Case Digest (G.R. No. 181995) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes vs. the Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 208162, decided January 7, 2020 by the Supreme Court en banc, petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes was one of 46 members of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity and its sister sorority, Tau Gamma Sigma, charged under the Anti-Hazing Law (Republic Act No. 8049, as amended by RA 11053) in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 before RTC Branch 30, San Pablo City. The Information, filed October 20, 2008, alleged that neophyte Chester Paolo Abracia sustained fatal injuries on August 2, 2008 during off-campus initiation rites at Barangay Mate, Tayabas City, Quezon. Fuertes, then 17 and a student of Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation, admitted her presence at the premises but denied actual participation. Without prior resolution in the trial court, she filed a Petition for Certiorari on August 1, 2013 directly before the Supreme Court, assailing Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 (later renumbered to Sections 5 and 14) on the ground that par Case Digest (G.R. No. 181995) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the case
- Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes, a 17-year-old student and member of Tau Gamma Sigma, was among 46 individuals charged in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 before Branch 30, RTC of San Pablo City, for violating the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049) in connection with the death of neophyte Chester Paolo Abracia during initiation rites of Tau Gamma Phi and Tau Gamma Sigma.
- The Information (Oct. 20, 2008) alleged conspiracy among all accused to haze Abracia, inflicting fatal injuries by paddle and fist blows, and charged owners of premises and accomplices.
- Procedural history and petition
- Fuertes, at large and not yet arraigned, filed a Petition for Certiorari (Aug. 1, 2013) directly with the Supreme Court seeking to declare Sections 3 and 4 (now Sections 5 and 14) of RA 8049 unconstitutional for violating the presumption of innocence, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, and operating as a bill of attainder.
- The Supreme Court required comments, received public respondents’ Opposition, Fuertes’s Reply, and memoranda; RA 11053 (2018) amended and renumbered the challenged provisions but retained the prima facie presumption in Section 14(4).
- As of June 25, 2019, Fuertes was detained; the Court set for resolution whether the petition was properly before it and whether Sections 5 and 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law are unconstitutional.
Issues:
- Proper remedy and venue
- Whether Fuertes’s direct recourse to the Supreme Court by certiorari was proper, given the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and availability of trial-court remedies (e.g., motion to quash).
- Whether the case was ripe and presented a justiciable controversy absent a final order from the lower court.
- Constitutionality of Sections 5 and 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law (formerly Sections 3 and 4)
- Whether paragraph 4 of Section 14, making mere presence during hazing prima facie evidence of participation, violates:
- The constitutional presumption of innocence.
- The prohibition against bills of attainder.
- The rule against res inter alios acta.
- The ban on cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)