Date post: | 04-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | aaron-sparks |
View: | 238 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 35
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
1/35
Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL,Petitioner,
- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
- versus -
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO
MARIANO ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNELANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE MONTECILLO,VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL,SANTIAGO RANADA III, NELSON VICTORINO,JAIME MARIA FLORES II, OSIMO MENDOA,MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE VERDADERO,ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE FERNANDE,AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN,PERCIVAL BRIGOLA, PAUL ANGELO SANTOS,JONAS !ARL B. PERE, RENATO BANTUG, JR.,ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, "#$ RONAN DEGUMAN,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
FIDELITO DION,Petitioner,
- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
GERARDA H. VILLA,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. %&%'&(
G.R. No. %&)*&)
G.R. No. %&&%+%
- versus -
MANUEL LORENO ESCALONA II, MARCUS JOELCAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO CRU SARUCA,JR., "#$ ANSELMO ADRIANO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. %-(+&- %-(+(+
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, J.:
The public outrae over the death of !eonardo "!enn#$ %illa & the victi' in
this case & on () *ebruar# (++( led to a ver# stron cla'or to put an end to hain. (
(/ue in lare part to the brave efforts of his 'other, petitioner 0erarda %illa, roups
1ere oranied, conde'nin his senseless and traic death. This 1idespread
conde'nation pro'pted Conress to enact a special la1, 1hich beca'e effective in
(++2, that 1ould cri'inalie hain.33 The intent of the la1 1as to discourae
'e'bers fro' 'a4in hain a re5uire'ent for 6oinin their sororit#, fraternit#,
oraniation, or association.77 Moreover, the la1 1as 'eant to counteract the
exculpator# i'plications of "consent$ and "initial innocent act$ in the conduct of
initiation rites b# 'a4in the 'ere act of hain punishable or mala prohibita.88
1
2
3
4
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
2/35
9adl#, the !enn# %illa traed# did not discourae hain activities in the
countr#.22 ithin a #ear of his death, six 'ore cases of hain-related deaths
e'ered & those of *rederic4 Cahi#an of the ;niversit# of %isa#as in Cebu< Raul
Ca'alian of 9an =eda Collee< *elipe >arne of Pa'antasan n Araullo in
Cabanatuan Cit#< /ennis Cenedoa of the Cavite >aval Trainin Center< ?oselito
Mana of the Philippine Merchant Marine Institute< and ?oselito @ernande of the
;niversit# of the Philippines in =auio Cit#.
Althouh courts 'ust not re'ain indifferent to public senti'ents, in this case
the eneral conde'nation of a hain-related death, the# are still bound to observe a
funda'ental principle in our cri'inal 6ustice s#ste' & ">o act constitutes a cri'eB
unless it is 'ade so b# la1.$Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Dven if an act is
vie1ed b# a lare section of the populace as i''oral or in6urious, it cannot be
considered a cri'e, absent an# la1 prohibitin its co''ission. As interpreters of the
la1, 6udes are called upon to set aside e'otion, to resist bein s1a#ed b# stron
public senti'ents, and to rule strictl# based on the ele'ents of the offense and the
facts allo1ed in evidence.
=efore the Court are the consolidated cases doc4eted as 0.R. >o. (2(32E
FVillareal v. PeopleG, 0.R. >o. (28+28 FPeople v. Court of AppealsG, 0.R. >o. (22()(
FDizon v. PeopleG, and 0.R. >os. (E)2 and (E)E) FVilla v. EscalonaG.
FACTS
The pertinent facts, as deter'ined b# the Court of Appeals FCAGEEand the
trial court,++
are as follo1s:
In *ebruar# (++(, seven fresh'en la1 students of the Ateneo de Manila
5
6
7
8
9
;niversit# 9chool of !a1 sinified their intention to 6oin the A5uila !eis ?uris
*raternit# FA5uila *raternit#G. The# 1ere Caesar "=os$ Asuncion, 9a'uel "9a'$
=ellea, =ienvenido "=ien$ Mar5ue III, Roberto *rancis "=ert$ >avera, 0eroni'o
"Rand#$ Recinto, *elix 9#, ?r., and !eonardo "!enn#$ %illa Fneoph#tesG.
On the niht of E *ebruar# (++(, the neoph#tes 1ere 'et b# so'e 'e'bers
of the A5uila *raternit# FA5uilansG at the lobb# of the Ateneo !a1 9chool. The# all
proceeded to RufoHs Restaurant to have dinner. After1ards, the# 1ent to the house of
Michael Musni, also an A5uilan, 1ho briefed the neoph#tes on 1hat to expect durin
the initiation rites. The latter 1ere infor'ed that there 1ould be ph#sical beatins, and
that the# could 5uit at an# ti'e. Their initiation rites 1ere scheduled to last for three
da#s. After their "briefin,$ the# 1ere brouht to the Al'eda Co'pound in Caloocan
Cit# for the co''ence'ent of their initiation.
Dven before the neoph#tes ot off the van, the# had alread# received threats
and insults fro' the A5uilans. As soon as the neoph#tes alihted fro' the van and
1al4ed to1ards the pelotacourt of the Al'eda co'pound, so'e of the A5uilans
delivered ph#sical blo1s to the'. The neoph#tes 1ere then sub6ected to traditional
for's of A5uilan "initiation rites.$ These rites included the "Indian Run,$ 1hich
re5uired the neoph#tes to run a auntlet of t1o parallel ro1s of A5uilans, each ro1
deliverin blo1s to the neoph#tes< the "=icol Dxpress,$ 1hich oblied the neoph#tes
to sit on the floor 1ith their bac4s aainst the 1all and their les outstretched 1hile
the A5uilans 1al4ed, 6u'ped, or ran over their les< the "Rounds,$ in 1hich the
neoph#tes 1ere held at the bac4 of their pants b# the "auxiliaries$ Fthe A5uilans
chared 1ith the dut# of lendin assistance to neoph#tes durin initiation ritesG, 1hile
the latter 1ere bein hit 1ith fist blo1s on their ar's or 1ith 4nee blo1s on their
thihs b# t1o A5uilans< and the "AuxiesH Privilee Round,$ in 1hich the auxiliaries
1ere iven the opportunit# to inflict ph#sical pain on the neoph#tes. /urin this ti'e,
the neoph#tes 1ere also indoctrinated 1ith the fraternit# principles. The# survived
their first da# of initiation.
