Title
Villarba vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 227777
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2020
Fraternity members convicted under Anti-Hazing Act for severe injuries during initiation rites; Supreme Court upheld conviction, affirming credibility of victim’s testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227777)

Procedural History

All accused pleaded not guilty to the original Information. The only amendment added the suffix “III” to the victim’s name. No second arraignment occurred. Trial testimony comprised Dordas’s detailed account and Villarba’s general denial of harmful conduct. The RTC found Villarba guilty and imposed a prison term of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years, plus damages. The Court of Appeals denied Villarba’s appeal.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The appellate court held that (1) omission of the “prerequisite for membership” language in the Information did not deprive Villarba of fair notice, (2) the name correction was a mere formal amendment not warranting re-arraignment, and (3) Dordas’s testimony was credible despite minor discrepancies.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether amending the Information’s victim’s name was a substantial amendment requiring re-arraignment.
  2. Whether the Information was void for failing to allege that hazing was a prerequisite to membership.
  3. Whether the evidence sufficed to convict Villarba of violating the Anti-Hazing Act.

Formal Amendment Doctrine

Under Rule 110, Section 14, formal amendments—those not altering the offense’s nature, theory of prosecution, or accused’s defenses—do not require re-arraignment. Adding “III” to the victim’s name merely refined an existing allegation, did not introduce new facts or prejudice Villarba, and thus was a formal amendment exempt from second arraignment.

Sufficiency of the Information

Due process requires that an accused know the nature and cause of the accusation through specific factual allegations. Rule 110, Section 6 mandates inclusion of the accused’s name, statutory designation, factual acts constituting the offense, victim’s name, date, and place. The Information identified the fraternity context, hazing acts, the victim as a “recruit,” and the physical and psychological injuries sustained. Although it did not verbatim quote the “prerequisite for membership” phrase from RA 8049, its factual recital—referencing initiation, recruitment, and fraternity membership—adequately apprised Villarba of the charge.

Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence

The trial court’s and appellate court’s acceptance of Dordas’s direct, detailed testimony is entitled t

...continue reading

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