Case Summary (G.R. No. 137898)
Petitioner
Fuertes challenged the constitutionality of Sections 5 and 14(4) of Republic Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law), as amended by RA 11053, which treats mere presence at a hazing as prima facie evidence of principal participation.
Respondents
Legislative bodies, executive departments, prosecutorial offices, the trial court, and Abracia’s heirs defended the law’s provisions and procedural posture of the petition.
Key Dates
• August 2, 2008 – Abracia’s death in Tayabas City
• October 20, 2008 – Information filed against 46 members
• August 1, 2013 – Petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court
• January 7, 2020 – Decision rendered by the Supreme Court (En Banc)
Applicable Law
• Republic Act No. 8049, as amended by RA 11053 (Anti-Hazing Law)
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, in particular:
– Article III, Section 1 (Due process and presumption of innocence)
– Article III, Section 19 (Prohibition of cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment)
– Article III, Section 22 (Prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder)
Factual Background
Abracia underwent initiation rites at a private residence in Barangay Mate, Tayabas City, where he sustained fatal injuries. Fuertes admitted presence at the premises but claimed no knowledge or participation in the hazing. The Information charged all active members of both organizations with conspiracy and principal participation under RA 8049.
Procedural History
• Criminal Case No. 2008-895 was initially before RTC Lucena (Branch 54), later transferred to RTC San Pablo (Branch 30).
• Fuertes filed a direct Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court before arraignment, asserting Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 (renumbered Sections 5 and 14) were unconstitutional.
• Respondents filed comments contesting ripeness, proper remedy, petitioner’s unclean hands, and the merits of constitutional challenges.
• After pleadings, memoranda, and amendment of the Anti-Hazing Law by RA 11053, the Supreme Court set the issues for resolution.
Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy
The Court held that:
• The petition was premature and improperly filed directly with the Supreme Court, circumventing trial courts that have concurrent power of judicial review.
• A motion to quash in the trial court was the appropriate remedy to challenge the constitutionality and factual sufficiency of the Information.
• Exceptions to hierarchy of courts exist for issues of transcendental importance; the Court exercised discretion to resolve the merits due to the grave public interest in hazing laws.
Constitutionality of Disputable Presumption
• Section 14(4) raises a rebuttable presumption that presence at a hazing equals principal participation unless the accused prevented or promptly reported the act.
• The presumption is a “disputable presumption” that does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence, as long as:
– There is a logical connection between presence and participation (conspiracy dynamics, peer pressure, groupthink).
– The accused may rebut the presumption with evidence, and guilt still must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Jurisprudence (People v. Mingoa; People v. Baludda; Dizon-Pamintuan v. People; Dungo v. People) upholds similar statutory presumptions in criminal law.
• The rule against res inter alios acta does not apply to conspirators; admissions and overt acts of one conspirator bind co-conspirators.
Cruel or Inhuman Punishment
• Reclusion perpetua is not per se cruel, degrading, or inhuman under Article III, Section 19.
•
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137898)
Facts
- Petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes, then 17-year-old student and member of Tau Gamma Sigma sorority, was charged among 46 fraternity/sorority members in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 before RTC Branch 30, San Pablo City, for hazing that led to the death of neophyte Chester Paolo Abracia on August 2, 2008 in Tayabas City, Quezon.
- Abracia allegedly suffered contusions and abrasions from paddle and fist blows during initiation rites of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity conducted without prior notice to Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation authorities and outside school premises on property of Lamberto Villarion O. Pandy.
- An information filed October 20, 2008 charged all active members of Tau Gamma Phi and Tau Gamma Sigma with conspiracy to commit hazing resulting in Abracia’s cardio-respiratory arrest, pulmonary embolism, and acute myocardial infarction.
Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case No. 2008-895 was originally with RTC Lucena City (Branch 54), transferred in July 2010 to RTC San Pablo City (Branch 30).
- Fuertes, at large and not yet arraigned, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on August 1, 2013, assailing Sections 3 and 4 (later renumbered Sections 5 and 14) of RA 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) as unconstitutional.
- Respondents (Senate, House, DOJ, DILG, DBM, DOF, OSG, City Prosecutor, RTC Judge, Abracia’s heirs) filed Comments challenging jurisdiction, petitioner’s “unclean hands,” and defending the disputed presumption and penalties.
- Petitioner filed Reply and Memorandum; respondents’ Comment deemed their Memorandum. SC required memoranda and held oral arguments on related amendments (RA 11053) before resolving the petition.
Issues Presented
- Whether Sections 5 and 14 of RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053—particularly the prima facie presumption in §14(4) that presence at a hazing is evidence of participation—violate:
- The constitutional presumption of innocence (Art. III, Sec. 14);
- The rule against res inter alios acta;
- The ban on cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment and excessive fines (Art. III, Sec. 19);
- The prohibition on bills of attainder (Art. III, Sec. 22).
Jurisdiction and Venue
- Ripeness: The petition was p