Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People

8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People

1/35

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

ARTEMIO VILLAREAL,Petitioner,

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

- versus -

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO

MARIANO ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNELANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE MONTECILLO,VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL,SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO,JAIME MARIA FLORES II, OSIMO MENDOA,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 DEGUMAN,

Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

FIDELITO DION,Petitioner,

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

GERARDA H. VILLA,

Petitioner,

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

G.R. No. %&)*&)

G.R. No. %&&%+%

- versus -

MANUEL LORENO ESCALONA II, MARCUS JOELCAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO CRU SARUCA,JR., "#$ ANSELMO ADRIANO,

Respondents.

G.R. No. %-(+&- %-(+(+

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

The public outrae 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 hain. (

(/ue in lare part to the brave efforts of his 'other, petitioner 0erarda %illa, roups

1ere oranied, conde'nin his senseless and traic death. This 1idespread

conde'nation pro'pted Conress to enact a special la1, 1hich beca'e effective in

(++2, that 1ould cri'inalie hain.33 The intent of the la1 1as to discourae

'e'bers fro' 'a4in hain a re5uire'ent for 6oinin their sororit#, fraternit#,

oraniation, or association.77 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 hain punishable or mala prohibita.88

1

2

3

4


2/35

9adl#, the !enn# %illa traed# did not discourae hain activities in the

countr#.22 ithin a #ear of his death, six 'ore cases of hain-related deaths

e'ered & those of *rederic4 Cahi#an of the ;niversit# of %isa#as in Cebu< Raul

Ca'alian of 9an =eda Collee< *elipe >arne of Pa'antasan n Araullo in

Cabanatuan Cit#< /ennis Cenedoa of the Cavite >aval Trainin Center< ?oselito

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

;niversit# of the Philippines in =auio Cit#.

Althouh courts 'ust not re'ain indifferent to public senti'ents, in this case

the eneral conde'nation of a hain-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.$Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Dven if an act is

vie1ed b# a lare 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, 6udes 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. (E)2 and (E)E) FVilla v. EscalonaG.

FACTS

The pertinent facts, as deter'ined b# the Court of Appeals FCAGEEand the

trial court,++

are as follo1s:

In *ebruar# (++(, seven fresh'en la1 students of the Ateneo de Manila

5

6

7

8

9

;niversit# 9chool of !a1 sinified their intention to 6oin the A5uila !eis ?uris

*raternit# FA5uila *raternit#G. The# 1ere Caesar "=os$ Asuncion, 9a'uel "9a'$

=ellea, =ienvenido "=ien$ Mar5ue III, Roberto *rancis "=ert$ >avera, 0eroni'o

"Rand#$ Recinto, *elix 9#, ?r., and !eonardo "!enn#$ %illa Fneoph#tesG.

On the niht 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 Musni, 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 beatins, 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 brouht 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 alihted fro' the van and

1al4ed to1ards the pelotacourt 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 oblied the neoph#tes

to sit on the floor 1ith their bac4s aainst the 1all and their les outstretched 1hile

the A5uilans 1al4ed, 6u'ped, or ran over their les< the "Rounds,$ in 1hich the

neoph#tes 1ere held at the bac4 of their pants b# the "auxiliaries$ Fthe A5uilans

chared 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

thihs b# t1o A5uilans< and the "AuxiesH Privilee 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.

On the 'ornin of their second da# & + *ebruar# (++( & the neoph#tes 1ere

'ade to present co'ic pla#s and to pla# rouh bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to

'e'orie and recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. henever the# 1ould ive a

1ron ans1er, the# 1ould be hit on their ar's or les. !ate in the afternoon, the


3/35

A5uilans revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to tor'ent the' ph#sicall#

and ps#choloicall#. The neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to the sa'e 'anner of hain

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

/ion F/ionG 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 /ion and %illareal, ho1ever, he reopened the initiation rites. The

fraternit# 'e'bers, includin /ion 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 beatins, !enn# could no loner 1al4. @e had to be carried b# the

auxiliaries to the carport. Aain, 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'blins. Initiall#, %illareal and /ion dis'issed these

ru'blins, as the# thouht he 1as 6ust overactin. hen the# realied, thouh, that

!enn# 1as reall# feelin cold, so'e of the A5uilans started helpin hi'. The#

re'oved his clothes and helped hi' throuh 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 aainst the follo1in 72

A5uilans:

In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G

(. *idel ito /ion F/ionG3. Arte'io %illareal F%illarealG7. Dfren de !eon F/e !eonG8. %incent Tecson FTecsonG2. ?unel Anthon# A'a FA'aG. Antonio Mariano Al'eda FAl'edaG. Renato =antu, ?r. F=antuGE. >elson %ictorino F%ictorinoG

10

+. Duloio 9abban F9abbanG(). ?oseph !ledo F!ledoG((. Dtienne 0uerrero F0uerreroG(3. Michael Musni FMusniG(7. ?onas arl Pere FPereG(8. Paul Anelo 9antos F9antosG(2. Ronan de 0u'an F/e 0u'anG(. Antonio 0eneral F0eneralG(. ?ai'e Maria *lores II F*loresG