On the 'ornin of their second da# & + *ebruar# (++( & the neoph#tes 1ere
'ade to present co'ic pla#s and to pla# rouh bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to
'e'orie and recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. henever the# 1ould ive a
1ron ans1er, the# 1ould be hit on their ar's or les. !ate in the afternoon, the
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
3/35
A5uilans revived the initiation rites proper and proceeded to tor'ent the' ph#sicall#
and ps#choloicall#. The neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to the sa'e 'anner of hain
that the# endured on the first da# of initiation. After a fe1 hours, the initiation for the
da# officiall# ended.
After a 1hile, accused non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers()()*idelito
/ion F/ionG and Arte'io %illareal F%illarealG de'anded that the rites be reopened.
The head of initiation rites, >elson %ictorino F%ictorinoG, initiall# refused. ;pon the
insistence of /ion and %illareal, ho1ever, he reopened the initiation rites. The
fraternit# 'e'bers, includin /ion and %illareal, then sub6ected the neoph#tes to
"paddlin$ and to additional rounds of ph#sical pain. !enn# received several paddle
blo1s, one of 1hich 1as so stron it sent hi' spra1lin to the round. The neoph#tes
heard hi' co'plainin of intense pain and difficult# in breathin. After their last
session of ph#sical beatins, !enn# could no loner 1al4. @e had to be carried b# the
auxiliaries to the carport. Aain, the initiation for the da# 1as officiall# ended, and the
neoph#tes started eatin dinner. The# then slept at the carport.
After an hour of sleep, the neoph#tes 1ere suddenl# roused b# !enn#Hs
shiverin and incoherent 'u'blins. Initiall#, %illareal and /ion dis'issed these
ru'blins, as the# thouht he 1as 6ust overactin. hen the# realied, thouh, that
!enn# 1as reall# feelin cold, so'e of the A5uilans started helpin hi'. The#
re'oved his clothes and helped hi' throuh a sleepin ba to 4eep hi' 1ar'. hen
his condition 1orsened, the A5uilans rushed hi' to the hospital. !enn# 1as
pronounced dead on arrival.
Conse5uentl#, a cri'inal case for ho'icide 1as filed aainst the follo1in 72
A5uilans:
In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G
(. *idel ito /ion F/ionG3. Arte'io %illareal F%illarealG7. Dfren de !eon F/e !eonG8. %incent Tecson FTecsonG2. ?unel Anthon# A'a FA'aG. Antonio Mariano Al'eda FAl'edaG. Renato =antu, ?r. F=antuGE. >elson %ictorino F%ictorinoG
10
+. Duloio 9abban F9abbanG(). ?oseph !ledo F!ledoG((. Dtienne 0uerrero F0uerreroG(3. Michael Musni FMusniG(7. ?onas arl Pere FPereG(8. Paul Anelo 9antos F9antosG(2. Ronan de 0u'an F/e 0u'anG(. Antonio 0eneral F0eneralG(. ?ai'e Maria *lores II F*loresG
(E. /al'acio !i', ?r. F!i'G(+. Drnesto ?ose Montecillo FMontecilloG3). 9antiao Ranada III FRanadaG3(. Josi'o Mendoa FMendoaG33. %icente %erdadero F%erdaderoG37. A'ante Purisi'a II FPurisi'aG38. ?ude *ernande F?. *ernandeG32. Adel Abas FAbasG3. Percival =riola F=riolaG
In Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)
(. Manuel Dscalona II FDscalonaG3. Crisanto 9aruca, ?r. F9arucaG
7. Ansel'o Adriano FAdrianoG8. Marcus ?oel Ra'os FRa'osG2. Re#naldo Concepcion FConcepcionG. *lorentino A'pil FA'pilG. Dnrico de %era I II F/e %eraGE. 9tanle# *ernande F9. *ernandeG+. >oel Cabanon FCabanonG
T1ent#-six of the accused A5uilans in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G 1ere
6ointl# tried.((((On the other hand, the trial aainst the re'ainin nine accused in
Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) 1as held in abe#ance due to certain 'atters that had to
be resolved first.(3(3
On E >ove'ber (++7, the tr/"0 1ourtrendered 6ud'ent in Cri'inal Case >o.
C-7E78)F+(G, holdin the '2 "11ue$3u/0t4be#ond reasonable doubt of the 1r/me
o5 6om/1/$e, penalied 1ith reclusion temporalunder Article 38+ of the Revised
Penal Code.(7(7A fe1 1ee4s after the trial court rendered its 6ud'ent, or on 3+
11
12
13
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
4/35
>ove'ber (++7, Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78) aainst the re'ainin nine accused
co''enced ane1.(8(8
On () ?anuar# 3))3, the CA in FCA-0.R. >o. (223)G(2(2 et "/$e t6e
5/#$/#3 o5 1o#p/r"14 74 t6e tr/"0 1ourt in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G and
mo$/5/e$ t6e 1r/m/#"0 0/"7/0/t4 of each of the accused "11or$/#3 to /#$/8/$u"0
p"rt/1/p"t/o#. Accused /e !eon had b# then passed a1a#, so the follo1in /ecision
applied onl# to the re'ainin 32 accused, viz:
(. N/#etee# o5 t6e "11ue$9"ppe00"#t & %ictorino, 9abban, !ledo,
0uerrero, Musni, Pere, /e 0u'an, 9antos, 0eneral, *lores, !i',
Montecillo, Ranada, Mendoa, %erdadero, Purisi'a, *ernande,
Abas, and =riola FV/1tor/#o et al.G & 1ere "1:u/tte$, as their
individual uilt 1as not established b# proof be#ond reasonable
doubt.
