survives the death of the accused and is

78-78.

recoverable throu h a separate civil action.

Thus, 1e hold that the death of petitioner %illareal extin uished his cri'inal liabilit# for both personal and pecuniar# penalties, includin his civil liabilit# directl# arisin fro' the elict co'plained of. Conse5uentl#, his Petition is hereb# dis'issed, and the cri'inal case a ainst hi' dee'ed closed and ter'inated. G.R. No. %&&%+% ?Dizon v. People@ In an Order dated 3E ?ul# (++7, the trial court set the dates for the reception of evidence for accused-petitioner /i,on on the E th, (2th, and 33nd of 9epte'ber< and the 2th and (3 of October (++7.72-72. The Order li4e1ise stated that "it 1ill not entertain an# postpone'ent and that all the accused 1ho have not #et presented their respective evidence should be read# at all ti'es do1n the line, 1ith their evidence on all said dates. *ailure on their part to present evidence 1hen re5uired shall therefore be construed as 1aiver to present evidence.$7A-7A. @o1ever, on (+ Au ust (++7, counsel for another accused 'anifested in open court that his client & Antonio 0eneral & 1ould no lon er present separate evidence. Instead, the counsel 1ould adopt the testi'onial evidence of the other
31

Accused-petitioner /i,on thus ar ues that he 1as deprived of due process of la1 1hen the trial court forfeited his ri ht to present evidence. Accordin to hi', the postpone'ent of the 32 Au ust (++7 hearin should have been considered 6ustified, since his ori inal pre-assi ned trial dates 1ere not supposed to start until E 9epte'ber (++7, 1hen he 1as scheduled to present evidence. @e posits that he 1as read# to present evidence on the dates assi ned to hi'. @e also points out that he did not as4 for a resettin of an# of the said hearin dates< that he in fact insisted on bein allo1ed to present evidence on the dates fixed b# the trial court. Thus, he the schedule of presentation of contends that the trial court erred in acceleratin evidence, thereb# invalidatin the findin of his uilt. The ri ht of the accused to present evidence is uaranteed b# no less than the Constitution itself.83-83. Article III, 9ection (8F3G thereof, provides that " /# "00 1r/m/#"0 pro,e1ut/o#,, t6e "11u,e$ B ,6"00 e#;o4 t6e r/36t to 7e 6e"r$ 74
37

32

33

38

34

39

35

40

36

41

6/m,e05 "#$ 1ou#,e0B$ This constitutional ri ht includes the ri ht to present evidence in oneHs defense,
87-87.

as 1ell as the ri ht to be present and defend oneself in

person at ever# sta e of the proceedin s.88-88. In Crisostomo v. "an iganbayan,82-82. the 9andi anba#an set the hearin of the defenseHs presentation of evidence for 3(, 33 and 37 ?une (++2. The 3( ?une (++2 hearin 1as cancelled due to "lac4 of 5uoru' in the re ular 'e'bership$ of the 9andi anba#anHs 9econd /ivision and upon the a ree'ent of the parties. The hearin 1as reset for the next da#, 33 ?une (++2, but Crisosto'o and his counsel failed to attend. The 9andi anba#an, on the ver# sa'e da#, issued an Order directin the issuance of a 1arrant for the arrest of Crisosto'o and the confiscation of his suret# bond. The Order further declared that he had 1aived his ri ht to present evidence because of his nonappearance at "#esterda#Hs and toda#Hs scheduled hearin s.$ In rulin a ainst the Order, 1e held thus: ;nder 9ection 3FcG, Rule ((8 and 9ection (FcG, Rule ((2 of the Rules of Court, Cr/,o,tomoA, #o#9"ppe"r"#1e $ur/#3 t6e '' Ju#e %**& tr/"0 <", mere04 " <"/8er o5 6/, r/36t to 7e pre,e#t 5or tr/"0 o# ,u16 $"te o#04 "#$ #ot 5or t6e ,u11ee$/#3 tr/"0 $"te,B xxx xxx xxx

t6"t t6e "11u,e$ /, per,o#"004 m"$e "<"re o5 t6e 1o#,e:ue#1e, o5 " <"/8er o5 t6e r/36t to pre,e#t e8/$e#1e . In fact, it is #ot e#ou36 t6"t t6e "11u,e$ /, ,/mp04 <"r#e$ o5 t6e 1o#,e:ue#1e, o5 "#ot6er 5"/0ure to "tte#$ t6e ,u11ee$/#3 6e"r/#3,. The court 'ust first explain to the accused personall# in clear ter's the exact nature and conse5uences of a 1aiver. Crisosto'o 1as not even fore1arned. The 9andi anba#an si'pl# 1ent ahead to deprive Crisosto'o of his ri ht to present evidence 1ithout even allo1in Crisosto'o to explain his absence on the 33 ?une (++2 hearin . Clearl#, the <"/8er o5 t6e r/36t to pre,e#t e8/$e#1e /# " 1r/m/#"0 1",e /#8o08/#3 " 3r"8e pe#"0t4 /, #ot ",,ume$ "#$ t"Be# 0/36t04. The presence of the accused and his counsel is indispensable so that the court could personall# conduct a searchin in5uir# into the 1aiver x x x.8A-8A. FD'phasis suppliedG The trial court should not have dee'ed the failure of petitioner to present evidence on 32 Au ust (++7 as a 1aiver of his ri ht to present evidence. On the contrar#, it should have considered the excuse of counsel 6ustified, especiall# since counsel for another accused & 0eneral & had 'ade a last-'inute adoption of testi'onial evidence that freed up the succeedin trial dates< and since /i,on 1as not scheduled to testif# until t1o 1ee4s later. At an# rate, the trial court pre-assi ned five hearin dates for the reception of evidence. If it reall# 1anted to i'pose its Order strictl#, the 'ost it could have done 1as to forfeit one out of the five da#s set for /i,onHs testi'onial evidence. 9trippin the accused of all his pre-assi ned trial dates constitutes a patent denial of the constitutionall# uaranteed ri ht to due process. >evertheless, as in the case of an i'provident uilt# plea, an invalid 1aiver of the ri ht to present evidence and be heard does not per se 1or4 to vacate a findin of uilt in the cri'inal case or to enforce an auto'atic re'and of the case to the trial court.8C-8C. In People v. #o oso, 1e ruled that 1here facts have ade5uatel# been represented in a cri'inal case, and no procedural unfairness or irre ularit# has pre6udiced either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the invalid 1aiver, the rule is that a uilt# verdict 'a# nevertheless be upheld if the 6ud 'ent is supported be#ond reasonable doubt b# the evidence on record.8E-8E.
46

Moreover, Crisosto'oHs "7,e#1e on the 33 ?une (++2 hearin ,6ou0$ #ot 6"8e 7ee# $eeme$ ", " <"/8er o5 6/, r/36t to pre,e#t e8/$e#1e. :hile constitutional ri hts 'a# be 1aived, such <"/8er mu,t 7e 10e"r "#$ mu,t 7e 1oup0e$ </t6 "# "1tu"0 /#te#t/o# to re0/#:u/,6 t6e r/36t . Crisosto'o did not voluntaril# 1aive in person or even throu h his counsel the ri ht to present evidence. The 9andi anba#an i'posed the 1aiver due to the a ree'ent of the prosecution, Calin a#an, and Calin a#anLs counsel. In cri'inal cases 1here the i'posable penalt# 'a# be death, as in the present case, the 1ourt /, 1"00e$ upo# to ,ee to /t
42

43

44

47

45

48

:e do not see an# 'aterial inade5uac# in the relevant facts on record to resolve the case at bar. >either can 1e see an# "procedural unfairness or irre ularit#$ that 1ould substantiall# pre6udice either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the invalid 1aiver. In fact, the ar u'ents set forth b# accused /i,on in his Petition corroborate the 'aterial facts relevant to decide the 'atter. Instead, 1hat he is reall# contestin in his Petition is the application of the la1 to the facts b# the trial court and the CA. Petitioner /i,on ad'its direct participation in the ha,in of !enn# %illa b# alle in in his Petition that "all actions of the petitioner 1ere part of the traditional rites,$ and that "the alle ed extension of the initiation rites 1as not outside the official activit# of the fraternit#.$8+-8+. @e even ar ues that "/i,on did not re5uest for the extension and he participated onl# after the activit# 1as sanctioned.$2)-2). *or one reason or another, the case has been passed or turned over fro' one 6ud e or 6ustice to another & at the trial court, at the CA, and even at the 9upre'e Court. Re'andin the case for the reception of the evidence of petitioner /i,on 1ould onl# inflict further in6ustice on the parties. This case has been oin on for al'ost t1o decades. Its resolution is lon overdue. 9ince the 4e# facts necessar# to decide the case have alread# been deter'ined, 1e shall proceed to decide it. G.R. No,. %-(+&- "#$ %-(+(+ ?Villa v. Escalona@
52

The ri ht of the accused to a speed# trial has been enshrined in 9ections (8F3G and (A, Article III of the (+EC Constitution. 23-23. This ri ht re5uires that there be a trial free fro' vexatious, capricious or oppressive dela#s.27-27. The ri ht is dee'ed violated 1hen the proceedin is attended 1ith un6ustified postpone'ents of trial, or 1hen a lon period of ti'e is allo1ed to elapse 1ithout the case bein tried and for no cause or 6ustifiable 'otive.28-28. In deter'inin the ri ht of the accused to speed# trial, courts should do 'ore than a 'athe'atical co'putation of the nu'ber of postpone'ents of the scheduled hearin s of the case. 22-22. The conduct of both the prosecution and the defense 'ust be 1ei hed.2A-2A. Also to be considered are factors such as the len th of dela#, the assertion or non-assertion of the ri ht, and the pre6udice 1rou ht upon the defendant.2C-2C. :e have consistentl# ruled in a lon line of cases that a dis'issal of the case pursuant to the ri ht of the accused to speed# trial is tanta'ount to ac5uittal. 2E-2E. As a conse5uence, an appeal or a reconsideration of the dis'issal 1ould a'ount to a violation of the principle of double 6eopard#.2+-2+. As 1e have previousl# discussed, ho1ever, 1here the dis'issal of the case is capricious, certiorari lies.A)-A). The rule on double 6eopard# is not tri ered 1hen a petition challen es the validit# of the order of rave abuse of discretion dis'issal instead of the correctness thereof. A(-A(. Rather,

Petitioner %illa ar ues that the case a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano should not have been dis'issed, since the# failed to assert their ri ht to speed# trial 1ithin a reasonable period of ti'e. 9he points out that the accused failed to raise a protest durin the dor'anc# of the cri'inal case a ainst the', and that the# asserted their ri ht onl# after the trial court had dis'issed the case a ainst their co-accused Concepcion. Petitioner also e'phasi,es that the trial court denied the respective Motions to /is'iss filed b# 9aruca, Dscalona, Ra'os, and Adriano, because it found that "the prosecution could not be faulted for the dela# in the 'ove'ent of this case 1hen the ori inal records and the evidence it 'a# re5uire 1ere not at its disposal as these 1ere in the Court of Appeals.$2(-2(.
49 58 56 55 53

54

57

59

50

60

51

61

a'ounts to lac4 of 6urisdiction, and lac4 of 6urisdiction prevents double 6eopard# fro' attachin .
A3-A3.

xxx

xxx xxx

:e do not see rave abuse of discretion in the CAHs dis'issal of the case a ainst accused Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation of their ri ht to speed# trial. The court held thus: An exa'ination of the procedural histor# of this case 1ould reveal that the follo1in factors contributed to the slo1 pro ress of the proceedin s in the case belo1: xxx 2G xxx xxx The fact that the records of the case 1ere elevated to the Court of Appeals and the prosecutionHs failure to co'pl# 1ith the order of the court a 5uo re5uirin the' to secure certified true copies of the sa'e. xxx xxx

It is li4e1ise noticeable that fro' /ece'ber 3C, (++2, until Au ust 2, 3))3, or 5or " per/o$ o5 "0mo,t ,e8e# 4e"r,, t6ere <", #o "1t/o# "t "00 o# t6e p"rt o5 t6e 1ourt " :uo . EC1ept 5or t6e p0e"$/#3, 5/0e$ 74 7ot6 t6e pro,e1ut/o# "#$ t6e pet/t/o#er, , the latest of 1hich 1as on ?anuar# 3+, (++A, follo1ed b# petitioner 9arucaHs 'otion to set case for trial on Au ust (C, (++E 1hich the court did not act upon, t6e 1",e rem"/#e$ $orm"#t 5or " 1o#,/$er"70e 0e#3t6 o5 t/me. This prolon ed inactivit# 1hatsoever is precisel# the 4ind of dela# that the constitution fro1ns upon x x x.A7-A7. FD'phasis suppliedG

This Court points out that on () ?anuar# (++3, the final a'ended Infor'ation 1as filed a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, A'pil, 9. *ernande,, Adriano, Caban on, Concepcion, and /e %era.A8-A8. On 3+ >ove'ber (++7, the# 1ere all arrai ned.A2-A2. ;nfortunatel#, the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E March 3))2 or al'ost (3 #ears after arrai n'ent.AA-AA. As illustrated in our rulin in Abar o v. "an iganbayan, the unexplained

xxx

:hile 1e are prepared to concede that so'e of the fore oin factors that contributed to the dela# of the trial of the petitioners are 6ustifiable, :e nonetheless hold that their ri ht to speed# trial has been utterl# violated in this case x x x. xxx xxx xxx

interval or inactivit# of the 9andi anba#an for close to five #ears since the arrai n'ent of the accused a'ounts to an unreasonable dela# in the disposition of cases & a clear violation of the ri ht of the accused to a speed# disposition of cases. AC
-AC.