(E. /al'acio !i', ?r. F!i'G(+. Drnesto ?ose Montecillo FMontecilloG3). 9antiao Ranada III FRanadaG3(. Josi'o Mendoa FMendoaG33. %icente %erdadero F%erdaderoG37. A'ante Purisi'a II FPurisi'aG38. ?ude *ernande F?. *ernandeG32. Adel Abas FAbasG3. Percival =riola F=riolaG

In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)

(. Manuel Dscalona II FDscalonaG3. Crisanto 9aruca, ?r. F9arucaG

7. Ansel'o Adriano FAdrianoG8. Marcus ?oel Ra'os FRa'osG2. Re#naldo Concepcion FConcepcionG. *lorentino A'pil FA'pilG. Dnrico de %era I II F/e %eraGE. 9tanle# *ernande F9. *ernandeG+. >oel Cabanon FCabanonG

T1ent#-six of the accused A5uilans in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G 1ere

6ointl# tried.((((On the other hand, the trial aainst 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 1ourtrendered 6ud'ent in Cri'inal Case >o.

C-7E78)F+(G, holdin the '2 "11ue$3u/0t4be#ond reasonable doubt of the 1r/me

o5 6om/1/$e, penalied 1ith reclusion temporalunder Article 38+ of the Revised

Penal Code.(7(7A fe1 1ee4s after the trial court rendered its 6ud'ent, or on 3+

11

12

13


4/35

>ove'ber (++7, Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) aainst the re'ainin nine accused

co''enced ane1.(8(8

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 "11ue$9"ppe00"#t & %ictorino, 9abban, !ledo,

0uerrero, Musni, Pere, /e 0u'an, 9antos, 0eneral, *lores, !i',

Montecillo, Ranada, Mendoa, %erdadero, Purisi'a, *ernande,

Abas, and =riola FV/1tor/#o et al.G & 1ere "1:u/tte$, as their

individual uilt 1as not established b# proof be#ond reasonable

doubt.

3. Four o5 t6e "11ue$9"ppe00"#t & %incent Tecson, ?unel Anthon#

A'a, Antonio Mariano Al'eda, and Renato =antu, ?r. FTe1o# et

al.G & 1ere found uilt# of the cri'e of 0/36t p64/1"0 /#;ur/eand

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#.

7. T


5/35

G.R. No. %&&%+% > Dizon v. People

Accused /ion filed a Rule 82 Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari, 5uestionin

the CAHs /ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Auust 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 riht to

present evidence< and, second, that he 1as deprived of due process 1hen the CA did

not appl# to hi' the sa'e "ratio ecienithat served as basis of ac5uittal of the

other accused.$3333

As reards the first issue, the trial court 'ade a rulin, 1hich forfeited

/ionHs riht to present evidence durin trial. The trial court expected /ion to

present evidence on an earlier date since a co-accused, Antonio 0eneral, no loner

presented separate evidence durin trial. Accordin to /ion, his riht should not

have been considered as 1aived because he 1as 6ustified in as4in for a

postpone'ent. @e arues 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 oriinal pre-

assined schedule, and not on an earlier hearin date.

Reardin 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. 3737@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 enouh to undero the initiation so Mr. %illareal

proceeded to do the paddlinB.$3838*urther, petitioner echoes the aru'ent of the

9olicitor 0eneral that "the individual blo1s inflicted b# /ion and %illareal could not

have resulted in !enn#Hs death.$3232The 9olicitor 0eneral purportedl# averred that,

21

22

23

24

25

"on the contrar#, /r. Ariala 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'.$33

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 /ionHs

father, since the latter did not have a car, and their fathers did not 1or4 in the sa'e

place or office. Revene for the loss of the par4in space 1as the alleed ill 'otive of

/ion. Accordin to petitioner, his utterances reardin a stolen par4in space 1ere

onl# part of the "ps#choloical initiation.$ @e then cites the testi'on# of !enn#Hs co-

neoph#te & 1itness Mar5ue & 1ho ad'itted 4no1in "it 1as not true and that he 1as

6ust 'a4in it upB.$33

*urther, petitioner arues that his alleed 'otivation of ill 1ill 1as neated

b# his sho1 of concern for %illa after the initiation rites. /ion 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, /ion, toether 1ith %ictorino, helped !enn# throuh a sleepin

ba and 'ade hi' sit on a chair. Accordin to petitioner, his alleed ill 'otivation is

contradicted b# his 'anifestation of co'passion and concern for the victi'Hs 1ell-

bein.

G.R. No. %&)*&) > People v. Court of Appeals

This Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 2 see4s the reversal of the CAHs

/ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Auust 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 sliht ph#sical in6uries.3E3EAccordin to

the 9olicitor 0eneral, the CA erred in holdin that there could have been no

conspirac# to co''it hain, as hain or fraternit# initiation had not #et been

cri'inalied at the ti'e !enn# died.