3. Four o5 t6e "11ue$9"ppe00"#t & %incent Tecson, ?unel Anthon#
A'a, Antonio Mariano Al'eda, and Renato =antu, ?r. FTe1o# et
al.G & 1ere found uilt# of the cri'e of 0/36t p64/1"0 /#;ur/eand
sentenced to 3) da#s of arresto menor. The# 1ere also ordered to
6ointl# pa# the heirs of the victi' the su' of 7),))) as inde'nit#.
7. T
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
5/35
G.R. No. %&&%+% > Dizon v. People
Accused /ion filed a Rule 82 Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari, 5uestionin
the CAHs /ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Auust 3))3 in
CA-0.R. >o. (223).3(3(Petitioner sets forth t1o 'ain issues & first, that he 1as
denied due process 1hen the CA sustained the trial courtHs forfeiture of his riht to
present evidence< and, second, that he 1as deprived of due process 1hen the CA did
not appl# to hi' the sa'e "ratio ecienithat served as basis of ac5uittal of the
other accused.$3333
As reards the first issue, the trial court 'ade a rulin, 1hich forfeited
/ionHs riht to present evidence durin trial. The trial court expected /ion to
present evidence on an earlier date since a co-accused, Antonio 0eneral, no loner
presented separate evidence durin trial. Accordin to /ion, his riht should not
have been considered as 1aived because he 1as 6ustified in as4in for a
postpone'ent. @e arues that he did not as4 for a resettin of an# of the hearin
dates and in fact insisted that he 1as read# to presentevidence on the oriinal pre-
assined schedule, and not on an earlier hearin date.
Reardin the second issue, petitioner contends that he should have
li4e1ise been ac5uitted, li4e the other accused, since his acts 1ere also part of the
traditional initiation rites and 1ere not tainted b# evil 'otives. 3737@e clai's that the
additional paddlin session 1as part of the official activit# of the fraternit#. @e also
points out that one of the neoph#tes ad'itted that the chairperson of the initiation
rites "decided that !enn# 1as fit enouh to undero the initiation so Mr. %illareal
proceeded to do the paddlinB.$3838*urther, petitioner echoes the aru'ent of the
9olicitor 0eneral that "the individual blo1s inflicted b# /ion and %illareal could not
have resulted in !enn#Hs death.$3232The 9olicitor 0eneral purportedl# averred that,
21
22
23
24
25
"on the contrar#, /r. Ariala testified that the in6uries suffered b# !enn# could not be
considered fatal if ta4en individuall#, but if ta4en collectivel#, the result is the violent
death of the victi'.$33
Petitioner then counters the findin of the CA that he 1as 'otivated b# ill
1ill. @e clai's that !enn#Hs father could not have stolen the par4in space of /ionHs
father, since the latter did not have a car, and their fathers did not 1or4 in the sa'e
place or office. Revene for the loss of the par4in space 1as the alleed ill 'otive of
/ion. Accordin to petitioner, his utterances reardin a stolen par4in space 1ere
onl# part of the "ps#choloical initiation.$ @e then cites the testi'on# of !enn#Hs co-
neoph#te & 1itness Mar5ue & 1ho ad'itted 4no1in "it 1as not true and that he 1as
6ust 'a4in it upB.$33
*urther, petitioner arues that his alleed 'otivation of ill 1ill 1as neated
b# his sho1 of concern for %illa after the initiation rites. /ion alludes to the testi'on#
of one of the neoph#tes, 1ho 'entioned that the for'er had 4ic4ed the le of the
neoph#te and told hi' to s1itch places 1ith !enn# to prevent the latterHs chills. hen
the chills did not stop, /ion, toether 1ith %ictorino, helped !enn# throuh a sleepin
ba and 'ade hi' sit on a chair. Accordin to petitioner, his alleed ill 'otivation is
contradicted b# his 'anifestation of co'passion and concern for the victi'Hs 1ell-
bein.
G.R. No. %&)*&) > People v. Court of Appeals
This Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 2 see4s the reversal of the CAHs
/ecision dated () ?anuar# 3))3 and Resolution dated 7) Auust 3))3 in CA-0.R.>o. (223), insofar as it ac5uitted (+ F%ictorino et al.G and convicted 8 FTecson et al.G
of the accused A5uilans of the lesser cri'e of sliht ph#sical in6uries.3E3EAccordin to
the 9olicitor 0eneral, the CA erred in holdin that there could have been no
conspirac# to co''it hain, as hain or fraternit# initiation had not #et been
cri'inalied at the ti'e !enn# died.
26
27
28
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
6/35
In the alternative, petitioner clai's that the rulin of the trial court should
have been upheld, inas'uch as it found that there 1as conspirac# to inflict ph#sical
in6uries on !enn#. 9ince the in6uries led to the victi'Hs death, petitioner posits that the
accused A5uilans are cri'inall# liable for the resultin cri'e of ho'icide, pursuant to
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. 3+3+The said article provides: "Cri'inal liabilit#
shall be incurredB b# an# person co''ittin a felon# FelitoG althouh the 1ronful
act done be different fro' that 1hich he intended.$
Petitioner also arues that the rule on double 6eopard# is inapplicable.