Thus, 1e held: The dela# in this case 'easures up to the unreasonableness of the dela# in the disposition of cases in Angchangco, Jr. vs. $mbu sman, 1here the Court found the $e0"4 o5 ,/C 4e"r, 74 t6e Om7u$,m"# /# re,o08/#3 t6e 1r/m/#"0 1omp0"/#t, to 7e 8/o0"t/8e o5 t6e 1o#,t/tut/o#"004 3u"r"#tee$ r/36t to " ,pee$4 $/,po,/t/o# o5 1",e,< si'ilarl#, in %o&ue vs. $ffice of the $mbu sman , 1here the Court held that the $e0"4 o5 "0mo,t ,/C 4e"r, $/,re3"r$e$ t6e Om7u$,m"#D, $ut4 to "1t

-T.he "7,e#1e o5 t6e re1or$, /# t6e tr/"0 1ourt -1as. due to the fact that the records of the 1",e <ere e0e8"te$ to t6e Court o5 Appe"0,, and the pro,e1ut/o#A, 5"/0ure to 1omp04 </t6 t6e or$er o5 t6e 1ourt " :uo re:u/r/#3 /t to ,e1ure 1ert/5/e$ true 1op/e, o5 t6e ,"me. :hat is larin fro' the records is the fact that as earl# as 9epte'ber 3(, (++2, the court a 5uo alread# issued an Order re5uirin the prosecution, throu h the /epart'ent of ?ustice, to secure the co'plete records of the case fro' the Court of Appeals. The prosecution did not co'pl# 1ith the said Order as in fact, the sa'e directive 1as repeated b# the court a 5uo in an Order dated /ece'ber 3C, (++2. 9till, there 1as no co'pliance on the part of the prosecution. It is not stated 1hen such order 1as co'plied 1ith. It appears, ho1ever, that e8e# u#t/0 Au3u,t &, '++', t6e ,"/$ re1or$, <ere ,t/00 #ot "t t6e $/,po,"0 o5 t6e tr/"0 1ourt because the lac4 of it 1as 'ade the basis of the said court in rantin the 'otion to dis'iss filed b# co-accused Concepcion x x x.
62

63

64

65

66

67

prompt04 o# 1omp0"/#t, 7e5ore 6/m < and in Cervantes vs. "an iganbayan, 1here the Court held that the 9andi anba#an 3r"8e04 "7u,e$ /t, $/,1ret/o# /# #ot :u",6/#3 t6e /#5orm"t/o# <6/16 <", 5/0e$ ,/C 4e"r, "5ter t6e /#/t/"tor4 1omp0"/#t <", 5/0e$ "#$ t6ere74 $epr/8/#3 pet/t/o#er o5 6/, r/36t to " ,pee$4 $/,po,/t/o# o5 t6e 1",e. So /t mu,t 7e /# t6e /#,t"#t 1",e, <6ere t6e re/#8e,t/3"t/o# 74 t6e Om7u$,m"# 6", $r"33e$ o# 5or " $e1"$e "0re"$4.AE-AE. FD'phasis suppliedG *ro' the fore oin principles, 1e affir' the rulin of the CA in CA-0.R. 9P >o. E+)A) that accused Dscalona et al.Hs ri ht to speed# trial 1as violated. 9ince there is nothin in the records that 1ould sho1 that the sub6ect of this Petition includes accused A'pil, 9. *ernande,, Caban on, and /e %era, the effects of this rulin shall be li'ited to accused Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano. G.R. No. %&)*&) ?People v. Court of Appeals@ The rule on double 6eopard# is one of the pillars of our cri'inal 6ustice s#ste'. It dictates that 1hen a person is char ed 1ith an offense, and the case is ter'inated & either b# ac5uittal or conviction or in an# other 'anner 1ithout the consent of the accused & the accused cannot a ain be char ed 1ith the sa'e or an identical offense.
A+-A+.

ordinance, conviction or ac5uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the sa'e act. Rule ((C, 9ection C of the Rules of Court, 1hich i'ple'ents this particular constitutional ri ht, provides as follo1s:C7-C7. 9DC. C. 'ormer conviction or ac&uittal( ouble )eopar y . M :hen an accused has been convicted or ac5uitted, or the case a ainst hi' dis'issed or other1ise ter'inated 1ithout his express consent b# a court of co'petent 6urisdiction, upon a valid co'plaint or infor'ation or other for'al char e sufficient in for' and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the char e, the conviction or ac5uittal of the accused or the dis'issal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense char ed, or for an# atte'pt to co''it the sa'e or frustration thereof, or for an# offense 1hich necessaril# includes or is necessaril# included in the offense char ed in the for'er co'plaint or infor'ation. The rule on double 6eopard# thus prohibits the state fro' appealin the

6ud 'ent in order to reverse the ac5uittal or to increase the penalt# i'posed either throu h a re ular appeal under Rule 8( of the Rules of Court or throu h an appeal b# certiorari on pure 5uestions of la1 under Rule 82 of the sa'e Rules. C8-C8. The re5uisites for invo4in double 6eopard# are the follo1in : FaG there is a valid co'plaint or infor'ation< FbG it is filed before a co'petent court< FcG the defendant pleaded to the char e< and FdG the defendant 1as ac5uitted or convicted, or the case a ainst hi' or her 1as dis'issed or other1ise ter'inated 1ithout the defendantHs express consent.C2-C2. As 1e have reiterated in People v. Court of Appeals an *alicia, "-a. verdict of ac5uittal is i''ediatel# final and a reexa'ination of the 'erits of such ac5uittal, even in the appellate courts, 1ill put the accused in 6eopard# for the sa'e offense. The finalit#-of-ac5uittal doctrine has several avo1ed purposes. Pri'aril#, it prevents the 9tate fro' usin its cri'inal processes as an instru'ent of harass'ent to 1ear out the accused b# a 'ultitude of cases 1ith accu'ulated trials. It also serves the
73

This principle is founded upon the la1 of reason, 6ustice and

conscience.C)-C). It is e'bodied in the civil la1 'axi' non bis in i em found in the co''on la1 of Dn land and undoubtedl# in ever# s#ste' of 6urisprudence. C(-C(. It found expression in the 9panish !a1, in the Constitution of the ;nited 9tates, and in our o1n Constitution as one of the funda'ental ri hts of the citi,en,C3-C3. viz: Article III & =ill of Ri hts 9ection 3(. >o person shall be t1ice put in 6eopard# of punish'ent for the sa'e offense. If an act is punished b# a la1 and an
68

69

70

71

74

72

75

additional purpose of precludin the 9tate, follo1in an ac5uittal, fro' successivel# retr#in the defendant in the hope of securin a conviction. And finall#, it prevents the 9tate, follo1in conviction, fro' retr#in the defendant a ain in the hope of securin a reater penalt#.$CA-CA. :e further stressed that "an ac5uitted defendant is entitled to the ri ht of repose as a direct conse5uence of the finalit# of his ac5uittal.$CC-CC. This prohibition, ho1ever, is not absolute. The state 'a# challen e the lo1er courtHs ac5uittal of the accused or the i'position of a lo1er penalt# on the latter in the follo1in process< reco ni,ed exceptions: F(G 1here the prosecution is deprived of a fair
CE-CE.

deprive the court of its ver# po1er to dispense 6ustice.E7-E7. In such an event, the accused cannot be considered to be at ris4 of double 6eopard#.E8-E8. The 9olicitor 0eneral filed a Rule A2 Petition for Certiorari, 1hich see4s the reversal of F(G the ac5uittal of %ictorino et al. and F3G the conviction of Tecson et al. for the lesser cri'e of sli ht ph#sical in6uries, both on the basis of a 'isappreciation of facts and evidence. Accordin to the Petition, "the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accordance 1ith la1 because private co'plainant and petitioner 1ere denied due process of la1 1hen the public respondent co'pletel# i nored the aG Position Paper x x x bG the Motion for Partial Reconsideration x x x and cG the petitionerHs Co''ent x x x.$E2-E2. Alle edl#, the CA i nored evidence 1hen it adopted the theor# of individual responsibilit#< set aside the findin of conspirac# b# the trial court< and failed to appl# Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. EA-EA. The 9olicitor 0eneral also

opportunit# to prosecute and prove its case, tanta'ount to a deprivation of due F3G 1here there is a findin of 'istrial<
E)-E). C+-C+.

or F7G 1here there has been a

rave abuse of discretion.

The third instance refers to this CourtHs 6udicial po1er under Rule A2 to deter'ine 1hether or not there has been a rave abuse of discretion a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction on the part of an# branch or instru'entalit# of the overn'ent.E(-E(. @ere, the part# as4in for the revie1 'ust sho1 the presence of a 1hi'sical or capricious exercise of 6ud 'ent e5uivalent to lac4 of 6urisdiction< a patent and ross abuse of discretion a'ountin to an evasion of a positive dut# or to a virtual refusal to perfor' a dut# i'posed b# la1 or to act in conte'plation of la1< an exercise of po1er in an arbitrar# and despotic 'anner b# reason of passion and hostilit#<
E3-E3.

assails the findin that the ph#sical blo1s 1ere inflicted onl# b# /i,on and %illareal, as 1ell as the appreciation of !enn# %illaHs consent to ha,in .EC-EC. In our vie1, 1hat the Petition see4s is that 1e reexa'ine, reassess, and re1ei h the probative value of the evidence presented b# the parties.EE-EE. In People v. +a&uiling, 1e held that rave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court si'pl# because it alle edl# 'isappreciated the facts and the evidence. E+-E+. Mere errors of 6ud 'ent are correctible b# an appeal or a petition for revie1 under Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, and not b# an application for a 1rit of certiorari.+)-+). Therefore,

or a blatant abuse of authorit# to a point so rave and so severe as to

83

76

84

77

85

78

86

79

87

80

88

81

89

82

90

pursuant to the rule on double 6eopard#, 1e are constrained to den# the Petition contra %ictorino et al. & the (+ ac5uitted fraternit# 'e'bers. :e, ho1ever, 'odif# the assailed 6ud 'ent as re ards Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu in6uries. Indeed, 1e have ruled in a line of cases that the rule on double 6eopard# si'ilarl# applies 1hen the state see4s the i'position of a hi her penalt# a ainst the accused.+(-+(. :e have also reco ni,ed, ho1ever, that certiorari 'a# be used to correct an abusive 6ud 'ent upon a clear de'onstration that the lo1er court blatantl# abused its authorit# to a point so rave as to deprive it of its ver# po1er to dispense 6ustice.+3-+3. The present case is one of those instances of rave abuse of discretion. In i'posin the penalt# of sli ht ph#sical in6uries on Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu , the CA reasoned thus: =ased on the 'edical findin s, it 1ould appear that </t6 t6e eC10u,/o# o5 t6e 5"t"0 <ou#$, /#50/1te$ 74 t6e "11u,e$ D/=o# "#$ V/00"re"0, the /#;ur/e, ,u,t"/#e$ 74 t6e 8/1t/m ", " re,u0t o5 t6e p64,/1"0 pu#/,6me#t 6e"pe$ o# 6/m <ere ,er/ou, /# #"ture. @o1ever, 74 re",o# o5 t6e $e"t6 o5 t6e 8/1t/m , there can be #o pre1/,e me"#, to $eterm/#e t6e $ur"t/o# o5 t6e /#1"p"1/t4 or t6e me$/1"0 "tte#$"#1e re:u/re$ . To do so, at this sta e 1ould be 'erel# speculative. In a prosecution for this cri'e 1here the cate or# of the offense and the severit# of the penalt# depend on the period of illness or incapacit# for labor, the len th of this period 'ust li4e1ise be proved be#ond reasonable doubt in 'uch the sa'e 'anner as the sa'e act char ed -People v. Codilla, CA-0.R. >o. 8)C+-R, ?une 3A, (+2).. And <6e# proo5 o5 t6e ,"/$ per/o$ /, "7,e#t, t6e 1r/me 1omm/tte$ ,6ou0$ 7e $eeme$ o#04 ", ,0/36t p64,/1"0 /#;ur/e, -People v. /e los 9antos, CA, 2+ O.0. 87+7, citin People v. Penesa, E( Phil. 7+E.. As such, this Court is constrained to rule that the in6uries inflicted b# the appellants, Tecson, A'a, Al'eda and =antu , ?r., are onl# sli ht and not serious, in nature.+7-+7. FD'phasis supplied and citations includedG
91

The appellate court relied on our rulin in People v. Penesa+8-+8. in findin that the four accused should be held uilt# onl# of sli ht ph#sical in6uries. Accordin to the CA, because of "the death of the victi', there can be no precise 'eans to deter'ine the duration of the incapacit# or 'edical attendance re5uired.$ +2-+2. The reliance on Penesa 1as utterl# 'isplaced. A revie1 of that case 1ould reveal that the accused therein 1as uilt# 'erel# of sli ht ph#sical in6uries, because the victi'Hs in6uries neither caused incapacit# for labor nor re5uired 'edical attendance.+A-+A. *urther'ore, he did not die.+C-+C. @is in6uries 1ere not even serious.+E-+E. 9ince Penesa involved a case in 1hich the victi' alle edl# suffered ph#sical in6uries and not death, the rulin cited b# the CA 1as patentl# inapplicable. On the contrar#, the CAHs ulti'ate conclusion that Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu 1ere liable 'erel# for sli ht ph#sical in6uries rossl# contradicts its o1n findin s of fact. Accordin to the court, the four accused "1ere found to have /#50/1te$ more t6"# t6e u,u"0 pu#/,6me#t underta4en durin person of %illa.$
++-++.

& the four fraternit# 'e'bers convicted of sli ht ph#sical

such initiation rites on the

It then adopted the >=I 'edico-le al officerHs findin s that the that the CA found that the

antecedent cause of !enn# %illaHs death 1as the "'ultiple trau'atic in6uries$ he suffered fro' the initiation rites.())-()). Considerin "p64,/1"0 pu#/,6me#t 6e"pe$ o# ELe##4 V/00" <",F ,er/ou, /# #"ture,$()(-()(. it 1as patentl# erroneous for the court to li'it the cri'inal liabilit# to sli ht ph#sical in6uries, 1hich is a li ht felon#.

94

95

96

97

98

99

92

100

93

101

Article 8F(G of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the perpetrator shall be liable for the conse5uences of an act, even if its result is different fro' that intended. Thus, once a person is found to have co''itted an initial felonious act, such as the unla1ful infliction of ph#sical in6uries that results in the death of the victi', courts are re5uired to auto'aticall# appl# the le al fra'e1or4 overnin the destruction of life. This rule is 'andator#, and not sub6ect to discretion. The CAHs application of the le al fra'e1or4 overnin ph#sical in6uries &

Accordin to the trial court, althou h ha,in 1as not Fat the ti'eG punishable as a cri'e, the intentional infliction of ph#sical in6uries on %illa 1as nonetheless a felonious act under Articles 3A7 to 3AA of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in rulin a ainst the accused, the court a &uo found that pursuant to Article 8F(G of the Revised Penal Code, the accused fraternit# 'e'bers 1ere uilt# of ho'icide, as it 1as the direct, natural and lo ical conse5uence of the ph#sical in6uries the# had intentionall# inflicted.()8-()8.

punished under Articles 3A3 to 3AA for intentional felonies and Article 7A2 for culpable felonies & is therefore tanta'ount to a 1hi'sical, capricious, and abusive exercise of 6ud 'ent a'ountin to lac4 of 6urisdiction. Accordin to the Revised Penal Code, the 'andator# and le all# i'posable penalt# in case the victi' dies should be based on the fra'e1or4 overnin the destruction of the life of a person, punished under Articles 38A to 3A( for intentional felonies and Article 7A2 for culpable felonies, and not under the afore'entioned provisions. :e e'phasi,e that these t1o t#pes of felonies are distinct fro' and le all# inconsistent 1ith each other, in that the accused cannot be held cri'inall# liable for ph#sical in6uries 1hen actual death occurs.()3-()3. Attributin cri'inal liabilit# solel# to %illareal and /i,on & as if onl# their acts, in and of the'selves, caused the death of !enn# %illa & is contrar# to the CAHs o1n findin s. *ro' proof that the death of the victi' 1as the cu'ulative effect of the 'ultiple in6uries he suffered,
()7-()7.

