Hazing In The Philippines 55215k

RA 11053:

ANTI-

PHILIPPINE

LAW

Presented by: Edracel C. Del Rosario Special Penal Laws G04

What is hazing? According to RA 11053, Hazing is any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for ission or a requirement for continuing hip in a frathernity, sorority, or organization including, but not limited to, paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or

forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of such recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member. This shall also include any activity, intentionally made or otherwise, by one person alone or

acting with others, that tends to humiliate, embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member to do menial, silly, or foolish tasks.

HAZING IN THE PHILIPPINES 1954

Feb

Sept

Oct

1991

1991

1991

First hazing-related death

Death of Lenny Villa

First conviction against fraternity Gonzalo Mariano Albert of Villa's death led to the age

First reported fatal incident of hazing Upsilon Sigma Phi was mauled of the Anti-Hazing Act of 1995. Raul Camaligan was killed outside Metro Manila by other fraternity after failing to do assigned task.

while undergoing initiation rites for Lex Talionis. A case was filed for murder but the accused plead guilty to the lesser offense of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

Frederick Cahiyang who underwent initiation rites for Alpha Phi Omega while a student of University of Visayas i n Cebu.

HAZING IN THE PHILIPPINES 1995

2001

2009

2015

2015

Anti-Hazing Act of 1995

First conviction of PMA First and only known First and only conviction Anti-Hazing Act under RA 8049 of 2018 RA 8049 is a national Cadets by a Civilian Court. fatal hazing incident involving a female. legislation in the Edward Domingo underwent Marlon Villanueva of UP RA 11053 amended RA Philippines regulating the act of hazing and other initiation rites in fraternities and sororities in the country.

a fatal hazing for his entry to the level PMA upperclassman. Two cadets were given the sentence homicide by the Baguio City Regional Trial Court for killing Domingo.

Glacy Monique Dimaranan, a 15-year-old high school female student, died of a single gunshot wound in the head during initiation rites. A member of Scout Royal Brotherhood in Laguna accidentally pulled the trigger of the gun he was pointing at the victim.

Los Banos died during initiation rites. Two Alpha Phi Omega were sentenced to reclusion perpetua in a 2015 decision.

8049, prohibiting hazing in the Philippines.

Mel Honasan

Lenny Villa

Brother of Sen. Gringo Honasan

Led to the age of AntiHazing Act of 1995.

Raul Camaligan Marc Andrei Marvin Reglos Guillo Servando Atio Castillo Marcos The victim of the Servando was a famous Al Argosino case.

Marcos died in the same year as Reglos; both students of San Beda College; different fraternities.

student in the De La Salle - College of St. Benilde where fraternities are supposedly prohibited.

Latest fatal hazing incident.

HAZING In Numbers Number of hazing-related deaths since 1954

43+ Number of convictions under RA 8084

1/14 cases

Number of fraternities involved

17+ (8/43 TGP)

Number of schools involved

28+ (9/43 UP) Number of hazing-related deaths after RA 8084

32/43 (74%)

the case of lenny villa FACTS: In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified their intention to the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). The neophytes, including victim, Lenny Villa, were subjected to initiation rites. After the second day of initiation rites has ended, accused alumni fraternity Fidelito Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal (Villareal) demanded that the rites be reopened. The head of initiation rites, Nelson Victorino (Victorino), initially refused. Upon the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, however, he reopened the initiation rites. The fraternity , including Dizon and Villareal, then subjected the neophytes to "paddling" and to additional rounds of physical pain. Lenny received several paddle blows, one of which was so strong it sent him sprawling to the ground. The neophytes heard him complaining of intense pain and difficulty in breathing. After their last session of physical beatings, Lenny could no longer walk. He had to be carried by the auxiliaries to the carport. Again, the initiation for the day was officially ended, and the neophytes started eating dinner. They then slept at the carport. After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lennys shivering and incoherent mumblings. Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they thought he was just overacting. When they realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans started helping him. They removed his clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him warm. When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival. Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against 35 Aquilans.