Accordin to the 9olicitor 0eneral, the CA acted 1ith rave abuse of discretion,
a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction, in settin aside the trial courtHs findin of
conspirac# and in rulin that the cri'inal liabilit# of all the accused 'ust be based on
their individual participation in the co''ission of the cri'e.
G.R. No. %-(+&- "#$ %-(+(+ > Villa v. Escalona
Petitioner %illa filed the instant Petition for Revie1 on Certiorari, pra#in for
the reversal of the CAHs /ecision dated 32 October 3)) and Resolution dated (
Ma# 3)) in CA-0.R. 9.P. >os. E+)) and +)(27 .7)7)The Petition involves the
dis'issal of the cri'inal chare filed aainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano.
/ue to "several pendin incidents,$ the trial court ordered a separate trial for
accused Dscalona, 9aruca, Adriano, Ra'os, A'pil, Concepcion, /e %era, 9.
*ernande, and Cabanon FCri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)G to co''ence after
proceedins aainst the 3 other accused in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)F+(G shall
have ter'inated. On E >ove'ber (++7, the trial court found the 3 accused uilt#
be#ond reasonable doubt. As a result, the proceedins in Cri'inal Case >o. C-7E78)
involvin the nine other co-accused reco''enced on 3+ >ove'ber (++7. *or
"various reasons,$ the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E March 3))2,
or al'ost (3 #ears after the arrain'ent of the nine accused.
Petitioner %illa assails the CAHs dis'issal of the cri'inal case involvin 8 of
the + accused, na'el#, Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano. 9he arues that the
29
30
accused failed to assert their riht to speed# trial 1ithin a reasonable period of ti'e.
9he also points out that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the dela#, as the
oriinal records and the re5uired evidence 1ere not at its disposal, but 1ere still in the
appellate court.
e resolve herein the various issues that 1e roup into five.
ISSUES
(. hether the forfeiture of petitioner /ionHs riht to present evidence constitutes
denial of due process Villareal v. People
In a >otice dated 3 9epte'ber 3)(( and 1hile the Petition 1as pendin
resolution, this Court too4 note of counsel for petitionerHs >otice of /eath of Part#.
Accordin to Article E+F(G of the Revised Penal Code, cri'inal liabilit# for
personal penalties is totall# extinuished b# the death of the convict. In contrast,
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
7/35
cri'inal liabilit# for pecuniar# penalties is extinuished if the offender dies prior to final
6ud'ent. The ter' "personal penalties$ refers to the service of personal or
i'prison'ent penalties,7(7( 1hile the ter' "pecuniar# penalties$ Flas pecuniariasG
refers to fines and costs,7373includin civil liabilit# predicated on the cri'inal offense
co'plained of Fi.e., civil liabilit# e! elictoG.7777@o1ever, civil liabilit# based on a
source of obliation other than the elictsurvives the death of the accused and is
recoverable throuh a separate civil action.7878
Thus, 1e hold that the death of petitioner %illareal extinuished his cri'inal
liabilit# for both personal and pecuniar# penalties, includin his civil liabilit# directl#
arisin fro' the elictco'plained of. Conse5uentl#, his Petition is hereb# dis'issed,
and the cri'inal case aainst hi' dee'ed closed and ter'inated.
G.R. No. %&&%+% ?Dizon v. People@
In an Order dated 3E ?ul# (++7, the trial court set the dates for the reception
of evidence for accused-petitioner /ion on the Eth, (2th, and 33ndof 9epte'ber< and
the 2thand (3 of October (++7.7272The Order li4e1ise stated that "it 1ill not entertain
an# postpone'ent and that all the accused 1ho have not #et presented their
respective evidence should be read# at all ti'es do1n the line, 1ith their evidence on
all said dates. *ailure on their part to present evidence 1hen re5uired shall therefore
be construed as 1aiver to present evidence.$77
@o1ever, on (+ Auust (++7, counsel for another accused 'anifested in
open court that his client & Antonio 0eneral & 1ould no loner present separate
evidence. Instead, the counsel 1ould adopt the testi'onial evidence of the other
31
32
33
34
35
36
accused 1ho had alread# testified.77=ecause of this develop'ent and pursuant to
the trial courtHs Order that the parties "should be read# at all ti'es do1n the line,$ the
trial court expected /ion to present evidence on the next trial date & 32 Auust (++7
& instead of his oriinall# assined dates. The oriinal dates 1ere supposed to start
t1o 1ee4s later, or on E 9epte'ber (++7.7E7ECounsel for accused /ion 1as not
able to present evidence on the accelerated date. To address the situation, counsel
filed a Constancia on 32 Auust (++7, allein that he had to appear in a previousl#
scheduled case, and that he 1ould be read# to present evidence on the dates
oriinall# assined to his clients.7+7+The trial court denied the Manifestation on the
sa'e date and treated the Constanciaas a 'otion for postpone'ent, in violation of
the three-da#-notice rule under the Rules of Court.8)8)Conse5uentl#, the trial court
ruled that the failure of /ion to present evidence a'ounted to a 1aiver of that riht. 8(
8(
Accused-petitioner /ion thus arues that he 1as deprived of due process
of la1 1hen the trial court forfeited his riht to present evidence. Accordin to hi', the
postpone'ent of the 32 Auust (++7 hearin should have been considered 6ustified,
since his oriinal pre-assined trial dates 1ere not supposed to start until E
9epte'ber (++7, 1hen he 1as scheduled to present evidence. @e posits that he 1as
read# to present evidence on the dates assined to hi'. @e also points out that he
did not as4 for a resettin of an# of the said hearin dates< that he in fact insisted on
bein allo1ed to present evidence on the dates fixed b# the trial court. Thus, he
contends that the trial court erred in acceleratin the schedule of presentation of
evidence, thereb# invalidatin the findin of his uilt.