The CA 'odified the trial courtHs findin of cri'inal liabilit#. It ruled that there could have been no conspirac# since the neoph#tes, includin !enn# %illa, had 4no1in l# consented to the conduct of ha,in durin their initiation rites. The accused fraternit# 'e'bers, therefore, 1ere liable onl# for the conse5uences of their individual acts. Accordin l#, (+ of the accused & %ictorino et al. & 1ere ac5uitted< 8 of the' & Tecson et al. & 1ere found uilt# of sli ht ph#sical in6uries< and the re'ainin 3 & /i,on and %illareal & 1ere found uilt# of ho'icide. The issue at hand does not concern a t#pical cri'inal case 1herein the perpetrator clearl# co''its a felon# in order to ta4e reven e upon, to ain advanta e over, to har' 'aliciousl#, or to et even 1ith, the victi'. Rather, the case involves an e! ante situation in 1hich a 'an & driven b# his o1n desire to 6oin a societ# of 'en & pled ed to o throu h ph#sicall# and ps#cholo icall# strenuous ad'ission rituals, 6ust so he could enter the fraternit#. Thus, in order to understand ho1 our cri'inal la1s appl# to such situation absent the Anti-@a,in !a1, 1e dee' it necessar# to 'a4e a brief exposition on the underl#in concepts shapin intentional felonies, as 1ell as on the nature of ph#sical and ps#cholo ical initiations 1idel# 4no1n as ha,in . I#te#t/o#"0 Fe0o#4 "#$ Co#,p/r"14 Our Revised Penal Code belon s to the classical school of thou ht.()2-()2. The classical theor# posits that a hu'an person is essentiall# a 'oral creature 1ith an absolute free 1ill to choose bet1een ood and evil. ()A-()A. It asserts that one should
104

the onl# lo ical conclusion is that cri'inal

responsibilit# should redound to all those 1ho have been proven to have directl# participated in the infliction of ph#sical in6uries on !enn#. The accu'ulation of bruisin on his bod# caused hi' to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordin l#, 1e find that the CA co''itted rave abuse of discretion a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction in ive due findin Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu cri'inall# liable for sli ht ph#sical in6uries. As an allo1able exception to the rule on double 6eopard#, 1e therefore course to the Petition in 0.R. >o. (28+28. Re,o0ut/o# o# U0t/m"te F/#$/#3,

102

105

103

106

onl# be ad6ud ed or held accountable for 1ron ful acts so lon as free 1ill appears uni'paired.
()C-()C.

The ele'ent of intent & on 1hich this Court shall focus & is described as the state of 'ind acco'pan#in an act, especiall# a forbidden act. ((E-((E. It refers to the purpose of the 'ind and the resolve 1ith 1hich a person proceeds. ((+-((+. It does not refer to 'ere ,ill, for the latter pertains to the act, 1hile intent concerns the result of the act.(3)-(3). :hile 'otive is the "'ovin result.
(3(-(3(.

The basic postulate of the classical penal s#ste' is that hu'ans are

rational and calculatin bein s 1ho uide their actions 1ith reference to the principles of pleasure and pain.()E-()E. The# refrain fro' cri'inal acts if threatened 1ith punish'ent sufficient to cancel the hope of possible ain or advanta e in co''ittin the cri'e.
()+-()+.

po1er$ that i'pels one to action for a a particular 'eans to produce the

@ere, cri'inal liabilit# is thus based on the free 1ill and 'oral bla'e The identit# of mens rea & defined as a uilt# 'ind, a
(((-(((.

definite result, intent is the "purpose$ of usin

of the actor.

(()-(().

uilt# or

On the other hand, the ter' "felonious$ 'eans, inter alia, 'alicious,

1ron ful purpose or cri'inal intent & is the predo'inant consideration.

Thus, it is
((7-((7.

villainous, andNor proceedin fro' an evil heart or purpose. (33-(33. :ith these ele'ents ta4en to ether, the re5uire'ent of intent in intentional felon# 'ust refer to 'alicious intent, 1hich is a vicious and 'alevolent state of 'ind acco'pan#in a forbidden act. 9tated other1ise, intentional felon# re5uires the existence of olus malus & that the act or o'ission be done "1illfull#,$ "'aliciousl#,$ "1ith deliberate evil intent,$ and "1ith 'alice aforethou ht.$(37-(37. The 'axi' is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea & a cri'e is not co''itted if the 'ind of the person perfor'in the act co'plained of is innocent.(38-(38. As is re5uired of the other ele'ents of a felon#, the existence of 'alicious intent 'ust be proven be#ond reasonable doubt.(32-(32. In turn, the existence of 'alicious intent is necessar# in order for conspirac#

not enou h to do 1hat the la1 prohibits. ((3-((3. In order for an intentional felon# to exist, it is necessar# that the act be co''itted b# 'eans of olo or "'alice.$ The ter' " olo$ or "'alice$ is a co'plex idea involvin

the ele'ents of
((2-((2.

free om, intelligence, and intent.((8-((8. The first ele'ent, free om, refers to an act done 1ith deliberation and 1ith po1er to choose bet1een t1o thin s. The The second ele'ent, intelligence, concerns the abilit# to deter'ine the 'oralit# of hu'an acts, as 1ell as the capacit# to distin uish bet1een a licit and an illicit act. last ele'ent, intent, involves an ai' or a deter'ination to do a certain act.
((A-((A. ((C-((C.

107

to attach. Article E of the Revised Penal Code & 1hich provides that "conspirac# exists 1hen t1o or 'ore persons 1ome to "# "3reeme#t concernin the to an 1omm/,,/o# o5 " 5e0o#4 and decide to co''it it$ & is to be interpreted to refer onl# to felonies co''itted b# 'eans of
118

108

109

olo or 'alice. The phrase "co'in

a ree'ent$ connotes the existence of a prefaced "intent$ to cause in6ur# to another,

110

111

119

112

120

113

121

114

122

115

123

116

124

117

125

an ele'ent present onl# in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or cri'inal ne li ence, the in6ur# inflicted on another is unintentional, the 1ron done bein H"=/#3 "#$ ot6er 5orm, o5 /#/t/"t/o# r/te, The notion of ha,in is not a recent develop'ent in our societ#. (72-(72. It is said that, throu hout histor#, ha,in in so'e for' or another has been associated 1ith or ani,ations ran in fro' 'ilitar# roups to indi enous tribes.(7A-(7A. 9o'e sa# that ele'ents of ha,in can be traced bac4 to the Middle A es, durin 1hich ne1 students 0reece, 1ho enrolled
(7C-(7C.

si'pl# the result of an act perfor'ed 1ithout 'alice or cri'inal desi n. (3A-(3A. @ere, a person perfor's an initial la1ful deed< ho1ever, due to ne li ence, i'prudence, lac4 of foresi ht, or lac4 of s4ill, the deed results in a 1ron ful act.(3C-(3C. %eril#, a deliberate intent to do an unla1ful act, 1hich is a re5uisite in conspirac#, is inconsistent 1ith the idea of a felon# co''itted b# 'eans of culpa.(3E-(3E. The presence of an initial 'alicious intent to co''it a felon# is thus a vital in redient in establishin the co''ission of the intentional felon# of ho'icide.(3+-(3+. =ein mala in se, the felon# of ho'icide re5uires the existence of 'alice or olo(7)-(7). i''ediatel# before or si'ultaneousl# 1ith the infliction of in6uries.
(7(-(7(.

in

Duropean

universities

1or4ed

as

servants

for

upperclass'en.
(7E-(7E.

It is believed that the concept of ha,in

is rooted in ancient

1here #oun 'en recruited into the 'ilitar# 1ere tested 1ith pain or

Intent to 4ill &

challen ed to de'onstrate the li'its of their lo#alt# and to prepare the recruits for battle.(7+-(7+. Modern fraternities and sororities espouse so'e connection to these values of ancient 0ree4 civili,ation. (8)-(8). Accordin to a scholar, this concept lends historical le iti'ac# to a "tradition$ or "ritual$ 1hereb# prospective 'e'bers are as4ed to prove their 1orthiness and lo#alt# to the or ani,ation in 1hich the# see4 to attain 'e'bership throu h ha,in .(8(-(8(. Thus, it is said that in the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste', custo' re5uires a student 1ishin to 6oin an or ani,ation to receive an invitation in order to be a neoph#te for a particular chapter.(83-(83. The neoph#te period is usuall# one to t1o se'esters lon . (87

or animus interficen i & cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof be#ond reasonable doubt of such intent.(73-(73. *urther'ore, the victi'Hs death 'ust not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide. (77-(77. If death resulted fro' an act executed 1ithout 'alice or cri'inal intent & but 1ith lac4 of foresi ht, carelessness, or ne li ence & the act 'ust be 5ualified as rec4less or si'ple ne li ence or i'prudence resultin in ho'icide.(78-(78.

126

135

127

136

128

137

129

138

130

139

131

140

132

141

133

142

134

143

-(87.

/urin the "pro ra',$ neoph#tes are re5uired to intervie1 and to et to 4no1 the

Catholic Church.(2(-(2(. The -atipunanHs ideolo # 1as brou ht ho'e to each 'e'ber throu h the societ#Hs initiation ritual.(23-(23. It is said that initiates 1ere brou ht to a dar4 roo', lit b# a sin le point of illu'ination, and 1ere as4ed a series of 5uestions to deter'ine their fitness, lo#alt#, coura e, and resolve. (27-(27. The# 1ere 'ade to o throu h vi orous trials such as " pagsuot sa isang lungga$ or "-pagtalon. sa balon.$(28-(28. It 1ould see' that the# 1ere also 'ade to 1ithstand the blo1 of "pangherong ba.al sa pisngi$ and to endure a "matalas na punyal.$(22-(22. As a final step in the ritual, the neoph#te -atipunero 1as 'ade to si n 'e'bership papers 1ith the his o1n blood.(2A-(2A. It is believed that the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste' 1as transported b# the A'ericans to the Philippines in the late (+ th centur#. As can be seen in the follo1in instances, the 'anner of ha,in in the ;nited 9tates 1as 6arrin l# si'ilar to that inflicted b# the A5uila *raternit# on !enn# %illa. Darl# in (EA2, upperclass'en at :est Point Acade'# forced the fourth class'en to do exhaustin ph#sical exercises that so'eti'es resulted in per'anent ph#sical da'a e< to eat or drin4 unpalatable foods< and in various 1a#s to hu'iliate the'selves.(2C-(2C. In (+)(, 0eneral /ou las MacArthur Point.(2E-(2E. ot involved in a

active 'e'bers of the chapter< to learn chapter histor#< to understand the principles of the or ani,ation< to 'aintain a specified rade point avera e< to participate in the or ani,ationHs activities< and to sho1 di nit# and respect for their fello1 neoph#tes, the or ani,ation, and its active and alu'ni 'e'bers. initiation activities for a recruit to involve ha,in sta e.(82-(82. @a,in , as co''onl# understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that serves as prere5uisite for ad'ission to an or ani,ation. or ani,ation 'a# refer to such a person & is hu'iliatin situations, li4e bein
(8C-(8C. (8A-(8A. (88-(88.

9o'e chapters re5uire the the entire neoph#te

acts durin

In ha,in , the "recruit,$ or

"pled e,$ "neoph#te,$ "initiate,$ "applicant$ & or an# other ter' b# 1hich the enerall# placed in e'barrassin forced to do 'enial, sill#, foolish, or other si'ilar

tas4s or activities.

It enco'passes different for's of conduct that hu'iliate,

de rade, abuse, or ph#sicall# endan er those 1ho desire 'e'bership in the or ani,ation.(8E-(8E. These acts usuall# involve ph#sical or ps#cholo ical sufferin or in6ur#.(8+-(8+. The concept of initiation rites in the countr# is nothin ne1. In fact, 'ore than a centur# a o, our national hero & Andres =onifacio & or ani,ed a secret societ# na'ed -ataastaasan -agalanggalangang -atipunan ng mga Ana. ng #ayan FThe @i hest and Most %enerable Association of the 9ons and /au hters of the >ationG. (2)
-(2).

con ressional investi ation of ha,in at the acade'# durin his second #ear at :est

The -atipunan, or III, started as a s'all confraternit# believed to be inspired b#

151

Duropean *ree'asonr#, as 1ell as b# confraternities or sodalities approved b# the

144

152

145

153

146

154

147

155

148

156

149

157

150

158

In Easler v. /e)az 0emple of *reenville, decided in (+E2, the candidatevicti' 1as in6ured durin the shrinerHs ha,in event, 1hich 1as part of the initiation cere'onies for @e6a, 'e'bership. "'attress-rotatin barrel tric4.$
(A)-(A). (2+-(2+.

round.(AA-(AA. The fraternit# 'e'bers then put the pled es throu h a seven-station circle of ph#sical abuse.(AC-(AC. In E! Parte #arran, decided in (++E, the pled e-victi' 1ent throu h ha,in b# fraternit# 'e'bers of the Iappa Alpha Order at the Auburn ;niversit# in Alaba'a.(AE-(AE. The ha,in included the follo1in : F(G havin to di a ditch and 6u'p into it after it had been filled 1ith 1ater, urine, feces, dinner leftovers, and vo'it< F3G receivin paddlin s on the buttoc4s< F7G bein pushed and 4ic4ed, often onto 1alls or into pits and trash cans< F8G eatin foods li4e peppers, hot sauce, butter, and "#er4s$ Fa 'ixture of hot sauce, 'a#onnaise, butter, beans, and other ite'sG< F2G doin chores for the fraternit# and its 'e'bers, such as cleanin the fraternit# house and #ard, bein desi nated as driver, and runnin errands< FAG appearin re ularl# at 3 a.'. "'eetin s,$ durin 1hich the pled es 1ould be ha,ed for a couple of hours< and FCG "runnin the auntlet,$ durin 1hich the pled es 1ere pushed, 4ic4ed, and hit as the# ran do1n a hall1a# and descended do1n a fli ht of stairs.(A+-(A+.