26

27

28


6/35

In the alternative, petitioner clai's that the rulin of the trial court should

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# FelitoG althouh the 1ronful

act done be different fro' that 1hich he intended.$

Petitioner also arues 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.

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)) and Resolution dated (

Ma# 3)) in CA-0.R. 9.P. >os. E+)) and +)(27 .7)7)The Petition involves the

dis'issal of the cri'inal chare filed aainst 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 Cabanon FCri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)G to co''ence after

proceedins aainst the 3 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 3 accused uilt#

be#ond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedins in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)

involvin the nine other co-accused reco''enced on 3+ >ove'ber (++7. *or

"various reasons,$ the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E March 3))2,

or al'ost (3 #ears after the arrain'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 arues that the

29

30

accused failed to assert their riht 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

oriinal 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.

ISSUES

(. hether the forfeiture of petitioner /ionHs riht to present evidence constitutes

denial of due process Villareal v. People

In a >otice dated 3 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

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


7/35

cri'inal liabilit# for pecuniar# penalties is extinuished 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,7373includin civil liabilit# predicated on the cri'inal offense

co'plained of Fi.e., civil liabilit# e! elictoG.7777@o1ever, civil liabilit# based on a

source of obliation other than the elictsurvives the death of the accused and is

recoverable throuh a separate civil action.7878

Thus, 1e hold that the death of petitioner %illareal extinuished his cri'inal

liabilit# for both personal and pecuniar# penalties, includin his civil liabilit# directl#

arisin fro' the elictco'plained of. Conse5uentl#, his Petition is hereb# dis'issed,

and the cri'inal case aainst 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 /ion on the Eth, (2th, and 33ndof 9epte'ber< and

the 2thand (3 of October (++7.7272The 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.$77

@o1ever, on (+ Auust (++7, counsel for another accused 'anifested in

open court that his client & Antonio 0eneral & 1ould no loner present separate

evidence. Instead, the counsel 1ould adopt the testi'onial evidence of the other

31

32

33

34

35

36

accused 1ho had alread# testified.77=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 /ion to present evidence on the next trial date & 32 Auust (++7

& instead of his oriinall# assined dates. The oriinal dates 1ere supposed to start

t1o 1ee4s later, or on E 9epte'ber (++7.7E7ECounsel for accused /ion 1as not

able to present evidence on the accelerated date. To address the situation, counsel

filed a Constancia on 32 Auust (++7, allein that he had to appear in a previousl#

scheduled case, and that he 1ould be read# to present evidence on the dates

oriinall# assined to his clients.7+7+The trial court denied the Manifestation on the

sa'e date and treated the Constanciaas 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 /ion to present evidence a'ounted to a 1aiver of that riht. 8(

8(

Accused-petitioner /ion thus arues that he 1as deprived of due process

of la1 1hen the trial court forfeited his riht to present evidence. Accordin to hi', the

postpone'ent of the 32 Auust (++7 hearin should have been considered 6ustified,

since his oriinal pre-assined 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 assined 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

contends that the trial court erred in acceleratin the schedule of presentation of

evidence, thereb# invalidatin the findin of his uilt.

The riht of the accused to present evidence is uaranteed b# no less than

the Constitution itself.8383 Article III, 9ection (8F3G thereof, provides that " /# "00

1r/m/#"0 proe1ut/o#, t6e "11ue$ B 6"00 e#;o4 t6e r/36t to 7e 6e"r$ 74

37

38

39

40

41


8/35

6/me05 "#$ 1ou#e0B$ This constitutional riht includes the riht to present

evidence in oneHs defense,8787as 1ell as the riht to be present and defend oneself in

person at ever# stae of the proceedins.8888

In Crisostomo v. "aniganbayan,8282the 9andianba#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 reular 'e'bership$ of the

9andianba#anHs 9econd /ivision and upon the aree'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 9andianba#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 riht to present

evidence because of his nonappearance at "#esterda#Hs and toda#Hs scheduled

hearins.$ In rulin aainst the Order, 1e held thus:

;nder 9ection 3FcG, Rule ((8 and 9ection (FcG, Rule ((2

of the Rules of Court, Cr/otomo #o#9"ppe"r"#1e $ur/#3 t6e'' Ju#e %**& tr/"0 evertheless, as in the case of an i'provident uilt# plea, an invalid 1aiver

of the riht to present evidence and be heard does notper se1or4 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.88 In People v. #ooso, 1e ruled that 1here facts have ade5uatel# been

represented in a cri'inal case, and no procedural unfairness or irreularit# 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.8E8E

46

47

48


9/35

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 irreularit#$

that 1ould substantiall# pre6udice either the prosecution or the defense as a result of

the invalid 1aiver. In fact, the aru'ents set forth b# accused /ion 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 /ion ad'its direct participation in the hain of !enn# %illa b#

allein in his Petition that "all actions of the petitioner 1ere part of the traditional

rites,$ and that "the alleed extension of the initiation rites 1as not outside the official

activit# of the fraternit#.$8+8+ @e even arues that "/ion 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 6ude 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 /ion 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@

