Case Summary (G.R. No. 208162)
Key Dates
Fatal hazing incident: on or about August 2, 2008. Information filed: October 20, 2008. Petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court: August 1, 2013. Amending statute (RA No. 11053) enacted: 2018. Decision under discussion: issued January 7, 2020 (thus applying the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law
Primary statute at issue: Republic Act No. 8049 (Anti‑Hazing Law), as amended by Republic Act No. 11053 (2018). Constitutional provisions invoked: the 1987 Constitution—Article III (Bill of Rights) including Section 1 (due process/presumption of innocence), Section 19(1) (prohibition against excessive fines/cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment), and Section 22 (no ex post facto laws or bills of attainder). Rules of Court and pertinent evidentiary and penal provisions cited in precedents (e.g., disputable presumptions under Rules of Court, Rule 131; principles of conspiracy and principals under Revised Penal Code, art. 17; Rule 130, Section 30 regarding admissions by conspirators).
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Fuertes sought certiorari relief directly from the Supreme Court to declare Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 (renumbered to Sections 5 and 14 by RA 11053) unconstitutional, principally attacking paragraph 4 of Section 14 (the provision that presence during hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal) and seeking quashal of the Information. The petition raised constitutional objections including violation of the presumption of innocence, res inter alios acta (no one should be prejudiced by others’ acts), cruel and unusual punishment, and that the provision operates as a bill of attainder.
Factual Allegations in the Information
The Information alleged that on or about August 2, 2008, at Barangay Mate, Tayabas City, the accused, all active members of Tau Gamma Phi and Tau Gamma Sigma, acting in conspiracy, conducted initiation rites outside school premises that subjected neophyte Abracia to physical suffering or injury (use of paddles, fists), causing contusions and abrasions and resulting in cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism and acute myocardial infarction, leading to death. The Information charged all 46 named accused as principals/conspirators.
Petitioner’s Principal Arguments
Fuertes argued that (1) Sections 3 and 4 (as then numbered) are unconstitutional because they permit conviction of persons for crimes committed by others—violating the res inter alios acta rule and the requirement that conspiracy and participation be proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) paragraph 4 of Section 14 offends the presumption of innocence by creating an impermissible presumption of guilt from mere presence; (3) the penalty of reclusion perpetua for those charged as principals is cruel and unusual where actual participation is not proven; and (4) the provisions constitute a bill of attainder by treating members of a group as guilty absent individualized proof and judicial determination.
Respondents’ Principal Arguments
Public respondents asserted procedural defects (petition was effectively declaratory relief and not properly brought; petitioner delayed and had been at large for years, invoking unclean hands), that the petition was premature as the trial court had not passed on factual issues, the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, and that disputable presumptions are permissible where reasonably related to proved facts and supported by precedent. They relied on analogous statutes and prior jurisprudence recognizing disputable presumptions in criminal law and argued the law’s provisions reflect legitimate legislative policy to deter hazing.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Analysis by the Court
The Court examined ripeness and the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. It reiterated requisites for judicial review: actual justiciable controversy, ripeness, proper party status, and that the constitutional question be the core of the case. The Court found the petition presented factual disputes (e.g., whether petitioner actually participated) that ordinarily should be resolved in the trial court and that a motion to quash or other lower-court remedies were available. The Court noted the doctrine of hierarchy of courts ordinarily precludes direct resort to the Supreme Court when lower courts can adjudicate constitutional claims, but recognized exceptions—cases of transcendental importance, matters of first impression, issues better decided by the Supreme Court, or where immediate adjudication is necessary. Given the transcendental interest in the constitutionality of a penal statute affecting life and liberty, the Court exercised discretion to resolve the petition on the merits.
Core Legal Question Presented
Whether Section 5 and paragraph 4 of Section 14 of the Anti‑Hazing Law (as amended and renumbered by RA 11053) are unconstitutional, specifically whether the statutory rule that presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal violates (a) the constitutional presumption of innocence, (b) the prohibition on cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment, (c) the doctrine of res inter alios acta, or (d) the ban on bills of attainder.