The ritual involved 1hat 1as 4no1n as the to a barrel, over

It re5uired each candidate to slide do1n an ei ht

to nine-foot-hi h 'etal board onto connected 'attresses leadin

1hich the candidate 1as re5uired to cli'b.(A(-(A(. Me'bers of @e6a, 1ould stand on each side of the 'attresses and barrel and fun-paddle candidates en route to the barrel.(A3-(A3. In a video foota e ta4en in (++(, ;.9. Marine paratroopers in Ca'p !e6eune, >orth Carolina, 1ere seen perfor'in victi's 1ere sho1n 1rithin and cr#in a cere'on# in 1hich the# pinned paratrooper 6u'p 1in s directl# onto the neoph#te paratroopersH chests. (A7-(A7. The out in pain as others pounded the spi4ed
(A8-(A8.

'edals throu h the shirts and into the chests of the victi's.

In "tate v. Allen, decided in (++2, the 9outheast Missouri 9tate ;niversit# chapter of Iappa Alpha Psi invited 'ale students to enter into a pled eship pro ra'.
(A2-(A2.

In 1loy

v. Alpha Phi Alpha 'raternity , decided in (+++, the victi' &

The fraternit# 'e'bers sub6ected the pled es to repeated ph#sical

9#lvester !lo#d & 1as accepted to pled e at the Cornell ;niversit# chapter of the Alpha Phi Alpha *raternit#.(C)-(C). @e participated in initiation activities, 1hich included various for's of ph#sical beatin s and torture, ps#cholo ical coercion and e'barrass'ent.(C(-(C(. In -enner v. -appa Alpha Psi 'raternity, decided in 3))3, the initiate-victi' suffered in6uries fro' ha,in activities durin the fraternit#Hs initiation rites. (C3-(C3.

abuse includin repeated, open-hand stri4es at the nape, the chest, and the bac4< canin of the bare soles of the feet and buttoc4s< blo1s to the bac4 1ith the use of a heav# boo4 and a coo4ie sheet 1hile the pled es 1ere on their hands and 4nees< various 4ic4s and punches to the bod#< and "bod# sla''in ,$ an activit# in 1hich active 'e'bers of the fraternit# lifted pled es up in the air and dropped the' to the

159

166

160

167

161

168

162

169

163

170

164

171

165

172

Ienner and the other initiates 1ent throu h ps#cholo ical and ph#sical ha,in , includin bein paddled on the buttoc4s for 'ore than 3)) ti'es.
(C7-(C7.

opportunities< and the esprit 2corp associated 1ith close, al'ost filial, friendship and co''on cause.(E3-(E3.

In +orton v. "tate, Marcus ?ones & a universit# student in *lorida & sou ht initiation into the ca'pus chapter of the Iappa Alpha Psi *raternit# durin the 3))2)A acade'ic #ear.(C8-(C8. The pled eHs efforts to 6oin the fraternit# cul'inated in a series of initiation rituals conducted in four ni hts. ?ones, to ether 1ith other candidates, 1as blindfolded, verball# harassed, and caned on his face and buttoc4s.(C2-(C2. In these rituals described as "preli'inaries,$ 1hich lasted for t1o evenin s, he received approxi'atel# A) canin s on his buttoc4s. (CA-(CA. /urin the last t1o da#s of the ha,in , the rituals intensified. (CC-(CC. The pled es sustained rou hl# 3() cane stri4es durin the four-ni ht initiation.(CE-(CE. ?ones and several other candidates passed out.(C+-(C+. The purported raison 23tre behind ha,in practices is the proverbial "birth b# fire,$ throu h 1hich the pled e 1ho has successfull# 1ithstood the ha,in proves his or her 1orth.(E)-(E). 9o'e or ani,ations even believe that ha,in a'on is the path to enli hten'ent. It is said that this process enables the or ani,ation to establish unit# the pled es and, hence, reinforces and ensures the future of the include leadership opportunities< or ani,ation.(E(-(E(. Alle ed benefits of 6oinin A#t/9H"=/#3 0"<, /# t6e U.S. The first ha,in statute in the ;.9. appeared in (EC8 in response to ha,in in the 'ilitar#.(E7-(E7. The ha,in of recruits and plebes in the ar'ed services 1as so la1, cri'inali,in prevalent that Con ress prohibited all for's of 'ilitar# ha,in , har'ful or not. (E8-(E8. It 1as not until (+)( that Illinois passed the first state anti-ha,in conduct "1hereb# an# one sustains an in6ur# to his -or her. person therefro'.$(E2-(E2. @o1ever, it 1as not until the (+E)s and (++)s, due in lar e part to the efforts of the Committee to /alt 4seless College -illings and other si'ilar or ani,ations, that states increasin l# be an to enact le islation prohibitin cri'inali,in ha,in .
(EA-(EA.

andNor

As of 3))E, all but six states had enacted cri'inal or civil

statutes proscribin ha,in .(EC-(EC. Most anti-ha,in la1s in the ;.9. treat ha,in as a 'isde'eanor and carr# relativel# li ht conse5uences for even the 'ost severe situations.(EE-(EE. Onl# a fe1 states 1ith anti-ha,in la1s consider ha,in as a felon# in case death or reat bodil# har' occurs.(E+-(E+. ;nder the la1s of Illinois, ha,in is a Class A 'isde'eanor, except ha,in
182

i'proved acade'ic perfor'ance< hi her self-estee'< professional net1or4in

173

174

175

183

176

184

177

185

178

186

179

187

180

188

181

189

that results in death or reat bodil# har', 1hich is a Class 8 felon#. (+)-(+). In a Class 8 felon#, a sentence of i'prison'ent shall be for a ter' of not less than one #ear and not 'ore than three #ears.
(+(-(+(.

de ree felon#.3))-3)). A person 1ho has been convicted of a third-de ree felon# 'a# be sentenced to i'prison'ent for a ter' not to exceed five #ears. 3)(-3)(. :est %ir inia la1 provides that if the act of ha,in 1ould other1ise be dee'ed a felon#, the ha,er 'a# be found another.
3)7-3)7.

Indiana cri'inal la1 provides that a person 1ho

rec4lessl#, 4no1in l#, or intentionall# perfor's ha,in that results in serious bodil# in6ur# to a person co''its cri'inal rec4lessness, a Class / felon#.(+3-(+3. The offense beco'es a Class C felon# if co''itted b# 'eans of a deadl# 1eapon.
(+7-(+7.

uilt# thereof and sub6ect to penalties provided therefor.3)3-3)3. In uilt# of a Class 0 felon# if ha,in results in the death of

:isconsin, a person is

A Class 0 felon# carries a fine not to exceed O32,))) or i'prison'ent

not to exceed () #ears, or both.3)8-3)8. In certain states in the ;.9., victi's of ha,in 1ere left 1ith li'ited re'edies, as there 1as no ha,in statute.3)2-3)2. This situation 1as exe'plified in #allou v. statute in 9outh Carolina until "igma Nu *eneral 'raternity, 1herein =arr# =allouHs fa'il# resorted to a civil action for 1ron ful death, since there 1as no anti-ha,in (++8.
3)A-3)A.

As an ele'ent of a Class C felon# & cri'inal rec4lessness & resultin in

serious bodil# in6ur#, death falls under the cate or# of "serious bodil# in6ur#.$ (+8-(+8. A person 1ho co''its a Class C felon# is i'prisoned for a fixed ter' of bet1een t1o F3G and ei ht FEG #ears, 1ith the advisor# sentence bein four F8G #ears. (+2-(+2. Pursuant to Missouri la1, ha,in is a Class A 'isde'eanor, unless the act creates a
(+A-(+A.

substantial ris4 to the life of the student or prospective 'e'ber, in 1hich case it beco'es a Class C felon#. not to exceed seven #ears. A Class C felon# provides for an i'prison'ent ter'
(+C-(+C.

T6e eC/,te#1e o5 animus interficendi or /#te#t to B/00 #ot pro8e# 7e4o#$ re",o#"70e $ou7t The presence of an e! ante situation & in this case, fraternit# initiation rites & does not auto'aticall# a'ount to the absence of 'alicious intent or olus malus. If it is proven be#ond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators 1ere e5uipped 1ith a uilt# 'ind & 1hether or not there is a contextual bac4 round or factual pre'ise & the# are still cri'inall# liable for intentional felon#.

In Texas, ha,in that causes the death of another is a state 6ail felon#. (+E-(+E. An individual ad6ud ed uilt# of a state 6ail felon# is punished b# confine'ent in a state 6ail for an# ter' of not 'ore than t1o #ears or not less than (E) da#s.
190
(++-(++.

;nder ;tah la1, if ha,in results in serious bodil# in6ur#, the ha,er is uilt# of a third-

191

192

193

200

194

201

195

202

196

203

197

204

198

205

199

206

The trial court, the CA, and the 9olicitor 0eneral are all in a ree'ent that & 1ith the exception of %illareal and /i,on & accused Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu did not have the animus interficen i or intent to 4ill !enn# %illa or the other neoph#tes. :e shall no lon er disturb this findin . As re ards %illareal and /i,on, the CA 'odified the /ecision of the trial court and found that the t1o accused had the animus interficen i or intent to 4ill !enn# %illa, not 'erel# to inflict ph#sical in6uries on hi'. It 6ustified its findin of ho'icide a ainst /i,on b# holdin that he had apparentl# been 'otivated b# ill 1ill 1hile beatin up %illa. /i,on 4ept repeatin that his fatherHs par4in space had been stolen b# the victi'Hs father.3)C-3)C. As to %illareal, the court said that the accused suspected the fa'il# of =ienvenido Mar5ue,, one of the neoph#tes, to have had a hand in the death of %illarealHs brother.
3)E-3)E.

xxx :itness

xxx

xxx

:e 1ere escorted out of -Michael Musn iHs. house and 1e 1ere 'ade to ride a van and 1e 1ere brou ht to another place in Ialoo4an Cit# 1hich I later found to be the place of Mariano Al'eda, sir. xxx xxx

xxx :itness

;pon arrival, 1e 1ere instructed to bo1 our head do1n and to lin4 our ar's and then the driver of the van and other 'e'bers of the A5uilans 1ho 1ere inside left us inside the van, sir. xxx xxx

xxx :itness

The CA then ruled as follo1s:

The t<o 6"$ t6e/r o<# "Ce, to 3r/#$ "3"/#,t V/00" "#$ M"r:ue= . It 1as ver# clear that the# acted 1ith evil and cri'inal intent. The evidence on this 'atter is unrebutted and so for the death of %illa, "ppe00"#t, D/=o# "#$ V/00"re"0 mu,t "#$ ,6ou0$ 5"1e t6e 1o#,e:ue#1e o5 t6e/r "1t,, t6"t /,, to 7e 6e0$ 0/"70e 5or t6e 1r/me o5 6om/1/$e.3)+-3)+. FD'phasis suppliedG :e cannot subscribe to this conclusion. The appellate court relied 'ainl# on the testi'on# of =ienvenido Mar5ue, to deter'ine the existence of animus interficen i. *or a full appreciation of the context in 1hich the supposed utterances 1ere 'ade, the Court dee's it necessar# to reproduce the relevant portions of 1itness Mar5ue,Hs testi'on#:

Ge 6e"r$ 8o/1e, ,6oute$ out,/$e t6e 8"# to t6e e55e1t, HV/00" "B/# B",I HA,u#1/o# P"t"4 B"I "#$ t6e peop0e out,/$e pou#$ t6e 8"#, ro1B t6e 8"#, ,/r. :ill #ou please recall in 1hat tone of voice and ho1 stron a voice these re'ar4s uttered upon #our arrivalP 9o'e 1ere al'ost shoutin , #ou could feel the sense of excite'ent in their voices, sir. xxx xxx

Att#. Tadiar

:itness xxx Att#. Tadiar

/urin all these ti'es that the van 1as bein roc4ed throu h and throu h, 1hat 1ere the voices or utterances that #ou heardP HV/00" "B/# B",I HA,u#1/o# p"t"4 B",I HRe1/#to p"t"4 B" ," "m/#,I et1., ,/r. And those utterances and threats, ho1 lon did the# continue durin the roc4in of the van 1hich lasted for 2 'inutesP xxx xxx

:itness :itness :e 1ere brou ht up into -Michael Musn iHs. roo' and 1e 1ere briefed as to 1hat to expect durin the next three da#s and 1e 1ere told the 'e'bers of the fraternit# and their batch and 1e 1ere also told about the fraternit# son , sir. Att#. Tadiar

xxx :itness

207

E8e# "5ter t6e4 ro1Be$ t6e 8"#, <e ,t/00 Bept o# 6e"r/#3 8o/1e,, ,/r. xxx xxx

208

xxx Att#. Tadiar

209

/urin the ti'e that this rounds -of ph#sical beatin . 1ere bein inflicted, 1as there an#

utterances b# an#bod#P :itness Ye, ,/r. Some <ere p/er1/#3, ,ome <ere $/,1our"3/#3, "#$ ,ome <ere e#1our"3/#3 ot6er, <6o <ere pou#$/#3 "#$ 7e"t/#3 u,, /t <", ;u,t 0/Be " 5/e,t" "tmo,p6ere, actuall# so'e of the' en6o#ed loo4in us bein pounded, sir. /o #ou recall 1hat 1ere those voices that #ou heardP One particular utterance al1a#s said 1as, the# as4ed us 1hether "'ati as pa #an, 4a#an -4a#a pa ni#an.$ /o #ou 4no1 1ho in particular uttered those particular 1ords that #ou 5uoteP I cannot particularl# point to because there 1ere utterances si'ultaneousl#, I could not reall# pin point 1ho uttered those 1ords, sir. xxx xxx

Att#. Tadiar

:hen =o#et /i,on at that particular ti'e 1as accusin #ou of havin #our fa'il# have his brother 4illed, 1hat 1as #our responseP O5 1our,e, I B#e< ,/r t6"t /t <", #ot true "#$ t6"t 6e <", ;u,t m"B/#3 /t up ,/r . 9o he said that I 4ne1 nothin of that incident. @o1ever, he 6ust in fact after the =icol Dxpress, he 4ept on utterin those 1ordsNstate'ents so that it 1ould in turn 6ustif# hi' and to ive 'e harder blo1s, sir. xxx xxx

:itness

Att#. Tadiar :itness

xxx Att#. Tadiar

Att#. Tadiar :itness

You me#t/o#e$ "7out D/=o# /# p"rt/1u0"r me#t/o#/#3 t6"t Le##4 V/00"A, 5"t6er ,to0e t6e p"rB/#3 ,p"1e "00otte$ 5or 6/, 5"t6er, $o 4ou re1"00 <6o <ere </t6/# 6e"r/#3 $/,t"#1e <6e# t6"t utter"#1e <", m"$eJ Qes, sir. All of the neoph#tes heard that utterance, sir. xxx xxx

:itness xxx :itness

xxx Att#. Tadiar :itness Att#. Tadiar

:ere there an# utterances that #ou heard durin the conduct of this =icol DxpressP Qes, sir I heard utterances.