Petitioner %illa arues that the case aainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and

Adriano should not have been dis'issed, since the# failed to assert their riht 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 aainst the', and that

the# asserted their riht onl# after the trial court had dis'issed the case aainst their

co-accused Concepcion. Petitioner also e'phasies 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 oriinal records and the evidence it 'a# re5uire

1ere not at its disposal as these 1ere in the Court of Appeals.$2(2(

49

50

51

The riht of the accused to a speed# trial has been enshrined in 9ections

(8F3G and (, Article III of the (+E Constitution.2323This riht re5uires that there be a

trial free fro' vexatious, capricious or oppressive dela#s.2727The riht 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.2828In deter'inin the riht 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 hearins of the case.2222The conduct of both the

prosecution and the defense 'ust be 1eihed.22Also to be considered are factors

such as the lenth of dela#, the assertion or non-assertion of the riht, and the

pre6udice 1rouht upon the defendant.22

e have consistentl# ruled in a lon line of cases that a dis'issal of the

case pursuant to the riht of the accused to speed# trial is tanta'ount to ac5uittal.2E2E

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, certiorarilies.))The rule on

double 6eopard# is not triered 1hen a petition challenes the validit# of the order of

dis'issal instead of the correctness thereof. (( Rather, rave abuse of discretion

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61


10/35

a'ounts to lac4 of 6urisdiction, and lac4 of 6urisdiction prevents double 6eopard# fro'

attachin.33

e do not see rave abuse of discretion in the CAHs dis'issal of the case

aainst accused Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation

of their riht to speed# trial. The court held thus:

An exa'ination of the procedural histor# of this case1ould reveal that the follo1in factors contributed to the slo1proress of the proceedins in the case belo1:

x x x x x xx x x

2G The fact that the records of the case 1ere elevated tothe Court of Appeals and the prosecutionHs failure toco'pl# 1ith the order of the court a 5uo re5uirinthe' to secure certified true copies of the sa'e.

x x x x x x

x x x

hile 1e are prepared to concede that so'e of theforeoin factors that contributed to the dela# of the trial of thepetitioners are 6ustifiable, e nonetheless hold that their riht tospeed# trial has been utterl# violated in this case x x x.

x x x x x xx x x

The "7e#1e o5 t6e re1or$ /# t6e tr/"0 1ourt1as due to thefact that the records of the 1"e ove'ber (++7, the# 1ere

all arrained.22;nfortunatel#, the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E

March 3))2 or al'ost (3 #ears after arrain'ent.

As illustrated in our rulin in Abaro v. "aniganbayan, the unexplained

interval or inactivit# of the 9andianba#an for close to five #ears since the

arrain'ent of the accused a'ounts to an unreasonable dela# in the disposition of

cases & a clear violation of the riht of the accused to a speed# disposition of cases.

Thus, 1e held:

The dela# in this case 'easures up to theunreasonableness of the dela# in the disposition of cases inAngchangco, Jr. vs. $mbusman, 1here the Court found the $e0"4o5 / 4e"r 74 t6e Om7u$m"# /# reo08/#3 t6e 1r/m/#"01omp0"/#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 $mbusman, 1here the Court held that the $e0"4 o5"0mot / 4e"r $/re3"r$e$ t6e Om7u$m"# $ut4 to "1t

63

64

65

66

67


11/35

prompt04 o# 1omp0"/#t 7e5ore 6/m< a nd in Cervantes vs."aniganbayan, 1here the Court held that the 9andianba#an3r"8e04 "7ue$ /t $/1ret/o# /# #ot :u"6/#3 t6e /#5orm"t/o#


12/35

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 aain in the hope of securin

a reater penalt#.$e further stressed that "an ac5uitted defendant is entitled to

the riht of repose as a direct conse5uence of the finalit# of his ac5uittal.$

This prohibition, ho1ever, is not absolute. The state 'a# challene the lo1er

courtHs ac5uittal of the accused or the i'position of a lo1er penalt# on the latter in the

follo1in reconied exceptions: F(G 1here the prosecution is deprived of a fair

opportunit# to prosecute and prove its case, tanta'ount to a deprivation of due

process


13/35

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 reards Tecson, A'a,

Al'eda, and =antu & the four fraternit# 'e'bers convicted of sliht ph#sical

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 hiher penalt# aainst the

accused.+(+( e have also reconied, 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+3The present case is one of those instances of rave abuse of discretion.

In i'posin the penalt# of sliht ph#sical in6uries on Tecson, A'a, Al'eda,

and =antu, the CA reasoned thus:

=ased on the 'edical findins, it 1ould appear that


14/35

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 leal fra'e1or4 overnin the destruction of life.

This rule is 'andator#, and not sub6ect to discretion.