Court’s Analysis: Disputable Presumptions and Presumption of Innocence
The Court held that paragraph 4 of Section 14 establishes a disputable (rebuttable) presumption—prima facie evidence—that presence during a hazing indicates participation as a principal unless the person prevented the act or promptly reported it to law enforcement if feasible without peril. The Court reaffirmed established jurisprudence permitting disputable presumptions in criminal law (citing People v. Mingoa; People v. Baludda; Dizon‑Pamintuan v. People), provided there is a rational or logical connection between the proved fact (presence) and the ultimate fact presumed (participation). The Court emphasized that the constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated by a disputable presumption when the inference is reasonable, the presumption is rebuttable, and the prosecution still must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The existence of the statutory presumption does not absolve the prosecution of its burden nor prevent the accused from presenting contrary evidence.
Court’s Factual and Social‑Scientific Rationale
The Court accepted empirical and social‑psychological observations (groupthink, bystander effect, inducement, audience role in hazing) to explain how mere presence can materially contribute to or encourage the perpetration of hazing. It reasoned that in the secrecy and group dynamics of hazing, observers frequently act as enablers or inducements; hence, a legislative determination that presence is prima facie evidence of participation is not unreasonable. The Court also noted the practical difficulty in pleading and proving detailed clandestine plans of hazing at the outset of prosecution and recognized the need for circumstantial evidence and statutory tools to prosecute clandestine group crimes.
Court’s Analysis: Res inter alios acta and Conspiracy
The Court rejected the res inter alios acta challenge, observing that the rule does not bar admission of a coconspirator’s declarations or acts once conspiracy is shown by independent evidence (Rule 130, Section 30). In conspiratorial crimes, the acts of one conspirator may be imputed to others; RA 8049’s prima facie rule operates to establish evidence of participation in a conspiracy where secrecy and collective action are inherent. Thus, the statute does not contravene res inter alios acta in the conspiratorial context.
Court’s Analysis: Cruel, Degrading, or Inhuman Punishment
Addressing the claim that reclusion perpetua for principals is cruel and unusual where presence alone suffices, the Court applied constitutional interpretative principles under the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 19(1)). It reiterated precedent that severe penalties such as reclusion perpetua are not per se cruel, degrading, or inhuman and are constitutional if they serve a legitimate purpose and are not flagrantly disproportionate to the offense (citing Spouses Lim and other authorities). The Court found that the Anti‑Hazing Law’s penalties are a legitimate legislative re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208162)
Court and Citation
- Decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, reported at 868 Phil. 117.
- G.R. No. 208162.
- Date of decision: January 07, 2020.
- Ponencia authored by Justice Leonen; concurrence by Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Gesmundo, Reyes, J., Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, and Delos Santos, JJ.; Perlas‑Bernabe, Reyes, A., Jr., and Lopez, JJ., on official leave.
Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought
- Original petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Anti-Hazing Law.
- Primary prayer: declare unconstitutional Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) — specifically paragraph 4 of Section 4 (later renumbered/amended to Section 14, paragraph 4) — and, in the alternative, to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 as to petitioner and other members of Tau Gamma Sigma Sorority.
- Court treated Petition and permitted memoranda, replies, and comments from respondents.
Facts — Allegations and Criminal Information
- Victim: Chester Paolo Abracia, who died on or about August 2, 2008 in Tayabas City, Quezon.
- An Information was filed October 20, 2008, charging 46 members of Tau Gamma Phi (fraternity) and Tau Gamma Sigma (sorority) for violation of Republic Act No. 8049 in relation to Abracia’s death.
- The Information alleged initiation rites/hazing outside school premises at the property of Lamberto Villarion O. Pandy in Barangay Mate, Tayabas City, resulting in contusion and abrasion to the deceased, and cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism and acute myocardial infarction as cause of death.
- Among the 46 accused, petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes was alleged to have been present at the premises during the initiation rites; petitioner admitted she was present; she was then 17 years old and a student at Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation.
- Case docketed as Criminal Case No. 2008-895; initially pending with Branch 54, RTC Lucena City; transferred to Branch 30, RTC San Pablo City pursuant to A.M. No. 10-7-224-RTC (July 2010).
Procedural History in the Supreme Court
- Petition for certiorari filed August 1, 2013 (prior to arraignment; petitioner was at large at that time).
- Court issued Resolution August 6, 2013 requiring respondents to comment.
- Public respondents filed Comment November 5, 2013.
