of Lenny Villa during hazing rite. This is not anymore controlling. The crime committed if a neophyte died during hazing rite is hazing punishable by RA No. 8049.
Prior to RA No. 8049, good faith is a defense in homicide where the victim is killed during hazing. The consent of the victim and lack of intent to kill of the accused will negate dolo, which is an important element of homicide. Hence, the crime committed only reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Villareal vs. People, supra). Having in mind the principle of mala in se adhered to under the RPC, where good faith is a defense, the Congress did not simply enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita where good faith is not a defense. The deliberation of the Senate shows that what is important is not the intention to kill the neophyte during the hazing but the result of the act of hazing. Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circ*mstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Also, the framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim to be sodomized or injured shall not be a defense in hazing. The very act of inflicting physical pain or psychological suffering is, by itself, a punishable act. Sodomy or death of the victim will only aggravate the offense (Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015).
The elements of the crime of hazing are: (1) That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization; (2) That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and (3) That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury (Dungo vs. People, supra; People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No.
171222, February 18, 2015).
Under Section 4 of RA 8049, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm upon recruit, neophyte or applicant on occasion of hazing shall be liable as principals for the crime of hazing. Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization or a requirement for employment in a corporation by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations.
The law, however, did not limit the definition of these groups to those formed within academic colleges and universities. Organization includes – but is not limited to – groups, teams, fraternities, sororities, citizen army training corps, educational
institutions, clubs, societies, cooperatives, companies, partnerships, corporations, the PNP, and the AFP. The Philippine Merchant Marine Academy is included in the term
organization within the meaning of the law (People vs. Bayabos). Even the president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment are covered by the law (Dungo vs. People, supra).
R.A. No. 8049 qualifies that the physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP, as approved by the Secretary of National Defense and the National Police Commission, duly recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director General of the PNP, shall not be considered as hazing (Dungo vs. People, supra).
And not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 thereof provides that initiation rites of fraternities, sororities or organizations shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met: (1) That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization; (2) The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation; (3) That the written notice shall indicate: (a) The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three (3) days; (b) The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and (c) An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites (Dungo vs. People, supra).
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation to the head of the school or organization or their representatives that they must assign at least two (2) representatives, as the case may be, to be present during these valid initiations. The duty of such representative is to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant (Dungo vs. People, supra).
Noticeably, the law does not provide a penalty or sanction to fraternities, sororities or organizations that fail to comply with the notice requirements of Section 2. Also, the school and organization administrators do not have a clear liability for non-compliance with Section 3 (Dungo vs. People, supra).
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is prima
facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.
RA No. 8049 presents a novel provision that introduces a disputable presumption of actual participation; and which modifies the concept of conspiracy. Section 4, paragraph 6 thereof provides that the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as principal, unless he prevented the commission of the punishable acts. This provision is unique because a disputable presumption arises from the mere presence of the offender during the hazing, which
can be rebutted by proving that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of the hazing.
Generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. 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. This rule on prima facie evidence does not shatter the presumptive innocence the accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence arises, certain facts have still to be proved; the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence, because precisely, it is merely prima facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Neither can it rely on the weak defense the latter may adduce."
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. Although these planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be liable as principals. The provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the organization, such as their former officers or alumni.
The third class of principals would be officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat. These officers or members are penalized, not because of their direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
The accused claim that the information avers a criminal charge of hazing by actual participation, but the only offense proved during the trial was hazing by inducement. The information alleged that the accused during a planned initiation rite and being then officers of APO fraternity used personal violence upon a neophyte resulting to his death. The "planned initiation rite" as stated in the information included the act of inducing victim to attend it. Accused not only induced victim to be present at the resort, but they actually brought him there. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present (Dungo vs. People, supra).
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action to prevent them from occurring. The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing, but also his failure to prevent the same.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the home of one of the officers or members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes and failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring.
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices.
Likewise, the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime. The owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop the same (Dungo vs. People, supra)
Curiously, although hazing has been defined as consisting of those activities involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the penalties for hazing only covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the only psychological injury recognized would be causing insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim only sustained physical injuries which did not incapacitate him, there is still a prescribed penalty (Dungo vs. People, supra).