There 1ere different ti'es 'ade this accusation so there 1ere different people 1ho heard fro' ti'e to ti'e, sir. xxx xxx

xxx :ill #ou please recall to this @onorable Court 1hat 1ere the utterances that #ou re'e'berP *or exa'ple, one person particularl# Bo4et D/=o# ,teppe$ o# m4 t6/36, 6e <ou0$ ,"4 t6"t "#$ I :uote H/to, 4u#3 p"m/04" #/to "4 p/#"p"t"4 4u#3 B"p"t/$ Bo,I so that 1ould in turn sort of 6ustif#in hi' in inflictin 'ore serious pain on 'e. 9o instead of 6ust 1al4in , he 1ould 6u'p on '# thi hs and then "5ter o# <", Le##4 V/00". He <", ,"4/#3 to t6e e55e1t t6"t Ht6/, 3u4, 6/, 5"t6er ,to0e t6e p"rB/#3 ,p"1e o5 m4 5"t6er,I sir. 9o, thatHs 1h# he inflicted 'ore pain on %illa and that 1ent on, sir. And #ou 1ere referrin accusedP Bo4et D/=o#, sir. to 1hich particular Att#. Tadiar

Can #ou tell the @onorable Court 1hen 1as the next accusation a ainst !enn# %illaHs father 1as 'adeP :hen 1e 1ere line up a ainst the 1all, Bo4et D/=o# 1"me #e"r to u, "#$ <6e# Le##4 V/00"A, tur#, I 6e"r$ 6/m uttere$ t6o,e ,t"teme#t,, ,/r. :hat happened after he 'ade accusation to !enn# %illaHs fatherP this

:itness

:itness

Att#. Tadiar :itness Att#. Tadiar :itness

@e continued to inflict blo1s on !enn# %illa. @o1 1ere those blo1s inflictedP There 1ere slaps and he 4nelt on !enn# %illaHs thi hs and so'eti'e he stand up and he 4ic4ed his thi hs and so'eti'es 6u'ped at it, sir.

Att#. Tadiar :itness

xxx Att#. Tadiar

xxx

xxx

?ud e Purisi'a :itness ?ud e Purisi'a :itness

:ho did the briefin P Mr. Michael %ictorino. Musn i, sir and >elson

:e 1ould o on to the second da# but not ri ht no1. Qou 'entioned also that "11u,"t/o#, m"$e 74 D/=o# H4ou or 4our 5"m/04 6"$ 6/, 7rot6er B/00e$,I 1"# 4ou /#5orm t6/, Ho#or"70e Court <6"t eC"1t04 <ere t6e "11u,"t/o#, t6"t <ere 16"r3e$ "3"/#,t 4ou <6/0e /#50/1t/#3 70o<, upo# 4ou /# p"rt/1u0"rJ :hile he 1as inflictin blo1s upon 'e, he told 'e in particular if I 4ne1 that his fa'il# 1ho had his brother 4illed, and he said that his brother 1as an >PA, sir so I B#e< t6"t /t <", ;u,t " ,tor4 t6"t 6e m"$e up "#$ I ,"/$ t6"t I B#e< #ot6/#3 "7out /t "#$ 6e 1o#t/#ue$ /#50/1t/#3 70o<, o# me, ,/r. And another incident 1as 1hen a tal4 1as bein iven, /i,on 1as on another part of the pelota court and I 1as sort of loo4in and 1e sa1 that he 1as drin4in beer, and he said and I 5uote: HM"r:ue=, M"r:ue=, "#o "#3 t/#/t/#3/#9t/#3/# mo $/4"#, /B"< 4u#3 p"m/04" mo "#3 #"3p"p"t"4 ," "B/#3 B"p"t/$, 4"r/ B" ," "B/#,I ,/r. :hat elseP ThatHs all, sir. And on that first ni ht of *ebruar# E, (++(, did ever a doctor or a ph#sician ca'e around as pro'ised to #ou earlierP >o, sir.3()-3(). FD'phasis suppliedG

:ill #ou 4indl# tell the @onorable Court 1hat the# told #ou to expect durin the initiationP The# told us at the ti'e 1e 1ould be brou ht to a particular place, <e <ou0$ 7e mo1Be$ "t, sir. 9o, 4ou eCpe1te$ to 7e mo1Be$ "t, r/$/1u0e$, 6um/0/"te$ et1., "#$ t6e 0/Be,J Ye,, ,/r. Qou 1ere also told beforehand that there 1ould be ph#sical contactP Qes, sir at the briefin . xxx xxx

:itness

?ud e Purisi'a :itness ?ud e Purisi'a :itness xxx :itness

Att#. Tadiar :itness Att#. Tadiar

Qes, sir, because the# infor'ed that 1e could i''ediatel# o bac4 to school. All the bruises 1ould be li'ited to our ar's and le s, sir. 9o, if 1e 1ear the re ular school unifor's li4e lon sleeves, it 1ould be covered actuall# so 1e have no thin4in that our face 1ould be slapped, sir. 9o, #ou 'ean to sa# that beforehand that #ou 1ould have bruises on #our bod# but that 1ill be coveredP Qes, sir. 9o, 1hat 4ind of ph#sical contact or i'ple'ents that #ou expect that 1ould create bruises to #our bod#P At that point I a' alread# sure that there 1ould be hittin b# a paddlin or paddle, sir. xxx xxx

?ud e Purisi'a

:itness

:itness On cross-exa'ination, 1itness =ienvenido Mar5ue, testified thus: ?ud e Purisi'a :hen #ou testified on direct exa'ination Mr. Mar5ue,, have #ou stated that there 1as a briefin that 1as conducted i''ediatel# before #our initiation as re ards to 1hat to expect durin the initiation, did I hear #ou ri htP Qes, sir. ?ud ePurisi'a

:itness xxx ?ud e Purisi'a

:itness

>o1, </00 4ou "$m/t Mr. Mar5ue, that 'uch of the /#/t/"t/o# pro1e$ure, /, p,416o0o3/1"0 /# #"tureJ

210

:itness xxx Att#. ?i'ene,

Com7/#"t/o#, sir.3((-3((. FD'phasis suppliedG :itness xxx xxx The initiation that 1as conducted did not consist onl# of ph#sical initiation, 'eanin bod# contact, is that correctP Qes, sir. :itness P"rt o5 t6e /#/t/"t/o# <", t6e ,o91"00e$ p,416o0o3/1"0 /#/t/"t/o#, 1orre1tJ Att#. ?i'ene, Ye,, ,/r. A#$ t6/, 1o#,/,te$ o5 m"B/#3 4ou 7e0/e8e o5 t6/#3, 1"01u0"te$ to terr/54 4ou, ,1"re 4ou, 1orre1tJ Ye,, ,/r. In other 1ords, the /#/t/"t/#3 m",ter, m"$e 7e0/e5 ,/tu"t/o# /#te#$e$ to, I repe"t, terr/54 4ou, 5r/36te# 4ou, ,1"re 4ou /#to per6"p, :u/tt/#3 t6e /#/t/"t/o#, /, t6/, 1orre1tJ Somet/me, ,/r, 4e,. Qou said on direct that 1hile Mr. /i,on 1as initiatin #ou, he said or he 1as supposed to have said accordin to #ou that #our fa'il# 1ere responsible for the 4illin of his brother 1ho 1as an >PA, do #ou re'e'ber sa#in thatP Qes, sir. Att#. ?i'ene, Qou also said in connection 1ith that state'ent said to #ou b# /i,on that 4ou $/$ #ot 7e0/e8e 6/m 7e1"u,e t6"t /, #ot true, 1orre1tJ Ye,, ,/r. I# ot6er <or$,, 6e <", o#04 p,416o0o3/=/#3 4ou per6"p,, t6e purpo,e ", I 6"8e me#t/o#e$ 7e5ore, terr/54/#3 4ou, ,1"r/#3 4ou or 5r/36te#/#3 4ou /#to :u/tt/#3 t6e /#/t/"t/o#, t6/, /, 1orre1tJ
212

No, ,/r, per6"p, /t /, o#e 7ut t6e m"/# re",o#, I t6/#B, <64 6e <", ,"4/#3 t6o,e t6/#3, <", 7e1"u,e 6e <"#te$ to /#50/1t /#;ur4. @e did not tell that to #ou. That is #our onl# perception, correctP >o, sir, because at one point, 1hile he 1as tellin this to %illareal, he 1as hittin 'e. =ut did #ou not sa# earlier that #ou -1ere. sub6ected to the sa'e for's of initiation b# all the initiatin 'astersP Qou said that earlier, ri htP Qes, sir. Are #ou sa#in also that the others 1ho 6u'ped on #ou or 4ic4ed #ou said so'ethin si'ilar as 1as told to #ou b# Mr. /i,onP >o, sir. =ut the fact re'ains that in the =icol Dxpress for instance, the 'asters 1ould run on #our thi hs, ri htP Qes, sir. This 1as the re ular procedure that 1as follo1ed b# the initiatin 'asters not onl# on #ou but also on the other neoph#tesP Qes, sir. I# ot6er <or$,, /t /, 5"/r to ,"4 t6"t <6"te8er 5orm, o5 /#/t/"t/o# <", "$m/#/,tere$ 74 o#e m",ter, <", "0,o "$m/#/,tere$ 74 o#e m",ter o# " #eop64te, <", "0,o "$m/#/,tere$ 74 "#ot6er m",ter o# t6e ot6er #eop64te, t6/, /, 1orre1tJ Ye,, ,/r.3(3-3(3. FD'phasis suppliedG

Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene, :itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness :itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness Att#. ?i'ene,

:itness

Accordin to the 9olicitor 0eneral hi'self, the ill 'otives attributed b# the

211

CA to /i,on and %illareal 1ere "baseless,$ 3(7-3(7. since the state'ents of the accused 1ere "6ust part of the ps#cholo ical initiation calculated to instill fear on the part of the neoph#tes$< that "-t.here is no ele'ent of truth in it as testified b# =ienvenido Mar5ue,$< and that the "harsh 1ords uttered b# Petitioner and %illareal are part of RtraditionH concurred and accepted b# all the fraternit# 'e'bers durin their initiation rites.$3(8-3(8. :e a ree 1ith the 9olicitor 0eneral. The fore oin testi'on# of 1itness Mar5ue, reveals a larin 'ista4e of

accused Mar5ue, of the death of the for'erHs purported >PA brother, and then bla'ed !enn# %illaHs father for stealin the par4in space of /i,onHs father. Accordin to the 9olicitor 0eneral, these state'ents, includin those of the accused /i,on, 1ere all part of the ps#cholo ical initiation e'plo#ed b# the A5uila *raternit#.3(A-3(A. Thus, to our understandin , accused /i,onHs 1a# of inflictin ps#cholo ical pressure 1as throu h hurlin 'a4e-believe accusations at the initiates. @e concocted the fictitious stories, so that he could "6ustif#$ ivin the neoph#tes harder blo1s, all in the context of fraternit# initiation and role pla#in . Dven one of the neoph#tes ad'itted that the accusations 1ere untrue and 'ade-up.

substantial proportion on the part of the CA & it 'istoo4 the utterances of /i,on for those of %illareal. 9uch inaccurac# cannot be tolerated, especiall# because it 1as the CAHs pri'ar# basis for findin that %illarreal had the intent to 4ill !enn# %illa, thereb# 'a4in %illareal uilt# of the intentional felon# of ho'icide. To repeat, accordin to =ienvenido Mar5ue,Hs testi'on#, as reproduced above, it 1as /i,on 1ho uttered both "accusations$ a ainst %illa and Mar5ue,< %illareal had no participation 1hatsoever in the specific threats referred to b# the CA. It 1as "=o#et /i,on -1ho. stepped on -Mar5ue,Hs. thi h$< and 1ho told 1itness Mar5ue,, "567to, yung pamilya nito ay pinapatay yung .apati .o.$ It 1as also /i,on 1ho 6u'ped on %illaHs thi hs 1hile sa#in , "-T.his u#, his father stole the par4in space of '# father.$ :ith the testi'on# clarified, 1e find that the CA had no basis for concludin the existence of intent to 4ill based solel# thereon. As to the existence of animus interficen i on the part of /i,on, 1e refer to the entire factual 'ilieu and contextual pre'ise of the incident to full# appreciate and understand the testi'on# of 1itness Mar5ue,. At the outset, the neoph#tes 1ere briefed that the# 1ould be sub6ected to ps#cholo ical pressure in order to scare the'. The# 4ne1 that the# 1ould be 'oc4ed, ridiculed, and inti'idated. The# heard fraternit# 'e'bers shout, "Patay .a, Recinto,$ "8ari .a, Recinto,$ "%illa, a.in .a,$ "Asuncion, gulpi .a,$ "Putang ina mo, Asuncion,$ "Putang ina nyo, patay .ayo sa amin,$ or so'e other 1ords to that effect. 3(2-3(2. :hile beatin the neoph#tes, /i,on
213

The infliction of ps#cholo ical pressure is not unusual in the conduct of ha,in . In fact, durin the 9enate deliberations on the then proposed Anti-@a,in !a1, for'er 9enator !ina spo4e as follo1s: 9enator !ina. -- so as to capture the intent that 1e conve#ed durin the period of interpellations on 1h# 1e included the phrase "or ps#cholo ical pain and sufferin .$ xxx xxx xxx

9o that if no direct ph#sical har' is inflicted upon the neoph#te or the recruit but the re1ru/t or #eop64te /, m"$e to u#$er3o 1ert"/# "1t, 1hich I alread# described #esterda#, li4e pla#in the Russian roulette extensivel# to te,t t6e re"$/#e,, "#$ t6e </00/#3#e,, o5 t6e #eop64te or re1ru/t to 1o#t/#ue 6/, $e,/re to 7e " mem7er o5 t6e 5r"ter#/t4, ,oror/t4 or ,/m/0"r or3"#/="t/o# or pla#in and puttin a noose on the nec4 of the neoph#te or recruit, 'a4in the recruit or neoph#te stand on the led e of the fourth floor of the buildin facin outside, as4in hi' to 6u'p outside after 'a4in hi' turn around several ti'es but the realit# is that he 1ill be 'ade to 6u'p to1ards the inside portion of the buildin & these are the me#t"0 or p,416o0o3/1"0 te,t, t6"t "re re,orte$ to 74 t6e,e or3"#/="t/o#,, ,oror/t/e, or 5r"ter#/t/e,. The doctors 1ho appeared durin the public hearin testified that such acts can result in so'e 'ental aberration, that the# can even lead to ps#chosis, neurosis or insanit#. This is 1hat 1e 1ant to prevent.3(C-3(C. FD'phasis suppliedG
216

214

215

217

Thus, 1ithout proof be#ond reasonable doubt, /i,onHs behavior 'ust not be auto'aticall# vie1ed as evidence of a enuine, evil 'otivation to 4ill !enn# %illa. Rather, it 'ust be ta4en 1ithin the context of the fraternit#Hs ps#cholo ical initiation. This Court points out that it 1as not even established 1hether the fathers of /i,on and %illa reall# had an# fa'iliarit# 1ith each other as 1ould lend credence to the veracit# of /i,onHs threats. The testi'on# of !enn#Hs co-neoph#te, Mar5ue,, onl# confir'ed this vie1. Accordin to Mar5ue,, he "4ne1 it 1as not true and that -/i,on. 1as 6ust 'a4in it upB.$
3(E-3(E.