- Court required petitioner to file Reply November 19, 2013; Reply filed January 8, 2014.
- Court gave due course to the Petition and required memoranda; public respondents filed a Manifestation (their Comment as Memorandum) April 21, 2014; petitioner filed Memorandum April 23, 2014.
- In 2018, Anti-Hazing Law amended by Republic Act No. 11053, renumbering/ amending Sections 3 and 4 to Sections 5 and 14 respectively; parties were required to address whether the amendment affected the case.
- As of June 25, 2019, petitioner detained at San Pedro City.
- Decision rendered January 7, 2020 dismissing the Petition for lack of merit.
Statutory Provisions Involved — Pre‑ and Post‑Amendment
- Pre-amendment provisions assailed: Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law), with petitioner’s arguments focusing on paragraph 4 of Section 4 (presence during hazing as prima facie evidence of participation).
- Post-amendment (Republic Act No. 11053, 2018):
- Renumbering: Sections 3 and 4 became Sections 5 and 14.
- Section 5 (Monitoring of Initiation Rites): requires at least two school representatives to be present during initiation; documents proceedings; provides that if hazing still occurs despite their presence, no liability attaches unless they failed to perform an overt act to prevent/stop it.
- Section 14 (Penalties): revised paragraph on prima facie presumption now reads that presence during hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as a principal unless the person prevented the acts or promptly reported them to law enforcement if they can do so without peril to person/family (emphasis added in amendment); increased penalties where hazing results in death include reclusion perpetua plus P3-million fine for principals who actually planned or participated; paragraph (c) imposes reclusion temporal (maximum) and P1-million fine for all persons present during hazing; various additional penalties and administrative sanctions provided for officers, advisors, alumni, schools, owners of property, etc.
Petitioner’s Core Arguments
- Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 (paragraph 4 of Section 4) unconstitutional because:
- They allow conviction of persons for crimes committed by others, violating the res inter alios acta rule and the principle that one is not punishable for another’s acts.
- They permit conviction of persons as principals merely by virtue of presence, without proof of actual participation or knowledge, thus violating presumption of innocence (Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution).
- They constitute cruel and unusual punishment because they expose alleged non‑participants to penalties like reclusion perpetua for a non‑bailable offense.
- They are a bill of attainder because they legislativey declare members of a particular group (fraternity/sorority members) guilty or punishable without judicial trial, arrogating judicial power to Congress.
- The Information in Criminal Case No. 2008‑895 failed to allege actual participation by all 46 accused; conspiracy and actual participation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; a mere presumption cannot form the basis to file information for murder.
Respondents’ Principal Arguments and Defenses
- Procedural objections:
- Petition should be a petition for declaratory relief (original jurisdiction not proper); or improper remedy because breach of the Anti-Hazing Law already occurred.
- Petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief, having evaded arrest for five years and thus coming with unclean hands (evidence: issuance of Philippine passport from embassy in Brunei; postal ID; remaining at large).
- Substantive defenses:
- Presumption of constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 not overturned; Section 4 paragraph 6 presumption consistent with constitutional provisions.
- Many penal laws contain disputable presumptions that do not preclude constitutional presumption of innocence; examples cited include R.P.C. Article 217 (malversation), P.D. No. 1612 Section 5 (fencing), Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Section 2 (bouncing checks), and others.
- This Court has recognized and upheld disputable presumptions in criminal law (People v. Mingoa; Bautista v. Court of Appeals; others).
- No res inter alios acta violation because under the assailed law actual participation must still be found; the presumption is rebuttable.
- Penalty of reclusion perpetua is not cruel and unusual in itself; severe penalties may be imposed to deter crimes harmful to public interest (citing Furman v. Georgia; Perez v. People).
- The prima facie presumption is a legislative policy decision deserving deference given the separation of powers and the legislature’s objective to discourage hazing.
- Petitioners’ minority status and right to bail better left to trial court determination.
Threshold Jurisdictional Questions — Ripeness and Hierarchy of Courts
- Requirements for judicial review set out by Court: (1) actual case or justiciable controversy; (2) question ripe for adjudication; (3) proper party; (4) issue of constitutionality raised at earliest opportunity and being the litis mota.
- Ripeness: an issue is ripe when challenged act has be