The riht of the accused to present evidence is uaranteed b# no less than
the Constitution itself.8383 Article III, 9ection (8F3G thereof, provides that " /# "00
1r/m/#"0 proe1ut/o#, t6e "11ue$ B 6"00 e#;o4 t6e r/36t to 7e 6e"r$ 74
37
38
39
40
41
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
8/35
6/me05 "#$ 1ou#e0B$ This constitutional riht includes the riht to present
evidence in oneHs defense,8787as 1ell as the riht to be present and defend oneself in
person at ever# stae of the proceedins.8888
In Crisostomo v. "aniganbayan,8282the 9andianba#an set the hearin of
the defenseHs presentation of evidence for 3(, 33 and 37 ?une (++2. The 3( ?une
(++2 hearin 1as cancelled due to "lac4 of 5uoru' in the reular 'e'bership$ of the
9andianba#anHs 9econd /ivision and upon the aree'ent of the parties. The
hearin 1as reset for the next da#, 33 ?une (++2, but Crisosto'o and his counsel
failed to attend. The 9andianba#an, on the ver# sa'e da#, issued an Order directin
the issuance of a 1arrant for the arrest of Crisosto'o and the confiscation of his
suret# bond. The Order further declared that he had 1aived his riht to present
evidence because of his nonappearance at "#esterda#Hs and toda#Hs scheduled
hearins.$ In rulin aainst the Order, 1e held thus:
;nder 9ection 3FcG, Rule ((8 and 9ection (FcG, Rule ((2
of the Rules of Court, Cr/otomo #o#9"ppe"r"#1e $ur/#3 t6e'' Ju#e %**& tr/"0 evertheless, as in the case of an i'provident uilt# plea, an invalid 1aiver
of the riht to present evidence and be heard does notper se1or4 to vacate a findin
of uilt in the cri'inal case or to enforce an auto'atic re'and of the case to the trial
court.88 In People v. #ooso, 1e ruled that 1here facts have ade5uatel# been
represented in a cri'inal case, and no procedural unfairness or irreularit# has
pre6udiced either the prosecution or the defense as a result of the invalid 1aiver, the
rule is that a uilt# verdict 'a# nevertheless be upheld if the 6ud'ent is supported
be#ond reasonable doubt b# the evidence on record.8E8E
46
47
48
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
9/35
e do not see an# 'aterial inade5uac# in the relevant facts on record to
resolve the case at bar. >either can 1e see an# "procedural unfairness or irreularit#$
that 1ould substantiall# pre6udice either the prosecution or the defense as a result of
the invalid 1aiver. In fact, the aru'ents set forth b# accused /ion in his Petition
corroborate the 'aterial facts relevant to decide the 'atter. Instead, 1hat he is reall#
contestin in his Petition is the application of the la1 to the facts b# the trial court and
the CA. Petitioner /ion ad'its direct participation in the hain of !enn# %illa b#
allein in his Petition that "all actions of the petitioner 1ere part of the traditional
rites,$ and that "the alleed extension of the initiation rites 1as not outside the official
activit# of the fraternit#.$8+8+ @e even arues that "/ion did not re5uest for the
extension and he participated onl# after the activit# 1as sanctioned.$2)2)
*or one reason or another, the case has been passed or turned over fro'
one 6ude or 6ustice to another & at the trial court, at the CA, and even at the 9upre'e
Court. Re'andin the case for the reception of the evidence of petitioner /ion 1ould
onl# inflict further in6ustice on the parties. This case has been oin on for al'ost t1o
decades. Its resolution is lon overdue. 9ince the 4e# facts necessar# to decide the
case have alread# been deter'ined, 1e shall proceed to decide it.
G.R. No. %-(+&- "#$ %-(+(+ ?Villa v. Escalona@
Petitioner %illa arues that the case aainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and
Adriano should not have been dis'issed, since the# failed to assert their riht to
speed# trial 1ithin a reasonable period of ti'e. 9he points out that the accused failed
to raise a protest durin the dor'anc# of the cri'inal case aainst the', and that
the# asserted their riht onl# after the trial court had dis'issed the case aainst their
co-accused Concepcion. Petitioner also e'phasies that the trial court denied the
respective Motions to /is'iss filed b# 9aruca, Dscalona, Ra'os, and Adriano,
because it found that "the prosecution could not be faulted for the dela# in the
'ove'ent of this case 1hen the oriinal records and the evidence it 'a# re5uire
1ere not at its disposal as these 1ere in the Court of Appeals.$2(2(
49
50
51
The riht of the accused to a speed# trial has been enshrined in 9ections
(8F3G and (, Article III of the (+E Constitution.2323This riht re5uires that there be a
trial free fro' vexatious, capricious or oppressive dela#s.2727The riht is dee'ed
violated 1hen the proceedin is attended 1ith un6ustified postpone'ents of trial, or
1hen a lon period of ti'e is allo1ed to elapse 1ithout the case bein tried and for no
cause or 6ustifiable 'otive.2828In deter'inin the riht of the accused to speed# trial,
courts should do 'ore than a 'athe'atical co'putation of the nu'ber of
postpone'ents of the scheduled hearins of the case.2222The conduct of both the
prosecution and the defense 'ust be 1eihed.22Also to be considered are factors
such as the lenth of dela#, the assertion or non-assertion of the riht, and the
pre6udice 1rouht upon the defendant.22
e have consistentl# ruled in a lon line of cases that a dis'issal of the
case pursuant to the riht of the accused to speed# trial is tanta'ount to ac5uittal.2E2E
As a conse5uence, an appeal or a reconsideration of the dis'issal 1ould a'ount to a
violation of the principle of double 6eopard#.2+2+As 1e have previousl# discussed,
ho1ever, 1here the dis'issal of the case is capricious, certiorarilies.))The rule on
double 6eopard# is not triered 1hen a petition challenes the validit# of the order of
dis'issal instead of the correctness thereof. (( Rather, rave abuse of discretion
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
10/35
a'ounts to lac4 of 6urisdiction, and lac4 of 6urisdiction prevents double 6eopard# fro'
attachin.33
e do not see rave abuse of discretion in the CAHs dis'issal of the case
aainst accused Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano on the basis of the violation
of their riht to speed# trial. The court held thus:
An exa'ination of the procedural histor# of this case1ould reveal that the follo1in factors contributed to the slo1proress of the proceedins in the case belo1:
x x x x x xx x x
2G The fact that the records of the case 1ere elevated tothe Court of Appeals and the prosecutionHs failure toco'pl# 1ith the order of the court a 5uo re5uirinthe' to secure certified true copies of the sa'e.