In order to be found uilt# of an# of the felonious acts under Articles 3A3 to 3AA of the Revised Penal Code,333-333. the e'plo#'ent of ph#sical in6uries 'ust be coupled 1ith olus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of 'alicious intent is funda'ental, since in6ur# arises fro' the 'ental state of the 1ron doer & iniuria e! affectu facientis consistat. If there is no cri'inal intent, the accused cannot be found uilt# of an intentional felon#. Thus, in case of ph#sical in6uries under the Revised Penal Code, there 'ust be a specific animus iniurian i or 'alicious intention to do 1ron a ainst the ph#sical inte rit# or 1ell-bein of a person, so as to incapacitate and deprive the victi' of certain bodil# functions. :ithout proof be#ond reasonable doubt of the re5uired animus iniurian i, the overt act of inflictin ph#sical in6uries per se 'erel# satisfies the ele'ents of freedo' and intelli ence in an intentional felon#. The co''ission of the act does not, in itself, 'a4e a 'an uilt# unless his intentions are.337-337.

Dven the trial court did not

ive 1ei ht to the

utterances of /i,on as constitutin

intent to 4ill: "-T.he cu'ulative acts of all the

accused 1ere not directed to1ard 4illin %illa, but 'erel# to inflict ph#sical har' as part of the fraternit# initiation rites x x x.$ 3(+-3(+. The 9olicitor 0eneral shares the sa'e vie1.

%eril#, 1e cannot sustain the CA in findin

the accused /i,on

uilt# of

ho'icide under Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence of intent to 4ill. Animus interficen i cannot and should not be inferred unless there is proof be#ond reasonable doubt of such intent.33)-33). Instead, <e "$opt "#$ re/#,t"te t6e 5/#$/#3 o5 t6e tr/"0 1ourt /# p"rt, /#,o5"r ", /t ru0e$ t6"t #o#e o5 t6e 5r"ter#/t4 mem7er, 6"$ t6e ,pe1/5/1 /#te#t to B/00 Le##4 V/00".33(-33(. T6e eC/,te#1e o5 animus iniuriandi or m"0/1/ou, /#te#t to /#;ure #ot pro8e# 7e4o#$ re",o#"70e $ou7t The 9olicitor 0eneral ar ues, instead, that there 1as an intent to inflict ph#sical in6uries on !enn# %illa. Dchoin the /ecision of the trial court, the 9olicitor 0eneral then posits that since all of the accused fraternit# 'e'bers conspired to inflict ph#sical in6uries on !enn# %illa and death ensued, all of the' should be liable for the cri'e of ho'icide pursuant to Article 8F(G of the Revised Penal Code.

Thus, 1e have ruled in a nu'ber of instances338-338. that the 'ere infliction of ph#sical in6uries, absent 'alicious intent, does not 'a4e a person auto'aticall# liable for an intentional felon#. In #aga)o v. People,332-332. the accused teacher, usin a ba'boo stic4, 1hipped one of her students behind her le s and thi hs as a for' of discipline. The student suffered lesions and bruises fro' the corporal punish'ent. In reversin the trial courtHs findin of cri'inal liabilit# for sli ht ph#sical in6uries, this Court stated thus: "Independentl# of an# civil or ad'inistrative responsibilit# B -1.e are persuaded that she did not do 1hat she had done 1ith cri'inal intent B the 'eans she actuall# used 1as 'oderate and that she 1as not 'otivated b# ill-1ill, hatred or an# 'alevolent intent.$ Considerin the applicable la1s, 1e then ruled that "as a 'atter of la1, petitioner did not incur an# cri'inal liabilit# for her act of 1hippin her pupil.$ In People v. Carmen,33A-33A. the accused 'e'bers of the reli ious roup 4no1n as the Missionaries of Our !ad# of *ati'a & under the uise of a "ritual or
222

218

223

219

224

220

225

221

226

treat'ent$ & plun ed the head of the victi' into a barrel of 1ater, ban ed his head a ainst a bench, pounded his chest 1ith fists, and stabbed hi' on the side 1ith a 4itchen 4nife, in order to cure hi' of "nervous brea4do1n$ b# expellin throu h those 'eans the bad spirits possessin hi'. The collective acts of the roup caused the death of the victi'. 9ince 'alicious intent 1as not proven, 1e reversed the trial courtHs findin of liabilit# for 'urder under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code and instead ruled that the accused should be held cri'inall# liable for rec4less i'prudence resultin in ho'icide under Article 7A2 thereof. Indeed, the threshold 5uestion is 1hether the accusedHs initial acts of inflictin a'ountin ph#sical pain on the neoph#tes 1ere attended b# animus iniurian i to a felonious act punishable under the Revised Penal Code, thereb#

sub6ected to "traditional$ initiation rituals. :hen the rituals 1ere officiall# reopened on the insistence of /i,on and %illareal, the neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to another "traditional$ ritual & paddlin b# the fraternit#. /urin the 1hole initiation rites, auxiliaries 1ere assi ned to the neoph#tes. The auxiliaries protected the neoph#tes b# functionin as hu'an barriers and shieldin the' fro' those 1ho 1ere desi nated to inflict ph#sical and ps#cholo ical pain on the initiates.37)-37). It 1as their re ular dut# to stop foul or excessive ph#sical blo1s< to help the neoph#tes to "pu'p$ their le s in order that their blood 1ould circulate< to facilitate a rest interval after ever# ph#sical activit# or "round$< to serve food and 1ater< to tell 6o4es< to coach the initiates< and to ive the' 1hatever the# needed. These rituals 1ere perfor'ed 1ith !enn#Hs consent.37(-37(. A fe1 da#s before the "rites,$ he as4ed both his parents for per'ission to 6oin the A5uila *raternit#.373-373. @is father 4ne1 that !enn# 1ould o throu h an initiation process and 1ould be one for three da#s.377-377. The CA found as follo1s: It is 1orth pointin out that the #eop64te, </00/#304 "#$ 8o0u#t"r/04 1o#,e#te$ to u#$er3o p64,/1"0 /#/t/"t/o# "#$ 6"=/#3. As can be leaned fro' the narration of facts, the# voluntaril# a reed to 6oin the initiation rites to beco'e 'e'bers of the A5uila !e is *raternit#. Prior to the initiation, the# 1ere 3/8e# 7r/e5/#3, o# <6"t to eCpe1t. It is of co''on 4no1led e that before ad'ission in a fraternit#, the neoph#tes 1ill under o a rite of passa e. Thus, the# 1ere m"$e "<"re t6"t tr"$/t/o#"0 met6o$, ,u16 ", mo1B/#3, p,416o0o3/1"0 te,t, "#$ p64,/1"0 pu#/,6me#t <ou0$ t"Be p0"1e. The# B#e< t6"t t6e /#/t/"t/o# <ou0$ /#8o08e 7e"t/#3, "#$ ot6er 5orm, o5 6"=/#3 . The# 1ere also to0$ o5 t6e/r r/36t "#$ opportu#/t4 to :u/t "t "#4 t/me t6e4 <"#te$ to. In fact, prosecution 1itness >avera testified that accused Tecson told hi' that "after a 1ee4, #ou can alread# pla# bas4etball.$ Prosecution 1itness M"r:ue= 5or 6/, p"rt, "$m/tte$ t6"t 6e B#e< t6"t t6e /#/t/"te, <ou0$ 7e 6/t H/# t6e "rm, "#$ 0e3,,I t6"t " <oo$e# p"$$0e <ou0$ 7e u,e$ to 6/t t6em "#$
230

'a4in it sub6ect to Article 8F(G thereof. In People v. %egato, 1e ruled that 'alicious intent 'ust be 6ud ed b# the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused. 33C-33C. :hat persons do is the best index of their intention. 33E-33E. :e have also ruled that the 'ethod e'plo#ed, the 4ind of 1eapon used, and the parts of the bod# on 1hich the in6ur# 1as inflicted 'a# be deter'inative of the intent of the perpetrator. 33+-33+. The Court shall thus exa'ine the 1hole contextual bac4 round surroundin the death of !enn# %illa. !enn# died durin A5uilaHs fraternit# initiation rites. The ni ht before the

co''ence'ent of the rites, the# 1ere briefed on 1hat to expect. The# 1ere told that there 1ould be ph#sical beatin s, that the 1hole event 1ould last for three da#s, and that the# could 5uit an#ti'e. On their first ni ht, the# 1ere sub6ected to "traditional$ initiation rites, includin the "Indian Run,$ "=icol Dxpress,$ "Rounds,$ and the "AuxiesH Privile e Round.$ The beatin s 1ere predo'inantl# directed at the neoph#tesH ar's and le s. In the 'ornin of their second da# of initiation, the# 1ere 'ade to present co'ic pla#s and to pla# rou h bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to 'e'ori,e and recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. !ate in the afternoon, the# 1ere once a ain
227

231

228

232

229

233

t6"t 6e eCpe1te$ 7ru/,e, o# 6/, "rm, "#$ 0e3, B. Indeed, t6ere 1"# 7e #o 5r"ter#/t4 /#/t/"t/o# </t6out 1o#,e#t/#3 #eop64te, .378 -378. FD'phasis suppliedG

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. Most of these acts, if not all, are alread# punished under the Revised Penal Code. 9D>ATOR !I>A. That is correct, Mr. President.

Dven after oin throu h A5uilaHs ruelin traditional rituals durin the first da#, !enn# continued his participation and finished the second da# of initiation. =ased on the fore oin contextual bac4 round, and absent further proof

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. If ha,in is done at present and it results in death, the char e 1ould be 'urder or ho'icide. 9D>ATOR !I>A. That is correct, Mr. President.

sho1in clear 'alicious intent, 1e are constrained to rule that the specific animus iniurian i 1as not present in this case. Dven if the specific acts of punchin , 4ic4in , paddlin , and other 'odes of inflictin ph#sical pain 1ere done voluntaril#, freel#, and 1ith intelli ence, thereb# satisf#in the ele'ents of free om and intelligence in the felon# of ph#sical in6uries, the funda'ental in redient of cri'inal intent 1as not proven be#ond reasonable doubt. On the contrar#, all that 1as proven 1as that the acts 1ere done pursuant to tradition. Althou h the additional "rounds$ on the second ni ht 1ere held upon the insistence of %illareal and /i,on, the initiations 1ere officiall# reopened 1ith the consent of the head of the initiation rites< and the accused fraternit# 'e'bers still participated in the rituals, includin the paddlin , 1hich 1ere perfor'ed pursuant to tradition. Other than the paddle, no other "1eapon$ 1as used to inflict in6uries on !enn#. The tar eted bod# parts 1ere predo'inantl# the le s and the ar's. The desi nation of roles, includin assi ned for the specific purpose of lendin the role of auxiliaries, 1hich 1ere assistance to and ta4in care of the

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. If it does not result in death, it 'a# be frustrated ho'icide or serious ph#sical in6uries. 9D>ATOR !I>A. That is correct, Mr. President. 9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. Or, if the person 1ho co''its sexual abuse does so it can be penali,ed under rape or acts of lasciviousness. 9D>ATOR !I>A. That is correct, Mr. President. 9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. 9o, 1hat is the rationale for 'a4in a ne1 offense under this definition of the cri'e of ha,in P 9D>ATOR !I>A. To discoura e persons or roup of persons either co'posin a sororit#, fraternit# or an# association fro' 'a4in this re5uire'ent of initiation that has alread# resulted in these specific acts or results, Mr. President. That is the 'ain rationale. :e 1ant to send a stron si nal across the land that no roup or association can re5uire the act of ph#sical initiation before a person can beco'e a 'e'ber 1ithout bein held cri'inall# liable. xxx xxx xxx

neoph#tes durin the initiation rites, further belied the presence of 'alicious intent. All those 1ho 1ished to 6oin the fraternit# 1ent throu h the sa'e process of "traditional$ initiation< there is no proof that !enn# %illa 1as specificall# tar eted or iven a different treat'ent. :e stress that Con ress itself reco ni,ed that ha,in is uni5uel# different fro' co''on cri'es.372-372. The totalit# of the circu'stances 'ust therefore be ta4en into consideration. The underl#in context and 'otive in 1hich the infliction of ph#sical in6uries 1as rooted 'a# also be deter'ined b# !enn#Hs continued participation in the initiation and consent to the 'ethod used even after the first da#. The follo1in discussion of the fra'ers of the (++2 Anti-@a,in !a1 is enli htenin :
234

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. Qes, but 1hat 1ould be the rationale for that i'positionP =ecause the distin uished 9ponsor has said that he is not punishin a 'ere or ani,ation, he is not see4in the punish'ent of an initiation into a club or or ani,ation, he is see4in the punish'ent of certain acts that resulted in death, et cetera as a result of ha,in 1hich are alread# covered cri'es. The penalt# is increased in one, because 1e 1ould li4e to discoura e ha,in , abusive ha,in , but it 'a# be a le iti'ate defense for invo4in t1o or 'ore char es or offenses, because these ver# sa'e acts are alread# punishable under the Revised Penal Code. That is '# difficult#, Mr. President. 9D>ATOR !I>A. x x x