the case of lenny villa FACTS: The trial court rendered judgment holding the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The criminal case against the remaining nine accused commenced anew. The CA set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and modified the criminal liability of each of the accused according to individual participation. One accused had by then ed away, so the following Decision applied only to the remaining 25 accused: 1. Nineteen of the accused-appellants were acquitted, as their individual guilt was not established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Four of the accused-appellants were found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries. 3. Two of the accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal – were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE FACTS: While the Petition was pending before the Court, counsel for petitioner Villareal filed a Notice of Death of Party on 10 August 2011. According to the Notice, petitioner Villareal died on 13 March 2011. Counsel thus asserts that the subject matter of the Petition previously filed by petitioner does not survive the death of the accused. ISSUE: Did the death of Villareal extinguish his criminal liability? RULING: According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability for personal penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. The term "personal penalties" refers to the service of personal or imprisonment penalties, while the term "pecuniarypenalties" (las pecuniarias) refers to fines and costs, including civil liability predicated on the criminal offense complained of (i.e., civil liability ex delicto). However, civil liability based on a source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a separate civil action. Thus, we hold that the death of petitioner Villareal extinguished his criminal liability for both personal and pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability directly arising from the delict complained of. Consequently, his Petition is hereby dismissed, and the criminal case against him deemed closed and terminated.

PEOPLE VS. CA FACTS: This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the reversal of the CAs Decision, insofar as it acquitted 19 (Victorino et al.) and convicted 4 (Tecson et al.) of the accused Aquilans of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries. According to the Solicitor General, the CA erred in holding that there could have been no conspiracy to commit hazing, as hazing or fraternity initiation had not yet been criminalized at the time Lenny died. Since the injuries led to the victims death, petitioner posits that the accused Aquilans are criminally liable for the resulting crime of homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Did the CA err in convicting accused of the lesser offense of slight physical injuries instead of homicide? RULING: Attributing criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon as if only their acts, in and of themselves, caused the death of Lenny Villa is contrary to the CAs own findings. From proof that the death of the victim was the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered, the only logical conclusion is that criminal responsibility should redound to all those who have been proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries on Lenny. The accumulation of bruising on his body caused him to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordingly, we find that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug criminally liable for slight physical injuries. As an allowable exception to the rule on double jeopardy, we therefore give due course to the Petition.

DIZON VS. PEOPLE FACTS: Petitioner Dizon sets forth two main issues first, that he was denied due process when the CA sustained the trial courts forfeiture of his right to present evidence; and, second, that he was deprived of due process when the CA did not apply to him the same "ratio decidendi that served as basis of acquittal of the other accused.

ISSUE: Was Dizon deprived of due process? RULING: In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence. In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings. The court must first explain to the accused personally in clear the exact nature and consequences of a waiver.

VILLA VS. ESCALONA FACTS: Petitioner Villa assails the CAs dismissal of the criminal case involving 4 of the 9 accused, namely, Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano. She argues that the accused failed to assert their right to speedy trial within a reasonable period of time. She also points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the delay, as the original records and the required evidence were not at its disposal, but were still in the appellate court. ISSUE: Did the CA err in dismissing the case for violation of the accused's right to speedy trial? RULING: The absence of the records in the trial court [was] due to the fact that the records of the case were elevated to the Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions failure to comply with the order of the court a quo requiring it to secure certified true copies of the same. It appears, however, that even until August 5, 2002, the said records were still not at the disposal of the trial court because the lack of it was made the basis of the said court in granting the motion to dismiss filed by co-accused Concepcion. It is likewise noticeable that for a period of almost seven years, there was no action at all on the part of the court a quo. The case remained dormant for a considerable length of time. This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the kind of delay that the constitution frowns upon.

the case of lenny villa RULING: Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity were tantamount to recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It must be ed that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of care not to cause them injury in the process.269 With the foregoing facts, we rule that the accused are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the NBI medico-legal officer found that the victim’s death was the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly participated in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).272 Since there was no law prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time of his death. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Victorino et al.’s individual participation in the infliction of physical injuries upon Lenny Villa.273 As to accused Villareal, his criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his death, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. Fidelito Dizon, Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined and penalized under Article 365 in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. They are hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.

the anti-hazing law of 1995 What does the law say?