x x x x x x
x x x
hile 1e are prepared to concede that so'e of theforeoin factors that contributed to the dela# of the trial of thepetitioners are 6ustifiable, e nonetheless hold that their riht tospeed# trial has been utterl# violated in this case x x x.
x x x x x xx x x
The "7e#1e o5 t6e re1or$ /# t6e tr/"0 1ourt1as due to thefact that the records of the 1"e ove'ber (++7, the# 1ere
all arrained.22;nfortunatel#, the initial trial of the case did not co''ence until 3E
March 3))2 or al'ost (3 #ears after arrain'ent.
As illustrated in our rulin in Abaro v. "aniganbayan, the unexplained
interval or inactivit# of the 9andianba#an for close to five #ears since the
arrain'ent of the accused a'ounts to an unreasonable dela# in the disposition of
cases & a clear violation of the riht of the accused to a speed# disposition of cases.
Thus, 1e held:
The dela# in this case 'easures up to theunreasonableness of the dela# in the disposition of cases inAngchangco, Jr. vs. $mbusman, 1here the Court found the $e0"4o5 / 4e"r 74 t6e Om7u$m"# /# reo08/#3 t6e 1r/m/#"01omp0"/#t to 7e 8/o0"t/8e o5 t6e 1o#t/tut/o#"004 3u"r"#tee$r/36t to " pee$4 $/po/t/o# o5 1"e< si'ilarl#, in %o&ue vs.$ffice of the $mbusman, 1here the Court held that the $e0"4 o5"0mot / 4e"r $/re3"r$e$ t6e Om7u$m"# $ut4 to "1t
63
64
65
66
67
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
11/35
prompt04 o# 1omp0"/#t 7e5ore 6/m< a nd in Cervantes vs."aniganbayan, 1here the Court held that the 9andianba#an3r"8e04 "7ue$ /t $/1ret/o# /# #ot :u"6/#3 t6e /#5orm"t/o#
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
12/35
additional purpose of precludin the 9tate, follo1in an ac5uittal, fro' successivel#
retr#in the defendant in the hope of securin a conviction. And finall#, it prevents the
9tate, follo1in conviction, fro' retr#in the defendant aain in the hope of securin
a reater penalt#.$e further stressed that "an ac5uitted defendant is entitled to
the riht of repose as a direct conse5uence of the finalit# of his ac5uittal.$
This prohibition, ho1ever, is not absolute. The state 'a# challene the lo1er
courtHs ac5uittal of the accused or the i'position of a lo1er penalt# on the latter in the
follo1in reconied exceptions: F(G 1here the prosecution is deprived of a fair
opportunit# to prosecute and prove its case, tanta'ount to a deprivation of due
process
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
13/35
pursuant to the rule on double 6eopard#, 1e are constrained to den# the Petition
contra%ictorino et al.& the (+ ac5uitted fraternit# 'e'bers.
e, ho1ever, 'odif# the assailed 6ud'ent as reards Tecson, A'a,
Al'eda, and =antu & the four fraternit# 'e'bers convicted of sliht ph#sical
in6uries.
Indeed, 1e have ruled in a line of cases that the rule on double 6eopard#
si'ilarl# applies 1hen the state see4s the i'position of a hiher penalt# aainst the
accused.+(+( e have also reconied, ho1ever, that certiorari 'a# be used to
correct an abusive 6ud'ent upon a clear de'onstration that the lo1er court blatantl#
abused its authorit# to a point so rave as to deprive it of its ver# po1er to dispense
6ustice.+3+3The present case is one of those instances of rave abuse of discretion.
In i'posin the penalt# of sliht ph#sical in6uries on Tecson, A'a, Al'eda,
and =antu, the CA reasoned thus:
=ased on the 'edical findins, it 1ould appear that
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
14/35
Article 8F(G of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the perpetrator shall be
liable for the conse5uences of an act, even if its result is different fro' that intended.
Thus, once a person is found to have co''itted an initial felonious act, such as the
unla1ful infliction of ph#sical in6uries that results in the death of the victi', courts are
re5uired to auto'aticall# appl# the leal fra'e1or4 overnin the destruction of life.
This rule is 'andator#, and not sub6ect to discretion.