The CAHs application of the leal fra'e1or4 overnin ph#sical in6uries &

punished under Articles 33 to 3 for intentional felonies and Article 72 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 leall# 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 38 to 3( for intentional felonies and Article 72 for culpable felonies, and

not under the afore'entioned provisions. e e'phasie that these t1o t#pes of

felonies are distinct fro' and leall# 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 /ion & as if onl# their acts,

in and of the'selves, caused the death of !enn# %illa & is contrar# to the CAHs o1n

findins. *ro' proof that the death of the victi' 1as the cu'ulative effect of the

'ultiple in6uries he suffered,()7()7 the onl# loical 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. Accordinl#, 1e find that the CA

co''itted rave abuse of discretion a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction in

findin Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu cri'inall# liable for sliht ph#sical in6uries.

As an allo1able exception to the rule on double 6eopard#, 1e therefore ive due

course to the Petition in 0.R. >o. (28+28.

Reo0ut/o# o# U0t/m"te F/#$/#3

102

103

Accordin to the trial court, althouh hain 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 37 to 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in rulin

aainst the accused, the court a &uofound 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 loical conse5uence of the ph#sical in6uries the# had intentionall#

inflicted.()8()8

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

4no1inl# consented to the conduct of hain durin their initiation rites. The accused

fraternit# 'e'bers, therefore, 1ere liable onl# for the conse5uences of their individual

acts. Accordinl#, (+ of the accused & %ictorino et al.& 1ere ac5uitted< 8 of the' &

Tecson et al.& 1ere found uilt# of sliht ph#sical in6uries< and the re'ainin 3 &

/ion 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 revene upon, to ain advantae

over, to har' 'aliciousl#, or to et even 1ith, the victi'. Rather, the case involves an

e! antesituation in 1hich a 'an & driven b# his o1n desire to 6oin a societ# of 'en &

pleded to o throuh ph#sicall# and ps#choloicall# 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-@ain !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#choloical initiations 1idel# 4no1n as hain.

I#te#t/o#"0 Fe0o#4 "#$ Co#p/r"14

Our Revised Penal Code belons to the classical school of thouht.()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.()()It asserts that one should

104

105

106


15/35

onl# be ad6uded or held accountable for 1ronful acts so lon as free 1ill appears

uni'paired.()()The basic postulate of the classical penal s#ste' is that hu'ans are

rational and calculatin beins 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 advantae in co''ittin

the cri'e.()+()+@ere, cri'inal liabilit# is thus based on the free 1ill and 'oral bla'e

of the actor.(()(() The identit# of mens rea& defined as a uilt# 'ind, a uilt# or

1ronful purpose or cri'inal intent & is the predo'inant consideration.((((((Thus, it is

not enouh to do 1hat the la1 prohibits. ((3((3In order for an intentional felon# to

exist, it is necessar# that the act be co''itted b# 'eans of oloor "'alice.$((7((7

The ter' "olo$ or "'alice$ is a co'plex idea involvin the ele'ents of

freeom, intelligence, and intent.((8((8The first ele'ent, freeom, refers to an act

done 1ith deliberation and 1ith po1er to choose bet1een t1o thins. ((2((2 The

second ele'ent, intelligence, concerns the abilit# to deter'ine the 'oralit# of hu'an

acts, as 1ell as the capacit# to distinuish bet1een a licit and an illicit act. ((((The

last ele'ent, intent, involves an ai' or a deter'ination to do a certain act.((((

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

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((EIt 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 intentconcerns the result of

the act.(3)(3)hile 'otive is the "'ovin po1er$ that i'pels one to action for a

definite result, intent is the "purpose$ of usin a particular 'eans to produce the

result.(3((3( On the other hand, the ter' "felonious$ 'eans, inter alia, 'alicious,

villainous, andNor proceedin fro' an evil heart or purpose.(33(33ith these ele'ents

ta4en toether, 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 aforethouht.$(37(37The '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(38As 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#

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

1omm//o# o5 " 5e0o#4and decide to co''it it$ & is to be interpreted to refer onl#

to felonies co''itted b# 'eans of olo or 'alice. The phrase "co'in to an

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

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125


16/35

an ele'ent present onl# in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or cri'inal

nelience, the in6ur# inflicted on another is unintentional, the 1ron done bein

si'pl# the result of an act perfor'ed 1ithout 'alice or cri'inal desin. (3(3@ere, a

person perfor's an initial la1ful deed< ho1ever, due to nelience, i'prudence, lac4

of foresiht, or lac4 of s4ill, the deed results in a 1ronful act.(3(3%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

inredient 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(Intent to 4ill &

or animus interficeni& 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

foresiht, carelessness, or nelience & the act 'ust be 5ualified as rec4less or

si'ple nelience or i'prudence resultin in ho'icide.(78(78

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

H"=/#3 "#$ ot6er 5orm o5 /#/t/"t/o# r/te

The notion of hain is not a recent develop'ent in our societ#.(72(72 It is

said that, throuhout histor#, hain in so'e for' or another has been associated

1ith oraniations ranin fro' 'ilitar# roups to indienous tribes.(7(79o'e sa#

that ele'ents of hain can be traced bac4 to the Middle Aes, durin 1hich ne1

students 1ho enrolled in Duropean universities 1or4ed as servants for

upperclass'en.(7(7 It is believed that the concept of hain is rooted in ancient

0reece,(7E(7E 1here #oun 'en recruited into the 'ilitar# 1ere tested 1ith pain or

challened 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 civiliation.(8)(8)Accordin to a scholar, this concept lends

historical leiti'ac# to a "tradition$ or "ritual$ 1hereb# prospective 'e'bers are as4ed

to prove their 1orthiness and lo#alt# to the oraniation in 1hich the# see4 to attain

