Facts:
In February 1991, seven law students from Ateneo de Manila University expressed interest in joining the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). The group included neophyte Leonardo “Lenny” Villa. The intended initiation rites were set to last three days, commencing at the Almeda Compound in Caloocan City. During this period, the neophytes underwent “traditional” initiation rites and were subjected to physical and psychological beatings.
On the second day of initiation, the head of initiation rites, initially reluctant, acquiesced to the demands of alumni members Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal to extend the initiation rites. The neophytes, including Villa, were subjected to additional physical abuse, including “paddling.” Villa experienced severe pain and difficulty breathing, and despite efforts by fraternity members to assist him, Villa was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
Consequently, criminal proceedings for homicide were filed against 35 Aquila Fraternity members. After a series of trials and appeals, 26 accused in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) were found guilty by the trial court, while the case against the remaining nine accused was temporarily held in abeyance.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) acquits 19 accused members, convicts four for slight physical injuries, and finds Dizon and Villareal guilty of homicide. Separate proceedings address the remaining accused members’ prosecution delays. The Supreme Court now resolves the consolidated cases, with petitions challenging the CA’s decisions on procedural and substantive grounds.
Issues:
– Whether the forfeiture of Dizon’s right to present evidence constitutes a denial of due process.
– Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the case against certain fraternity members for violation of the right to speedy trial.
– Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the trial court’s finding of conspiracy and adjudicated the liability of each accused according to individual participation.
– Whether Dizon is guilty of homicide.
– Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by convicting certain members only for slight physical injuries.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court finds Dizon, Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, ruling that the CA and trial court erred in convicting them of either homicide or slight physical injuries. The psychological and physical abuses inflicted during hazing were reckless but lacked the malice required for the intentional infliction of injuries.
The Court upholds the acquittal of other fraternity members due to insufficient evidence of their individual participation in the hazing. It also affirms the dismissal of cases against Escalona et al. based on the right to speedy trial. Additionally, the criminal case against Villareal is deemed closed and terminated due to his death.
Doctrine:
The Court establishes that hazing, in itself, absent a law defining it as a crime, does not automatically indicate malicious intent to injure or kill. Hazing practices, though reckless, cannot be equated with malice without proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Class Notes:
– The forfeiture of the right to present evidence without proper justification or warning is a violation of due process.
– Lengthy and unexplained delay in prosecution without the accused’s fault may infringe upon the right to a speedy trial.
– A finding of conspiracy requires proof that the overt act is done with malice, which is inconsistent with culpable felonies.
– Intent to kill (animus interficendi) must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction of homicide.
– The conviction for hazing relies on the Anti-Hazing Law, which criminalizes acts leading to physical or psychological suffering during initiation rites.
Historical Background:
The public outcry following Villa’s death led to the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law. Before its passage, hazing was not expressly criminalized. The Villa case exposes the dangerous customs of fraternity hazing practices and serves as a historical linchpin for legislating against such activities in the Philippines.
Leave a Reply