The CAHs application of the leal fra'e1or4 overnin ph#sical in6uries &
punished under Articles 33 to 3 for intentional felonies and Article 72 for culpable
felonies & is therefore tanta'ount to a 1hi'sical, capricious, and abusive exercise of
6ud'ent a'ountin to lac4 of 6urisdiction. Accordin to the Revised Penal Code, the
'andator# and leall# i'posable penalt# in case the victi' dies should be based on
the fra'e1or4 overnin the destruction of the life of a person, punished under
Articles 38 to 3( for intentional felonies and Article 72 for culpable felonies, and
not under the afore'entioned provisions. e e'phasie that these t1o t#pes of
felonies are distinct fro' and leall# inconsistent 1ith each other, in that the accused
cannot be held cri'inall# liable for ph#sical in6uries 1hen actual death occurs.()3()3
Attributin cri'inal liabilit# solel# to %illareal and /ion & as if onl# their acts,
in and of the'selves, caused the death of !enn# %illa & is contrar# to the CAHs o1n
findins. *ro' proof that the death of the victi' 1as the cu'ulative effect of the
'ultiple in6uries he suffered,()7()7 the onl# loical conclusion is that cri'inal
responsibilit# should redound to all those 1ho have been proven to have directl#
participated in the infliction of ph#sical in6uries on !enn#. The accu'ulation of bruisin
on his bod# caused hi' to suffer cardiac arrest. Accordinl#, 1e find that the CA
co''itted rave abuse of discretion a'ountin to lac4 or excess of 6urisdiction in
findin Tecson, A'a, Al'eda, and =antu cri'inall# liable for sliht ph#sical in6uries.
As an allo1able exception to the rule on double 6eopard#, 1e therefore ive due
course to the Petition in 0.R. >o. (28+28.
Reo0ut/o# o# U0t/m"te F/#$/#3
102
103
Accordin to the trial court, althouh hain 1as not Fat the ti'eG punishable
as a cri'e, the intentional infliction of ph#sical in6uries on %illa 1as nonetheless a
felonious act under Articles 37 to 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in rulin
aainst the accused, the court a &uofound that pursuant to Article 8F(G of the Revised
Penal Code, the accused fraternit# 'e'bers 1ere uilt# of ho'icide, as it 1as the
direct, natural and loical conse5uence of the ph#sical in6uries the# had intentionall#
inflicted.()8()8
The CA 'odified the trial courtHs findin of cri'inal liabilit#. It ruled that there
could have been no conspirac# since the neoph#tes, includin !enn# %illa, had
4no1inl# consented to the conduct of hain durin their initiation rites. The accused
fraternit# 'e'bers, therefore, 1ere liable onl# for the conse5uences of their individual
acts. Accordinl#, (+ of the accused & %ictorino et al.& 1ere ac5uitted< 8 of the' &
Tecson et al.& 1ere found uilt# of sliht ph#sical in6uries< and the re'ainin 3 &
/ion and %illareal & 1ere found uilt# of ho'icide.
The issue at hand does not concern a t#pical cri'inal case 1herein the
perpetrator clearl# co''its a felon# in order to ta4e revene upon, to ain advantae
over, to har' 'aliciousl#, or to et even 1ith, the victi'. Rather, the case involves an
e! antesituation in 1hich a 'an & driven b# his o1n desire to 6oin a societ# of 'en &
pleded to o throuh ph#sicall# and ps#choloicall# strenuous ad'ission rituals, 6ust
so he could enter the fraternit#. Thus, in order to understand ho1 our cri'inal la1s
appl# to such situation absent the Anti-@ain !a1, 1e dee' it necessar# to 'a4e a
brief exposition on the underl#in concepts shapin intentional felonies, as 1ell as on
the nature of ph#sical and ps#choloical initiations 1idel# 4no1n as hain.
I#te#t/o#"0 Fe0o#4 "#$ Co#p/r"14
Our Revised Penal Code belons to the classical school of thouht.()2()2
The classical theor# posits that a hu'an person is essentiall# a 'oral creature 1ith
an absolute free 1ill to choose bet1een ood and evil.()()It asserts that one should
104
105
106
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
15/35
onl# be ad6uded or held accountable for 1ronful acts so lon as free 1ill appears
uni'paired.()()The basic postulate of the classical penal s#ste' is that hu'ans are
rational and calculatin beins 1ho uide their actions 1ith reference to the principles
of pleasure and pain.()E()E The# refrain fro' cri'inal acts if threatened 1ith
punish'ent sufficient to cancel the hope of possible ain or advantae in co''ittin
the cri'e.()+()+@ere, cri'inal liabilit# is thus based on the free 1ill and 'oral bla'e
of the actor.(()(() The identit# of mens rea& defined as a uilt# 'ind, a uilt# or
1ronful purpose or cri'inal intent & is the predo'inant consideration.((((((Thus, it is
not enouh to do 1hat the la1 prohibits. ((3((3In order for an intentional felon# to
exist, it is necessar# that the act be co''itted b# 'eans of oloor "'alice.$((7((7
The ter' "olo$ or "'alice$ is a co'plex idea involvin the ele'ents of
freeom, intelligence, and intent.((8((8The first ele'ent, freeom, refers to an act
done 1ith deliberation and 1ith po1er to choose bet1een t1o thins. ((2((2 The
second ele'ent, intelligence, concerns the abilit# to deter'ine the 'oralit# of hu'an
acts, as 1ell as the capacit# to distinuish bet1een a licit and an illicit act. ((((The
last ele'ent, intent, involves an ai' or a deter'ination to do a certain act.((((
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
The ele'ent of intent& on 1hich this Court shall focus & is described as the
state of 'ind acco'pan#in an act, especiall# a forbidden act.((E((EIt refers to the
purpose of the 'ind and the resolve 1ith 1hich a person proceeds. ((+((+It does not
refer to 'ere ill, for the latter pertains to the act, 1hile intentconcerns the result of
the act.(3)(3)hile 'otive is the "'ovin po1er$ that i'pels one to action for a
definite result, intent is the "purpose$ of usin a particular 'eans to produce the
result.(3((3( On the other hand, the ter' "felonious$ 'eans, inter alia, 'alicious,
villainous, andNor proceedin fro' an evil heart or purpose.(33(33ith these ele'ents
ta4en toether, the re5uire'ent of intent in intentional felon# 'ust refer to 'alicious
intent, 1hich is a vicious and 'alevolent state of 'ind acco'pan#in a forbidden act.