According to the law, initiation rites can still push through if: • There is written notice addressed to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days prior • There are at least two representatives from the school present • The written notice should include details about the activity, including how long it will last, the names of those who will undergo the initiation rites, and an "undertaking that no physical violence will be employed." Meanwhile, those who have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted but did not do anything about it – such as owners of the place where it was held, school authorities, and other of the organization – can be considered as accomplices. of organizations – regardless whether fraternity, sorority, or otherwise – directly involved in the infliction of harm will be liable if the person who went through the hazing or any form of initiation rites “suffers any physical injury or dies,” according to the law. The law does not penalize the actual act of initiation rites. If a neophyte dies, has been raped, sodomized, or mutilated, those responsible can face life imprisonment.

dungo vs. people first conviction under anti-hazing law FACTS: Villanueva, a UP Los Baños student, was a neophyte of the APO – Theta Chapter Fraternity and that Dungo and Sibal, as of the said fraternity, together with the other fraternity , officers and alumni, brought and transported Villanueva and two other neophytes to Villa Novaliches Resort at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City, for the final initiation rites conducted inside the resort, performed under the cover of darkness and secrecy. Due to the injuries sustained by Villanueva, the fraternity and the other two neophytes haphazardly left the resort, while Dungo and Sibal boarded a tricycle and brought the lifeless body of Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital, where Villanueva was pronounced dead. The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

dungo vs. people RULING: Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049. From the definition, the elements of the crime of hazing can be determined: 1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for ission into hip in a fraternity, sorority or organization; 2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and 3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

dungo vs. people RULING: Classes of direct participants are: •

• •

the first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. The third class of principals would be the officers or of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser. The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or of the fraternity, group, or organization.

Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.

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

THE ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018 What does the law say? • Violators of the law will be sanctioned with reclusion perpetua and a fine of P3 million, if their involvement in the hazing caused death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation. • Reclusion perpetua and a fine of P2 million will be imposed on those who planned or participated in hazing under the influence of alcohol or drugs; reclusion temporal and a P1-million fine for those involved in the hazing; and prision correccional on anyone who forced or threatened another person to a fraternity or organization. • Schools and owners or lessee of the place where the hazing was conducted may also face penalties. • The law also provided that if the offenders are of the Bar, they will be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme Court. If the offenders are in another profession, they will be subject to regulation by the Professional Regulation Commission.

comparison BEFORE RA 8049 THE ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 1995 Source

Revised Penal Code

THE ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018

Special Penal Law

Special Penal Law

Criminal Intent Necessary

Not necessary

Not necessary

Prohibition

Not prohibited

Prohibited

Penalty

Depends on the applicable crime

Not prohibited, only regulated Prision correccional to reclusion perpetua; no fine

Persons liable

Depends on the degree of involvement

Officers and who actually participated, owner of the place or parents, school authorities, officers who planned hazing, any person present

Persons who actually participated; officers, advisers, former officers present; who induced victim; intoxicated while present; any member who will conceal; any form of vexation to influence; school; owner of the place; any person present.

Prision correccional to reclusion perpetua; fine from P1M to P3M

T H A N K Y O U

References •

"AnimatED: Kapatiran ng kamatayan" [AnimatED: Brotherhood of death]. Rappler (in Filipino). 2 October 2017. Retrieved 4 October 2017.

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

http://www.stuartxchange.org/Hazing

•

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

•

Honasan, Alya B. "Forgiving like Daddy"

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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