Title
Villareal vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 151258
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2014
Ateneo law student Lenny Villa died during fraternity hazing in 1991; SC convicted members for reckless imprudence, upheld acquittals, and nullified probation grants.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 151258)

Procedural Background

• 1993 – RTC Branch 121 convicts 26 accused of homicide under Article 249, RPC.
• 2002 – CA (CA-G.R. CR No. 15520) modifies RTC verdict: nineteen acquitted, four (Almeda, Ama, Bantug, Tecson) found guilty of slight physical injuries, two (Dizon, Villareal) convicted of homicide.
• 2006 – CA dismisses charges against Escalona et al. for speedy-trial violation (CA-G.R. S.P. Nos. 89060 & 90153).
• 2012 – Supreme Court modifies CA decisions: all five (Dizon, Almeda, Ama, Bantug, Tecson) convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Art. 365, RPC); acquittals and dismissals of others affirmed.
• Post-2012 – Petitions for Partial Reconsideration by Villa, for Reconsideration by the OSG, and for Clarification by Tecson et al.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case against Escalona et al. for violation of the right to speedy trial.
  2. Whether the penalty for Tecson et al. should have been assessed as an intentional felony (dolo) rather than felony by negligence (culpa).
  3. Whether Tecson et al.’s applications for probation and subsequent discharge by RTC Branch 130 conclusively terminated their criminal liability.

Denial of Motion for Partial Reconsideration by Gerarda H. Villa

This Court reaffirmed that the CA’s dismissal of Escalona et al. amounted to an acquittal for speedy-trial violation and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Absent proof of a “patent and gross abuse of authority” or “in excess of jurisdiction,” the CA’s findings are upheld under Rule 65 jurisprudence. Villa’s motion was therefore denied with finality.

Denial of Motion for Reconsideration by the OSG

The OSG’s argument that gravity of negligence transmutes culpa into dolo was rejected. Under the classical theory of mens rea, malice (dolus malus) must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish an intentional felony. Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Art. 365, RPC) prescribes arresto mayor to prisián correccional. The Court held that no malicious intent (animus interficendi or animus iniuriandi) was established; hence, the original imposition of penalties under Article 365 stands, and the OSG’s motion was denied.

Clarification on Penalty Classification under the Revised Penal Code

The Court corrected a typographical error in its 2012 dispositive paragraph by deleting the phrase “and one (1) day” from the minimum term. The indeterminate sentence now reads four (4) months of arresto mayor (minimum) to four (4) years and two (2) months of prisián correccional (maximum), pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Accessory penalties under Articles 40–45 and 73, RPC attach accordingly: suspension from public office and profession for the duration of the unadjusted four-year, two-month term, plus perpetual disqualification from suffrage if imprisonment exceeds eighteen months.

Voidance of Probation Proceedings for Lack of Jurisdiction

RTC Branch 130’s Orders granting probation to Almeda, Ama, Bantug, and Tecson were annulled. Two independent jurisdictional defects were identified:

  1. Probation Law (P.D. 968, Sec. 4) requires applications to the trial court of conviction (Branch 121, not Branch 130).
  2. At the time of filing, the complete records were pending before the CA on motions for reconsideration, effectively divesting the RTC of jurisdiction under Rule 124, Sec. 17 and Articles 78–88, RPC.
    All probation orders, discharges, and terminations iss




...continue reading

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