Title
Dungo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 209464
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2015
Fraternity members convicted under Anti-Hazing Law for inducing neophyte’s death during initiation; circumstantial evidence affirmed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2681)

Facts of the Case

On January 13, 2006, APO officers and members assembled at UP Los Baños for final initiation rites. Witnesses saw petitioners Dungo and Sibal interacting with neophytes, including Villanueva, who bore early signs of physical injury. That night, over twenty individuals journeyed by jeepney to Villa Novaliches Resort. Around 2:30 AM on January 14, petitioners and others carried an unconscious Villanueva to a tricycle and brought him to JP Rizal Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Medical testimony attributed his death to subdural hemorrhage from hazing-induced contusions.

Prosecution Presentation

Twenty prosecution witnesses established:

  1. Medical evidence—Drs. Masilungan and Camarillo testified to multiple contusions and a fatal head injury consistent with hazing, and retrieved APO-marked matchsticks from the body.
  2. Perception of petitioners at initiation—Susan Ignacio identified Dungo seated beside the jeepney driver and Sibal among guests at the resort around 9 PM.
  3. Transportation to hospital—Tricycle driver Magat and hospital guards Natividad and Espina corroborated that Dungo and Sibal bore Villanueva’s body into the emergency room and concealed their identities.
  4. Campus observations—Gay Czarina Sunga placed petitioners at the UP Los Baños tambayan engaging with the victim prior to the rites.

Defense Presentation

Seven defense witnesses offered alibi and denial:

  • Dungo’s girlfriend and fraternity brothers testified he remained off-site until summoned at 2 AM, then aided in transporting Villanueva.
  • The Grand Chancellor Gopez and Sibal himself claimed they sought to halt the rites due to Villanueva’s condition and did not participate in any assault.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The RTC found petitioners guilty of violating Section 4 of RA 8049 as principals in the hazing. It held:

  • Petitioners were positively identified at the venue by disinterested witnesses.
  • The fatal injuries resulted from a clandestine initiation under cover of darkness.
  • Denial and alibi defenses failed for lack of credibility.
    Sentence imposed: Reclusion perpetua each, plus civil indemnities (actual, moral, exemplary damages, and death award).

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings, emphasizing:

  • The unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and positive identifications.
  • Petitioners were not convicted solely for presence but for actively inducing and facilitating hazing by transporting the victim.
  • Denial and alibi defenses were inherently weak and outweighed by prosecution evidence.

Issue on Appeal

Petitioners contended the convictions diverged from the crime charged in the Information—which alleged “assault and use of personal violence” (actual participation)—whereas they were convicted for “inducing” the victim to attend hazing. They argued this variance violated their right to be informed of the accusation. They also challenged proof of conspiracy.

Legal Analysis: Sufficiency of the Information and Conspiracy

Under Rule 110, Section 9, an Information need use no statutory language so long as it apprises the accused of the charged crime. Alleging a “planned initiation rite,” “in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members,” that “assaulted” the victim and “subjected him to physical harm, resulting in death,” sufficiently encompassed roles as actual participants and as those who induced attendance.
Conspiracy requires proof of a common design to commit a felony and overt acts furthering it. RA 8049 provides a disputable presumption that mere presence constitutes participation, rebuttable only by proof of prevention. Here, credible eyewitness testimony placed both petitioners at the initiation venue, establishing their overt acts in furtherance of the clandestine rite.

Circumstantial Evidence and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Hazing occurs in secrecy; hence the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence—medical r

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.