'e'bership throuh hain.(8((8(

Thus, it is said that in the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste', custo' re5uires a student

1ishin to 6oin an oraniation to receive an invitation in order to be a neoph#te for a

particular chapter.(83(83The neoph#te period is usuall# one to t1o se'esters lon.(87

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143


17/35

(87/urin the "prora',$ neoph#tes are re5uired to intervie1 and to et to 4no1 the

active 'e'bers of the chapter< to learn chapter histor#< to understand the principles

of the oraniation< to 'aintain a specified rade point averae< to participate in the

oraniationHs activities< and to sho1 dinit# and respect for their fello1 neoph#tes,

the oraniation, and its active and alu'ni 'e'bers.(88(889o'e chapters re5uire the

initiation activities for a recruit to involve hain acts durin the entire neoph#te

stae.(82(82

@ain, as co''onl# understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that

serves as prere5uisite for ad'ission to an oraniation. (8(8In hain, the "recruit,$

"plede,$ "neoph#te,$ "initiate,$ "applicant$ & or an# other ter' b# 1hich the

oraniation 'a# refer to such a person & is enerall# placed in e'barrassin or

hu'iliatin situations, li4e bein forced to do 'enial, sill#, foolish, or other si'ilar

tas4s or activities.(8(8 It enco'passes different for's of conduct that hu'iliate,

derade, abuse, or ph#sicall# endaner those 1ho desire 'e'bership in the

oraniation.(8E(8EThese acts usuall# involve ph#sical or ps#choloical sufferin or

in6ur#.(8+(8+

The concept of initiation rites in the countr# is nothin ne1. In fact, 'ore

than a centur# ao, our national hero & Andres =onifacio & oranied a secret societ#

na'ed -ataastaasan -agalanggalangang -atipunan ng mga Ana ng #ayan FThe

@ihest and Most %enerable Association of the 9ons and /auhters of the >ationG.(2)

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

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

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

Catholic Church.(2((2(The -atipunanHs ideolo# 1as brouht ho'e to each 'e'ber

throuh the societ#Hs initiation ritual.(23(23It is said that init iates 1ere brouht to a dar4

roo', lit b# a sinle point of illu'ination, and 1ere as4ed a series of 5uestions to

deter'ine their fitness, lo#alt#, courae, and resolve.(27(27The# 1ere 'ade to o

throuh viorous trials such as "pagsuot sa isang lungga$ o r " pagtalon sa

balon.$(28(28 It 1ould see' that the# 1ere also 'ade to 1ithstand the blo1 of

"pangherong baal sa pisngi$ and to endure a "matalas na punyal.$(22(22As a final

step in the ritual, the neoph#te -atipunero1as 'ade to sin 'e'bership papers 1ith

the his o1n blood.(2(2

It is believed that the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste' 1as transported b# the

A'ericans to the Philippines in the late (+ thcentur#. As can be seen in the follo1in

instances, the 'anner of hain in the ;nited 9tates 1as 6arrinl# si'ilar to that

inflicted b# the A5uila *raternit# on !enn# %illa.

Darl# in (E2, 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'ae< to eat or drin4 unpalatable foods< and in various 1a#s to hu'iliate

the'selves.(2(2 In (+)(, 0eneral /oulas MacArthur ot involved in a

conressional investiation of hain at the acade'# durin his second #ear at est

Point.(2E(2E

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158


18/35

In Easler v. /e)az 0emple of *reenville, decided in (+E2, the candidate-

victi' 1as in6ured durin the shrinerHs hain event, 1hich 1as part of the initiation

cere'onies for @e6a 'e'bership.(2+(2+The ritual involved 1hat 1as 4no1n as the

"'attress-rotatin barrel tric4.$()()It re5uired each candidate to slide do1n an eiht

to nine-foot-hih 'etal board onto connected 'attresses leadin to a barrel, over

1hich the candidate 1as re5uired to cli'b.((((Me'bers of @e6a 1ould stand on

each side of the 'attresses and barrel and fun-paddle candidates en route to the

barrel.(3(3

In a video footae ta4en in (++(, ;.9. Marine paratroopers in Ca'p

!e6eune, >orth Carolina, 1ere seen perfor'in a cere'on# in 1hich the# pinned

paratrooper 6u'p 1ins directl# onto the neoph#te paratroopersH chests.(7(7 The

victi's 1ere sho1n 1rithin and cr#in out in pain as others pounded the spi4ed

'edals throuh the shirts and into the chests of the victi's.(8(8

In "tate v. Allen, decided in (++2, the 9outheast Missouri 9tate ;niversit#

chapter of appa Alpha Psi invited 'ale students to enter into a pledeship

prora'.(2(2The fraternit# 'e'bers sub6ected the pledes to repeated ph#sical

abuse includin repeated, open-hand stri4es at the nape, the chest, and the bac4PA brother, and then

bla'ed !enn# %illaHs father for stealin the par4in space of /ionHs father. Accordin

to the 9olicitor 0eneral, these state'ents, includin those of the accused /ion, 1ere

all part of the ps#choloical initiation e'plo#ed b# the A5uila *raternit#.3(3(

Thus, to our understandin, accused /ionHs 1a# of inflictin ps#choloical

pressure 1as throuh 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.

