Case Digest (G.R. No. 208162)
Facts:
Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes v. The Senate of Philippines, House Representatives, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Budget and Management, Department of Finance, People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Office of the City Prosecutor of Tayabas City (Quezon Province), the Presiding Judge of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, and Heirs of Chester Paolo Abracia, G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes was one of 46 persons charged in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 before Branch 30 (originally filed in Branch 54, RTC Lucena City and later transferred pursuant to A.M. No. 10-7-224-RTC) for violating the Anti‑Hazing Law (then Republic Act No. 8049) in connection with the death of Chester Paolo Abracia on or about August 2, 2008. The Information, filed October 20, 2008, alleged that the accused — members of Tau Gamma Phi and Tau Gamma Sigma — acted in conspiracy to haze the victim outside school premises, causing injuries and death.
Fuertes, a then‑17‑year‑old member of Tau Gamma Sigma, admitted she was present at the premises during initiation rites but denied active participation. She remained at large for years and filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on August 1, 2013, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 (later renumbered and amended as Sections 5 and 14 by Republic Act No. 11053 in 2018), principally attacking paragraph 4 of Section 14, which creates a disputable presumption that presence at a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation unless one prevented or promptly reported the hazing.
The Office of the Solicitor General and other public respondents filed a Comment opposing the Petition on procedural and substantive grounds, asserting among others that the Petition was an improper original action before the Court (a declaratory/constitutional challenge better raised in the trial court or by motion to quash), that Fuertes came with unclean hands, and that disputable presumptions in criminal law are constitutional and supported by precedent (e.g., People v. Mingoa, Bautista v. Court of Appeals). The Court required memoranda; parties submitted them; the case was held pending and the Anti‑Hazing Law was amended in 2018 by RA 11053, which retained the prima facie presumption but added a reporting defense a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s direct petition to the Supreme Court a proper remedy — i.e., are the petition’s claims ripe and was direct resort to the Court justified despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
- Does paragraph 4 of Section 14 (as renumbered/amended) of the Anti‑Hazing Law, which makes presence during hazing prima facie evidence of participation, violate the constitutional presumption of innocence?
- Does the provision constitute a bill of attainder prohibited by Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution?
- Does the Anti‑Hazing Law, as applied, impose cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment in violation of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution?
- Does the challenged presumption run afoul of the rule of res inter alios acta (i.e., treat acts of on...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)