235

Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a ver# tellin difference: G6e# " per,o# or 3roup o5 per,o#, re,ort to 6"=/#3 ", " re:u/reme#t 5or 3"/#/#3 e#tr4 /#to "# or3"#/="t/o#, t6e /#te#t to 1omm/t " <ro#3 /, #ot 8/,/70e or /, #ot pre,e#t , Mr. President. :hereas, in these specific cri'es, Mr. President, let us sa# there is death or there is ho'icide, 'utilation, /5 o#e 5/0e, " 1",e, t6e# t6e /#te#t/o# to 1omm/t " <ro#3 6", to 7e pro8e#. But /5 t6e 1r/me o5 6"=/#3 /, t6e 7",/,, <6"t /, /mport"#t /, t6e re,u0t 5rom t6e "1t o5 6"=/#3. To 'e, t6"t /, t6e 7",/1 $/55ere#1e and that is 1hat 1ill prevent or deter the sororities or fraternities< that the# should reall# shun this activit# called "ha,in .$ Be1"u,e, /#/t/"004, t6e,e 5r"ter#/t/e, or ,oror/t/e, $o #ot e8e# 1o#,/$er 6"8/#3 " #eop64te B/00e$ or m"/me$ or t6"t "1t, o5 0",1/8/ou,#e,, "re e8e# 1omm/tte$ /#/t/"004, Mr. President. 9o, 1hat 1e 1ant to discoura e is the so-called /#/t/"0 /##o1e#t "1t. That is 1h# there is need to institute this 4ind of ha,in . 0ani#an po an nan #ari. An fraternit# o an sororit# a# 'a re-recruit. G"0" t"0"3" ,/0"#3 /#te#,/4o#3 m"B"m"t"4. @indi 4o na baban itin at buha# pa i#on 4aso. Pero dito sa ani' o pito na na'ata# niton na4araan taon, 1alan intensi#on pata#in tala a i#on neoph#te. 9o, 4un 'a hihinta# pa ta#o, na sa4a la'an natin isasa4dal n 'urder 4un na'ata# na, a# after the fact ho i#on. Pero, 4un sasabihin natin sa ' a 4abataan na: "@u1a nin#on a a1in i#on ha,in . I#an a# 4asalanan at 4un 'a'ata# di#an, 'ataas an penalt# sa in#o.$ xxx xxx xxx

9D>ATOR !I>A. Mr. President, the "1t o5 6"=/#3, pre1/,e04, /, 7e/#3 1r/m/#"0/=e$ 7e1"u,e /# t6e 1o#teCt o5 <6"t /, 6"ppe#/#3 /# t6e ,oror/t/e, "#$ 5r"ter#/t/e,, <6e# t6e4 1o#$u1t 6"=/#3, #o o#e </00 "$m/t t6"t t6e/r /#te#t/o# /, to m"/m or to B/00. 9o, 1e are alread# cri'inali,in the fact of inflictin ph#sical pain. Mr. President, it is a cri'inal act and 1e 1ant it stopped, deterred, discoura ed. If that occurs, under this la1, there is no necessit# to prove that the 'asters intended to 4ill or the 'asters intended to 'ai'. :hat is i'portant is the result of the act of ha,in . Other1ise, t6e m",ter, or t6o,e <6o /#50/1t t6e p64,/1"0 p"/# 1"# e",/04 e,1"pe re,po#,/7/0/t4 "#$ ,"4, HGe $/$ #ot 6"8e t6e /#te#t/o# to B/00. T6/, /, p"rt o5 our /#/t/"t/o# r/te,. T6/, /, #orm"0. Ge $o #ot 6"8e "#4 /#te#t/o# to B/00 or m"/m.I T6/, /, t6e 0u,ot, Mr. President. T6e4 m/36t ", <e00 6"8e 7ee# 16"r3e$ t6ere5ore </t6 t6e or$/#"r4 1r/me o5 6om/1/$e, mut/0"t/o#, et 1eter", <6ere t6e pro,e1ut/o# </00 6"8e " $/55/1u0t4 pro8/#3 t6e e0eme#t, /5 t6e4 "re ,ep"r"te o55e#,e,. xxx xxx xxx

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. Mr. President, assu'in there 1as a roup that initiated and a person died. The char e is 'urder. M# 5uestion is: ;nder this bill if it beco'es a la1, 1ould the prosecution have to prove conspirac# or not an#'oreP 9D>ATOR !I>A. Mr. President, if the person is present durin ha,in x x x 9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. The persons are present. *irst, 1ould the prosecution have to prove conspirac#P 9econd, 1ould the prosecution have to prove intent to 4ill or notP 9D>ATOR !I>A. >o 'ore. As to the second 5uestion, Mr. President, if that occurs, there is no need to prove intent to 4ill. 9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. =ut the char e is 'urder. 9D>ATOR !I>A. That is 1h# I said that it should not be 'urder. It should be ha,in , Mr. President. 37A-37A. FD'phasis suppliedG

9D>ATOR 0;I>0O>A. I 6oin the loft# 'otives, Mr. President, of the distin uished 9ponsor. =ut I "m "3"/# $/,tur7e$ b# his state'ent t6"t t6e pro,e1ut/o# $oe, #ot 6"8e to pro8e t6e /#te#t that resulted /# t6e $e"t6, that resulted /# t6e ,er/ou, p64,/1"0 /#;ur/e,, that resulted /# t6e "1t, o5 0",1/8/ou,#e,, or $er"#3e$ m/#$. :e do not have to prove the 1illful intent of the accused in provin or establishin the cri'e of ha,in . T6/, ,eem,, to me, " #o8e0 ,/tu"t/o# <6ere <e 1re"te t6e ,pe1/"0 1r/me </t6out 6"8/#3 to 3o /#to t6e /#te#t, <6/16 /, o#e o5 t6e 7",/1 e0eme#t, o5 "#4 1r/me. I5 t6ere /, #o /#te#t, t6ere /, #o 1r/me. I5 t6e /#te#t <ere mere04 to /#/t/"te, t6e# t6ere /, #o o55e#,e. A#$ e8e# t6e $/,t/#3u/,6e$ Spo#,or "$m/t, t6"t t6e or3"#/="t/o#, t6e /#te#t to /#/t/"te, t6e /#te#t to 6"8e " #e< ,o1/et4 or " #e< 10u7 /,, per ,e, #ot pu#/,6"70e "t "00. G6"t "re pu#/,6"70e "re t6e "1t, t6"t 0e"$ to t6e re,u0t. But /5 t6e,e re,u0t, "re #ot 3o/#3 to 7e pro8e# 74 /#te#t, 7ut ;u,t 7e1"u,e t6ere <", 6"=/#3, I "m "5r"/$ t6"t /t </00 $/,tur7 t6e 7",/1 1o#1ept, o5 t6e Re8/,e$ Pe#"0 Co$e, Mr. Pre,/$e#t.

/urin a discussion bet1een 9enator =ia,on and 9enator !ina on the issue
236

of 1hether to include sodo'# as a punishable act under the Anti-@a,in 9enator !ina further clarified thus: 9D>ATOR =IAJO>. Mr. President, this Representation has no ob6ection to the inclusion of sodo'# as one of the conditions resultin fro' ha,in as necessar# to be punished. @o1ever, the act of sodo'# can be co''itted b# t1o persons 1ith or 1ithout consent. To 'a4e it clearer, 1hat is bein punished here is the co''ission of sodo'# forced into another individual b# another individual. I 'ove, Mr. President, that sodo'# be 'odified b# the phrase "1ithout consent$ for purposes of this section. 9D>ATOR !I>A. I a' afraid, Mr. President, that if 1e 5ualif# sodo'# 1ith the concept that it is onl# oin to a ravate the cri'e of ha,in if it is done 1ithout consent 1ill chan e a lot of concepts here. Be1"u,e t6e re,u0t, 5rom 6"=/#3 "33r"8"te t6e o55e#,e </t6 or </t6out 1o#,e#t. I# 5"1t, <6e# " per,o# ;o/#, " 5r"ter#/t4, ,oror/t4, or "#4 ",,o1/"t/o# 5or t6"t m"tter, /t 1"# 7e </t6 or </t6out t6e 1o#,e#t o5 t6e /#te#$e$ 8/1t/m. T6e 5"1t t6"t " per,o# ;o/#, " ,oror/t4 or 5r"ter#/t4 </t6 6/, 1o#,e#t $oe, #ot #e3"te t6e 1r/me o5 6"=/#3. This is a proposed la1 intended to protect the citi,ens fro' the 'alpractices that attend initiation 1hich 'a# have been announced 1ith or 1ithout ph#sical infliction of pain or in6ur#, Mr. President. Re3"r$0e,, o5 <6et6er t6ere /, "##ou#1eme#t t6"t t6ere </00 7e p64,/1"0 6"=/#3 or <6et6er t6ere /, #o#e, "#$ t6ere5ore, t6e #eop64te /, $upe$ /#to ;o/#/#3 " 5r"ter#/t4 /, o5 #o mome#t. G6"t /, /mport"#t /, t6"t t6ere /, "# /#50/1t/o# o5 p64,/1"0 p"/#. The 7ottom 0/#e o5 t6/, 0"< is that a citi,en even has to be protected fro' hi'self if he 6oins a fraternit#, so that at a certain point in ti'e, t6e St"te, t6e /#$/8/$u"0, or t6e p"re#t, o5 t6e 8/1t/m 1"# ru# "5ter t6e perpetr"tor, o5 t6e 1r/me , re3"r$0e,, o5 <6et6er or #ot t6ere <", 1o#,e#t o# t6e p"rt o5 t6e 8/1t/m. xxx xxx xxx

!a1,

do their thin if the# 1ant to 'a4e love in 1a#s that are not considered acceptable b# the 'ainstrea' of societ#. That is not so'ethin that the 9tate should prohibit. =ut sodo'# in this case is connected 1ith ha,in , Mr. President. 9uch that the act 'a# even be entered into 1ith consent. It is not onl# sodo'#. T6e /#50/1t/o# o5 p"/# m"4 7e $o#e </t6 t6e 1o#,e#t o5 t6e #eop64te. If the law is passed, that does not ma e the act of hazin! not punisha"le "ecause the neoph#te accepted the infliction of pain upon himself. I5 t6e 8/1t/m ,u55er, 5rom ,er/ou, p64,/1"0 /#;ur/e,, 7ut t6e /#/t/"tor ,"/$, HGe00, 6e "00o<e$ /t upo# 6/m,e05. He 1o#,e#te$ to /t.I So, /5 <e "00o< t6"t re",o#/#3 t6"t ,o$om4 <", $o#e </t6 t6e 1o#,e#t o5 t6e 8/1t/m, t6e# <e <ou0$ #ot 6"8e p",,e$ "#4 0"< "t "00. T6ere </00 7e #o ,/3#/5/1"#1e /5 <e p",, t6/, 7/00, 7e1"u,e /t </00 "0<"4, 7e " $e5e#,e t6"t t6e 8/1t/m "00o<e$ t6e /#50/1t/o# o5 p"/# or ,u55er/#3. @e accepted it as part of the initiation rites. =ut precisel#, Mr. President t6"t /, o#e t6/#3 t6"t <e <ou0$ <"#t to pro6/7/t. $hat the defense of consent will not appl# "ecause the ver# act of inflictin! ph#sical pain or ps#cholo!ical sufferin! is, "# itself, a punisha"le act. The result of the act of ha,in , li4e death or ph#sical in6uries 'erel# a ravates the act 1ith hi her penalties. =ut t6e $e5e#,e o5 1o#,e#t /, #ot 3o/#3 to #u00/54 t6e 1r/m/#"0 #"ture o5 t6e "1t. So, /5 <e "11ept the a'end'ent that sodo'# can onl# a ravate the offense /5 /t /, 1omm/tte$ </t6out 1o#,e#t o5 t6e 8/1t/m, t6e# t6e <6o0e 5ou#$"t/o# o5 t6/, propo,e$ 0"< </00 1o00"p,e. 9D>ATOR =IAJO>. Than4 #ou, Mr. President. 9D>ATOR !I>A. Than4 #ou ver# 'uch. T@D PRD9I/D>T. Is there an# ob6ection to the co''ittee a'end'entP F9ilence.G The Chair hears none< the sa'e is approved.37C-37C. FD'phasis suppliedG Reali,in the i'plication of re'ovin the stateHs burden to prove intent,

9D>ATOR !I>A. Mr. President, I understand the position ta4en b# the distin uished 0entle'an fro' Cavite and Metro Manila. It is correct that societ# so'eti'es adopts ne1 'ores, traditions, and practices. In this bill, 1e are not oin to encroach into the private proclivities of so'e individuals 1hen the# do their acts in private as 1e do not ta4e a pee4 into the private roo's of couples. The# can

9enator !ina, the principal author of the 9enate =ill, said: I a' ver# happ# that the distin uished Minorit# !eader brou ht out the idea of intent or 1hether there it is 'ala in se or 'ala prohibita. There can be a radical a'end'ent if that is the
237

point that he 1ants to o to. I5 <e "3ree o# t6e 1o#1ept, t6e#, m"47e, <e 1"# ;u,t m"Be t6/, " ,pe1/"0 0"< o# 6"=/#3. Ge </00 #ot /#10u$e t6/, "#4more u#$er t6e Re8/,e$ Pe#"0 Co$e. T6"t /, " po,,/7/0/t4. I </00 #ot 5ore10o,e t6"t ,u33e,t/o#, Mr. Pre,/$e#t. 37E-37E. FD'phasis suppliedG Thus, havin in 'ind the potential conflict bet1een the proposed la1 and the core principle of mala in se adhered to under the Revised Penal Code, Con ress did not si'pl# enact an a'end'ent thereto. Instead, it created a special la1 on ha,in , founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. This dile''a faced b# Con ress is further proof of ho1 the nature of ha,in & uni5ue as a ainst t#pical cri'es & cast a cloud of doubt on 1hether societ# considered the act as an inherentl# 1ron conduct or mala in se at the ti'e. It is safe to presu'e that !enn#Hs parents 1ould not have consented37+-37+. to his participation in A5uila *raternit#Hs initiation rites if the practice of ha,in 1ere considered b# the' as mala in se. *urther'ore, in Ve a9a v. Valencia F(++EG, 1e noted throu h Associate ?ustice Fno1 retired Chief ?usticeG @ilario /avide that "in our nationHs ver# recent histor#, the people have spo4en, throu h Con ress, to dee' 1o#$u1t 1o#,t/tut/8e o5 B 6"=/#3, -an. "1tEF pre8/ou,04 1o#,/$ere$ 6"rm0e,, 74 1u,tom , as cri'inal.$38)-38). Althou h it 'a# be re arded as a si'ple obiter ictum, the state'ent nonetheless sho1s reco nition that ha,in & or the conduct of initiation rites throu h ph#sical andNor ps#cholo ical sufferin & has not been traditionall# cri'inali,ed. Prior to the (++2 Anti-@a,in !a1, there 1as to so'e extent a lacuna in the la1< ha,in 1as not clearl# considered an intentional felon#. And 1hen there is doubt on the interpretation of cri'inal la1s, all 'ust be resolved in favor of the accused. 6n ubio pro reo. *or the fore oin reasons, and as a 'atter of la1, the Court is constrained to rule a ainst the trial courtHs findin of 'alicious intent to inflict ph#sical in6uries on !enn# %illa, there bein
238

'alicious intent to inflict ph#sical in6uries or animus iniurian i as re5uired in mala in se cases, considerin the contextual bac4 round of his death, the uni5ue nature of ha,in , and absent a la1 prohibitin ha,in . T6e "11u,e$ 5r"ter#/t4 mem7er, 3u/0t4 o5 re1B0e,, /mpru$e#1e re,u0t/#3 /# 6om/1/$e The absence of 'alicious intent does not auto'aticall# 'ean, ho1ever, that the accused fraternit# 'e'bers are ulti'atel# devoid of cri'inal liabilit#. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are co''itted b# 'eans of fault F culpaG. Accordin to Article 7 thereof, there is fault 1hen the 1ron ful act results fro' i'prudence, ne li ence, lac4 of foresi ht, or lac4 of s4ill. %ec.less impru ence or negligence consists of a voluntar# act done 1ithout 'alice, fro' 1hich an i''ediate personal har', in6ur# or 'aterial da'a e results b# reason of an inexcusable lac4 of precaution or advertence on the part of the person co''ittin it.38(-38(. In this case, the dan er is visible and consciousl# appreciated b# the actor.383-383. In contrast, simple impru ence or negligence co'prises an act done 1ithout rave fault, fro' 1hich an in6ur# or 'aterial da'a e ensues b# reason of a 'ere lac4 of foresi ht or s4ill. 387-387. @ere, the threatened har' is not i''ediate, and the dan er is not openl# visible. 388-388. The test382-382. for deter'inin 1hether or not a person is ne li ent in doin an act is as follo1s: :ould a prudent 'an in the position of the person to 1ho' ne li ence is attributed foresee har' to the person in6ured as a reasonable conse5uence of the course about to be pursuedP If so, the la1 i'poses on the doer the dut# to ta4e precaution a ainst the 'ischievous results of the act. *ailure to do so

241

no proof be#ond reasonable doubt of the existence of

242

243

239

244

240

245

constitutes ne li ence.38A-38A. As 1e held in *ai of the dan er involved.