The infliction of ps#choloical pressure is not unusual in the conduct of

hain. In fact, durin the 9enate deliberations on the then proposed Anti-@ain

!a1, for'er 9enator !ina spo4e as follo1s:

9enator !ina. -- so as to capture the intent that 1econve#ed durin the period of interpellations on 1h# 1e includedthe phrase "or ps#choloical pain and sufferin.$

x x x x x x x x x

9o that if no direct ph#sical har' is inflicted upon theneoph#te or the recruit but the re1ru/t or #eop64te / m"$e tou#$er3o 1ert"/# "1t1hich I alread# described #esterda#, li4epla#in the Russian roulette extensivel# to tet t6e re"$/#e "#$t6e


26/35

Thus, 1ithout proof be#ond reasonable doubt, /ionHs 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#choloical initiation.

This Court points out that it 1as not even established 1hether the fathers of /ion

and %illa reall# had an# fa'iliarit# 1ith each other as 1ould lend credence to the

veracit# of /ionHs 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 /ion

1as 6ust 'a4in it upB.$3(E3(E Dven the trial court did not ive 1eiht to the

utterances of /ion as constitutin intent to 4ill: "The 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 /ion uilt# of

ho'icide under Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence

of intent to 4ill. Animus interficenicannot and should not be inferred unless there is

proof be#ond reasonable doubt of such intent.33)33)Instead,


27/35

treat'ent$ & pluned the head of the victi' into a barrel of 1ater, baned his head

aainst 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 throuh 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 72 thereof.

Indeed, the threshold 5uestion is 1hether the accusedHs initial acts of

inflictin ph#sical pain on the neoph#tes 1ere attended b# animus iniuriani

a'ountin to a felonious act punishable under the Revised Penal Code, thereb#

'a4in it sub6ect to Article 8F(G thereof. In People v. %egato, 1e ruled that 'alicious

intent 'ust be 6uded b# the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused. 3333

hat persons do is the best index of their intention. 33E33Ee 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 bac4round surroundin the death of

!enn# %illa.

!enn# died durin A5uilaHs fraternit# initiation rites. The niht before the

co''ence'ent of the rites, the# 1ere briefed on 1hat to expect. The# 1ere told that

there 1ould be ph#sical beatins, that the 1hole event 1ould last for three da#s, and

that the# could 5uit an#ti'e. On their first niht, the# 1ere sub6ected to "traditional$

initiation rites, includin the "Indian Run,$ "=icol Dxpress,$ "Rounds,$ and the "AuxiesH

Privilee Round.$ The beatins 1ere predo'inantl# directed at the neoph#tesH ar's

and les.

In the 'ornin of their second da# of initiation, the# 1ere 'ade to present

co'ic pla#s and to pla# rouh bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to 'e'orie and

recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. !ate in the afternoon, the# 1ere once aain

227

228

229

sub6ected to "traditional$ initiation rituals. hen the rituals 1ere officiall# reopened on

the insistence of /ion and %illareal, the neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to another

"traditional$ ritual & paddlin b# the fraternit#.

/urin the 1hole initiation rites, auxiliaries 1ere assined to the neoph#tes.

The auxiliaries protected the neoph#tes b# functionin as hu'an barriers and

shieldin the' fro' those 1ho 1ere desinated to inflict ph#sical and ps#choloical

pain on the initiates.37)37)It 1as their reular dut# to stop foul or excessive ph#sical

blo1s< to help the neoph#tes to "pu'p$ their les 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#.373373

@is father 4ne1 that !enn# 1ould o throuh an initiation process and 1ould be one

for three da#s.377377The CA found as follo1s:

It is 1orth pointin out that the #eop64te


28/35

t6"t 6e epe1te$ 7ru/e o# 6/ "rm "#$ 0e3B. Indeed, t6ere1"# 7e #o 5r"ter#/t4 /#/t/"t/o#


29/35

Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a ver#tellin difference: 6e# " pero# or 3roup o5 pero# reort to6"=/#3 " " re:u/reme#t 5or 3"/#/#3 e#tr4 /#to "# or3"#/="t/o#,t6e /#te#t to 1omm/t " A. Mr. President, the "1t o5 6"=/#3,pre1/e04, / 7e/#3 1r/m/#"0/=e$ 7e1"ue /# t6e 1o#tet o5 ATOR 0;I>0O>A. =ut the chare is 'urder.