38C-38C.

the entire circulator# s#ste' & includin v. People, for a person to avoid bein char ed 1ith

the heart, arteries, veins, venules, and

capillaries & to the thi h, le , and ar' areas of !enn#, thus causin the for'ation of 'ultiple he'ato'as or blood clots.322-322. The 'ultiple he'ato'as 1ere 1ide, thic4, and deep,32A-32A. indicatin that these could have resulted 'ainl# fro' in6uries raduall# oo,e out of the sustained b# the victi' fro' fist blo1s, 4nee blo1s, paddles, or the li4e. 32C-32C. Repeated blo1s to those areas caused the blood to capillaries until the circulatin blood beca'e so 'ar4edl# di'inished as to produce death. 32E-32E. The officer also found that the brain, liver, 4idne#, pancreas, intestines, and all other or ans seen in the abdo'inals, as 1ell as the thoracic or an in the lun s, 1ere pale due to the lac4 of blood, 1hich 1as redirected to the thi hs and forear's.32+-32+. It 1as concluded that there 1as nothin in the heart that 1ould indicate that the victi' suffered fro' a previous cardiac arrest or disease.3A)-3A). The 'ultiple he'ato'as or bruises found in !enn# %illaHs ar's and thi hs, resultin fro' repeated blo1s to those areas, caused the loss of blood fro' his vital or ans and led to his eventual death. These he'ato'as 'ust be ta4en in the li ht of the ha,in activities perfor'ed on hi' b# the A5uila *raternit#. Accordin to the testi'onies of the co-neoph#tes of !enn#, the# 1ere punched, 4ic4ed, elbo1ed, 4need, sta'ped on< and hit 1ith different ob6ects on their ar's, le s, and thi hs. 3A(-3A(. The# 1ere also "paddled$ at the bac4 of their thi hs or le s<3A3-3A3. and slapped on their rec4lessness, the de ree of precaution and dili ence re5uired varies 1ith the de ree If, on account of a certain line of conduct, the dan er of causin har' to another person is reat, the individual 1ho chooses to follo1 that particular course of conduct is bound to be ver# careful, in order to prevent or avoid da'a e or in6ur#.38E-38E. In contrast, if the dan er is 'inor, not 'uch care is re5uired.38+
-38+.

It is thus possible that there are countless de rees of precaution or dili ence that

'a# be re5uired of an individual, "fro' a transitor# lance of care to the 'ost vi ilant effort.$32)-32). The dut# of the person to e'plo# 'ore or less de ree of care 1ill depend upon the circu'stances of each particular case.
32(-32(.

There 1as patent rec4lessness in the ha,in of !enn# %illa. Accordin to the >=I 'edico-le al officer, !enn# died of cardiac failure

secondar# to 'ultiple trau'atic in6uries.323-323. The officer explained that cardiac failure refers to the failure of the heart to 1or4 as a pu'p and as part of the circulator# s#ste' due to the lac4 of blood.327-327. In the present case, the victi'Hs heart could no lon er 1or4 as a pu'pin or an, because it 1as deprived of its re5uisite blood and ox# en.
246
328-328.

The deprivation 1as due to the "channelin $ of the blood suppl# fro'

247

255

248

256

249

257

250

258

251

259

252

260

253

261

254

262

faces.3A7-3A7. The# 1ere 'ade to pla# rou h bas4etball. 3A8-3A8. :itness Mar5ue, testified on !enn#, sa#in : "507inamaan a, sya sa spine.$3A2-3A2. The >=I 'edico-le al officer explained that the death of the victi' 1as the cu'ulative effect of the 'ultiple in6uries suffered b# the latter.3AA-3AA. The relevant portion of the testi'on# is as follo1s: Att#. Tadiar /octor, there 1as, rather, it 1as #our testi'on# on various cross exa'inations of defense counsels that the in6uries that #ou have enu'erated on the bod# of the deceased !enn# %illa previousl# 'ar4ed as Dxhibit "0-($ to "0-(8$ individuall# b# the'selves 1ould not cause the death of the victi'. The 5uestion I a' oin to propound to #ou is 1hat is the cu'ulative effect of all of these in6uries 'ar4ed fro' Dxhibit "0-($ to "0-(8$P All to ether nothin in concert to cause to the de'ise of the victi'. 9o, it is not fair for us to isolate such in6uries here because 1e are tal4in of the 1hole bod#. At the sa'e 'anner that as a car 1ould not run 'inus one F(G 1heel. >o, the 'ore hu'ane in hu'an approach is to interpret all those in6uries in 1hole and not in part.3AC-3AC.

the' in6ur# in the process.3A+-3A+. :ith the fore oin facts, 1e rule that the accused are uilt# of rec4less i'prudence resultin in ho'icide. 9ince the >=I 'edico-le al officer found that the victi'Hs death 1as the cu'ulative effect of the in6uries suffered, cri'inal responsibilit# redounds to all those 1ho directl# participated in and contributed to the infliction of ph#sical in6uries. It appears fro' the afore'entioned facts that the incident 'a# have been prevented, or at least 'iti ated, had the alu'ni of A5uila *raternit# & accused /i,on and %illareal & restrained the'selves fro' insistin on reopenin the initiation rites. Althou h this point did not 'atter in the end, as records 1ould sho1 that the other fraternit# 'e'bers participated in the reopened initiation rites & havin in 'ind the concept of "seniorit#$ in fraternities & the i'plication of the presence of alu'ni should be seen as a point of revie1 in future le islation. :e further note that so'e of the fraternit# 'e'bers 1ere intoxicated durin !enn#Hs initiation rites. In this li ht, the Court sub'its to Con ress, for le islative consideration, the a'end'ent of the Anti@a,in !a1 to include the fact of intoxication and the presence of non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers durin increase the applicable penalties. It is trul# astonishin ho1 'en 1ould 1ittin l# & or un1ittin l# &i'pose the ha,in as a ravatin circu'stances that 1ould

:itness

There is also evidence to sho1 that so'e of the accused fraternit# 'e'bers 1ere drin4in durin the initiation rites.3AE-3AE. Conse5uentl#, the collective acts of the fraternit# 'e'bers 1ere tanta'ount to rec4lessness, 1hich 'ade the resultin death of !enn# a culpable felon#. It 'ust be re'e'bered that or ani,ations o1e to their initiates a dut# of care not to cause
263

'iser# of ha,in and e'plo# appallin rituals in the na'e of brotherhood. There 'ust be a better 1a# to establish "4inship.$ A neoph#te ad'itted that he 6oined the fraternit# to have 'ore friends and to avail hi'self of the benefits it offered, such as tips durin bar exa'inations.3C)-3C). Another initiate did not ive up, because he feared bein loo4ed do1n upon as a 5uitter, and because he felt he did not have a choice.3C(
-3C(.

Thus, for !enn# %illa and the other neoph#tes, 6oinin

the A5uila *raternit#

entailed a leap in the dar4. =# ivin consent under the circu'stances, the# left their fates in the hands of the fraternit# 'e'bers. ;nfortunatel#, the hands to 1hich lives 1ere entrusted 1ere barbaric as the# 1ere rec4less.

264

265

266

269

267

270

268

271

Our findin of cri'inal liabilit# for the felon# of rec4less i'prudence resultin in ho'icide shall cover onl# accused Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, =antu , and /i,on. @ad the Anti-@a,in !a1 been in effect then, these five accused fraternit# 'e'bers 1ould have all been convicted of the cri'e of ha,in punishable b# reclusion perpetua Flife i'prison'entG.
3C3-3C3.

clai' is supported b# tan ible docu'ents.3CA-3CA. Thou h 1e are prepared to a1ard actual da'a es, the Court is prevented fro' rantin the', since the records are bereft of an# evidence to sho1 that actual expenses 1ere incurred or proven durin trial. *urther'ore, in the appeal, the 9olicitor 0eneral does not interpose an# clai' for actual da'a es.3CC-3CC. The heirs of the deceased 'a# recover 'oral da'a es for the rief suffered on account of the victi'Hs death.3CE-3CE. This penalt# is pursuant to Article 33)AF7G of the Civil Code, 1hich provides that the "spouse, le iti'ate and ille iti'ate descendants and the ascendants of the deceased 'a# de'and 'oral da'a es for 'ental an uish b# reason of the death of the deceased.$ 3C+-3C+. Thus, 1e hereb# 1e affir' the CAHs a1ard of 'oral da'a es in the a'ount of (,))),))). GHEREFORE, the appealed ?ud 'ent in 0.R. >o. (22()( findin petitioner *idelito /i,on uilt# of ho'icide is hereb# MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART. The appealed ?ud 'ent in 0.R. >o. (28+28 & findin Antonio Mariano Al'eda, ?unel Anthon# A'a, Renato =antu , ?r., and %incent Tecson uilt# of the cri'e of sli ht

9ince there 1as no la1 prohibitin the act of ha,in 1hen !enn#

died, 1e are constrained to rule accordin to existin la1s at the ti'e of his death. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove, be#ond reasonable doubt, %ictorino et al.Hs individual participation in the infliction of ph#sical in6uries upon !enn# %illa.3C7-3C7. As to accused %illareal, his cri'inal liabilit# 1as totall# extin uished b# the fact of his death, pursuant to Article E+ of the Revised Penal Code. *urther'ore, our rulin herein shall be interpreted 1ithout pre6udice to the applicabilit# of the Anti-@a,in !a1 to subse5uent cases. *urther'ore, the 'odification of cri'inal liabilit# fro' ,0/36t p64,/1"0 /#;ur/e, to re1B0e,, /mpru$e#1e re,u0t/#3 /# 6om/1/$e shall appl# onl# 1ith respect to accused Al'eda, A'a, =antu , and Tecson. T6e "11u,e$ 0/"70e to p"4 $"m"3e, The CA a1arded da'a es in favor of the heirs of !enn# %illa in the a'ounts of 2),))) as civil inde'nit# e! elicto and (,))),))) as 'oral da'a es, to be 6ointl# and severall# paid b# accused /i,on and %illareal. It also a1arded the a'ount of 7),))) as inde'nit# to be 6ointl# and severall# paid b# accused Al'eda, A'a, =antu , and Tecson. Civil inde'nit# e! elicto is auto'aticall# a1arded for the sole fact of death of the victi'.3C8-3C8. In accordance 1ith prevailin 6urisprudence,3C2-3C2. 1e sustain the CAHs a1ard of inde'nit# in the a'ount of 2),))). The heirs of the victi' are entitled to actual or co'pensator# da'a es, includin expenses incurred in connection 1ith the death of the victi', so lon as the

ph#sical in6uries & is also MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN PART. Instead, *idelito /i,on, Antonio Mariano Al'eda, ?unel Anthon# A'a, Renato =antu , ?r., and %incent Tecson are found GUILTY be#ond reasonable doubt of rec4less i'prudence resultin in ho'icide defined and penali,ed under Article 7A2 in relation to Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code. The# are hereb# sentenced to suffer an indeter'inate prison ter' of four F8G 'onths and one F(G da# of arresto mayor, as 'ini'u', to four F8G #ears and t1o F3G 'onths of prision correccional, as 'axi'u'. In addition, accused are OR/DRD/ 6ointl# and severall# to pa# the heirs of !enn# %illa civil inde'nit# e! elicto in the a'ount of 2),))), and 'oral da'a es in the a'ount of (,))),))), plus le al interest on all da'a es a1arded at the rate of (3S fro' the date of the finalit# of this /ecision until satisfaction.3E)-3E). Costs e oficio.
276

272

277

273

278

274

279

275

280

The appealed ?ud 'ent in 0.R. >o. (28+28, ac5uittin %ictorino et al., is hereb# AFFIRMED. The appealed ?ud 'ents in 0.R. >os. (CE)2C K (CE)E), dis'issin the cri'inal case filed a ainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano, are li4e1ise AFFIRMED. *inall#, pursuant to Article E+F(G of the Revised Penal Code, the Petition in 0.R. >o. (2(32E is hereb# dis'issed, and the cri'inal case a ainst Arte'io %illareal dee'ed CLOSED and TERMINATED. !et copies of this /ecision be furnished to the 9enate President and the 9pea4er of the @ouse of Representatives for possible consideration of the a'end'ent of the Anti-@a,in !a1 to include the fact of intoxication and the ravatin presence of non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers durin ha,in as a circu'stances that 1ould increase the applicable penalties. /ivision.

I attest that the conclusions in the above /ecision had been reached in consultation before the case 1as assi ned to the 1riter of the Opinion of the CourtHs

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate ?ustice Chairperson, 9econd /ivision

CERTIFICATION SO ORDERED. Pursuant to 9ection (7, Article %III of the Constitution, and the /ivision ChairpersonHs Attestation, I certif# that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case 1as assi ned to the 1riter of the MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate ?ustice GE CONCURK RENATO C. CORONA Chief ?ustice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate ?ustice Chairperson opinion of the CourtHs /ivision.

ARTURO D. BRION Associate ?ustice

JOSE PORTUGAL PERE Associate ?ustice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate ?ustice

ATTESTATION