9D>ATOR !I>A. That is 1h# I said that it should not be'urder. It should be hain, Mr. President. 3737 FD'phasissuppliedG

/urin a discussion bet1een 9enator =iaon and 9enator !ina on the issue

236


30/35

of 1hether to include sodo'# as a punishable act under the Anti-@ain !a1,

9enator !ina further clarified thus:

9D>ATOR =IAJO>. Mr. President, this Representationhas no ob6ection to the inclusion of sodo'# as one of the conditionsresultin fro' hain as necessar# to be punished. @o1ever, theact of sodo'# can be co''itted b# t1o persons 1ith or 1ithoutconsent.

To 'a4e it clearer, 1hat is bein punished here is theco''ission of sodo'# forced into another individual b# anotherindividual. I 'ove, Mr. President, that sodo'# be 'odified b# thephrase "1ithout consent$ for purposes of this section.

9D>ATOR !I>A. I a' afraid, Mr. President, that if 1e5ualif# sodo'# 1ith the concept that it is onl# oin to aravatethe cri'e of hain if it is done 1ithout consent 1ill chane a lot ofconcepts here. Be1"ue t6e reu0t 5rom 6"=/#3 "33r"8"te t6eo55e#e T. Is there an# ob6ection to the co''itteea'end'ent F9ilence.G The Chair hears none< the sa'e isapproved.3737

FD'phasis suppliedG

Realiin the i'plication of re'ovin the stateHs burden to prove intent,

9enator !ina, the principal author of the 9enate =ill, said:

I a' ver# happ# that the distinuished Minorit# !eaderbrouht 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


31/35

point that he 1ants to o to.

I5


32/35

constitutes nelience.3838

As 1e held in *ai v. People, for a person to avoid bein chared 1ith

rec4lessness, the deree of precaution and dilience re5uired varies 1ith the deree

of the daner involved.3838If, on account of a certain line of conduct, the daner 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'ae or in6ur#.38E38EIn contrast, if the daner is 'inor, not 'uch care is re5uired.38+

38+It is thus possible that there are countless derees of precaution or dilience that

'a# be re5uired of an individual, "fro' a transitor# lance of care to the 'ost viilant

effort.$32)32)The dut# of the person to e'plo# 'ore or less deree of care 1il l depend

upon the circu'stances of each particular case.32(32(

There 1as patent rec4lessness in the hain of !enn# %illa.

Accordin to the >=I 'edico-leal officer, !enn# died of cardiac failure

secondar# to 'ultiple trau'atic in6uries.

323323

The officer explained that cardiac failurerefers 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.327327In the present case, the victi'Hs heart could no

loner 1or4 as a pu'pin oran, because it 1as deprived of its re5uisite blood and

ox#en.328328The deprivation 1as due to the "channelin$ of the blood suppl# fro'

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

the entire circulator# s#ste' & includin the heart, arteries, veins, venules, and

capillaries & to the thih, le, and ar' areas of !enn#, thus causin the for'ation of

'ultiple he'ato'as or blood clots.322322The 'ultiple he'ato'as 1ere 1ide, thic4,

and deep,3232 indicatin that these could have resulted 'ainl# fro' in6uries

sustained b# the victi' fro' fist blo1s, 4nee blo1s, paddles, or the li4e.3232

Repeated blo1s to those areas caused the blood to raduall# ooe out of the

capillaries until the circulatin blood beca'e so 'ar4edl# di'inished as to produce

death. 32E32EThe officer also found that the brain, liver, 4idne#, pancreas, intestines,

and all other orans seen in the abdo'inals, as 1ell as the thoracic oran in the

luns, 1ere pale due to the lac4 of blood, 1hich 1as redirected to the thihs 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.3)3)

The 'ultiple he'ato'as or bruises found in !enn# %illaHs ar's and thihs,

resultin fro' repeated blo1s to those areas, caused the loss of blood fro' his vital

orans and led to his eventual death. These he'ato'as 'ust be ta4en in the liht of

the hain 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, les, and thihs. 3(3(

The# 1ere also "paddled$ at the bac4 of their thihs or les


33/35


34/35


35/35

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. (E)2 K (E)E),

dis'issin the cri'inal case filed aainst 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 aainst

Arte'io %illareal dee'ed CLOSEDand 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-@ain !a1 to include the fact of intoxication and the

presence of non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers durin hain as aravatin

circu'stances that 1ould increase the applicable penalties.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOAssociate ?ustice

E CONCURK

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate ?ustice

Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate ?ustice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREAssociate ?ustice

BIENVENIDO L. REYESAssociate ?ustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above /ecision had been reached in

consultation before the case 1as assined to the 1riter of the Opinion of the CourtHs

/ivision.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate ?ustice

Chairperson, 9econd/ivision

CERTIFICATION

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 assined to the 1riter of the

opinion of the CourtHs /ivision.

RENATO C. CORONAChief ?ustice

Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People

Documents

Transcript of Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People