9tated other1ise, intentional felon# re5uires the existence of olus malus& that the
act or o'ission be done "1illfull#,$ "'aliciousl#,$ "1ith deliberate evil intent,$ and "1ith
'alice aforethouht.$(37(37The 'axi' is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea& a
cri'e is not co''itted if the 'ind of the person perfor'in the act co'plained of is
innocent.(38(38As is re5uired of the other ele'ents of a felon#, the existence of
'alicious intent 'ust be proven be#ond reasonable doubt.(32(32
In turn, the existence of 'alicious intent is necessar# in order for conspirac#
to attach. Article E of the Revised Penal Code & 1hich provides that "conspirac#
exists 1hen t1o or 'ore persons 1ome to "# "3reeme#t concernin the
1omm//o# o5 " 5e0o#4and decide to co''it it$ & is to be interpreted to refer onl#
to felonies co''itted b# 'eans of olo or 'alice. The phrase "co'in to an
aree'ent$ connotes the existence of a prefaced "intent$ to cause in6ur# to another,
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
16/35
an ele'ent present onl# in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or cri'inal
nelience, the in6ur# inflicted on another is unintentional, the 1ron done bein
si'pl# the result of an act perfor'ed 1ithout 'alice or cri'inal desin. (3(3@ere, a
person perfor's an initial la1ful deed< ho1ever, due to nelience, i'prudence, lac4
of foresiht, or lac4 of s4ill, the deed results in a 1ronful act.(3(3%eril#, a deliberate
intent to do an unla1ful act, 1hich is a re5uisite in conspirac#, is inconsistent 1ith the
idea of a felon# co''itted b# 'eans of culpa.(3E(3E
The presence of an initial'alicious intent to co''it a felon# is thus a vital
inredient in establishin the co''ission of the intentional felon# of ho'icide. (3+(3+
=ein mala in se, the felon# of ho'icide re5uires the existence of 'alice or olo(7)(7)
i''ediatel# before or si'ultaneousl# 1ith the infliction of in6uries. (7((7(Intent to 4ill &
or animus interficeni& cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof
be#ond reasonable doubt of such intent.(73(73*urther'ore, the victi'Hs death 'ust
not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide.(77(77 If death
resulted fro' an act executed 1ithout 'alice or cri'inal intent & but 1ith lac4 of
foresiht, carelessness, or nelience & the act 'ust be 5ualified as rec4less or
si'ple nelience or i'prudence resultin in ho'icide.(78(78
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
H"=/#3 "#$ ot6er 5orm o5 /#/t/"t/o# r/te
The notion of hain is not a recent develop'ent in our societ#.(72(72 It is
said that, throuhout histor#, hain in so'e for' or another has been associated
1ith oraniations ranin fro' 'ilitar# roups to indienous tribes.(7(79o'e sa#
that ele'ents of hain can be traced bac4 to the Middle Aes, durin 1hich ne1
students 1ho enrolled in Duropean universities 1or4ed as servants for
upperclass'en.(7(7 It is believed that the concept of hain is rooted in ancient
0reece,(7E(7E 1here #oun 'en recruited into the 'ilitar# 1ere tested 1ith pain or
challened to de'onstrate the li'its of their lo#alt# and to prepare the recruits for
battle.(7+(7+ Modern fraternities and sororities espouse so'e connection to these
values of ancient 0ree4 civiliation.(8)(8)Accordin to a scholar, this concept lends
historical leiti'ac# to a "tradition$ or "ritual$ 1hereb# prospective 'e'bers are as4ed
to prove their 1orthiness and lo#alt# to the oraniation in 1hich the# see4 to attain
'e'bership throuh hain.(8((8(
Thus, it is said that in the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste', custo' re5uires a student
1ishin to 6oin an oraniation to receive an invitation in order to be a neoph#te for a
particular chapter.(83(83The neoph#te period is usuall# one to t1o se'esters lon.(87
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
17/35
(87/urin the "prora',$ neoph#tes are re5uired to intervie1 and to et to 4no1 the
active 'e'bers of the chapter< to learn chapter histor#< to understand the principles
of the oraniation< to 'aintain a specified rade point averae< to participate in the
oraniationHs activities< and to sho1 dinit# and respect for their fello1 neoph#tes,
the oraniation, and its active and alu'ni 'e'bers.(88(889o'e chapters re5uire the
initiation activities for a recruit to involve hain acts durin the entire neoph#te
stae.(82(82
@ain, as co''onl# understood, involves an initiation rite or ritual that
serves as prere5uisite for ad'ission to an oraniation. (8(8In hain, the "recruit,$
"plede,$ "neoph#te,$ "initiate,$ "applicant$ & or an# other ter' b# 1hich the
oraniation 'a# refer to such a person & is enerall# placed in e'barrassin or
hu'iliatin situations, li4e bein forced to do 'enial, sill#, foolish, or other si'ilar
tas4s or activities.(8(8 It enco'passes different for's of conduct that hu'iliate,
derade, abuse, or ph#sicall# endaner those 1ho desire 'e'bership in the
oraniation.(8E(8EThese acts usuall# involve ph#sical or ps#choloical sufferin or
in6ur#.(8+(8+
The concept of initiation rites in the countr# is nothin ne1. In fact, 'ore
than a centur# ao, our national hero & Andres =onifacio & oranied a secret societ#
na'ed -ataastaasan -agalanggalangang -atipunan ng mga Ana ng #ayan FThe
@ihest and Most %enerable Association of the 9ons and /auhters of the >ationG.(2)
(2)The -atipunan, or , started as a s'all confraternit# believed to be inspired b#
Duropean *ree'asonr#, as 1ell as b# confraternities or sodalities approved b# the
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Catholic Church.(2((2(The -atipunanHs ideolo# 1as brouht ho'e to each 'e'ber
throuh the societ#Hs initiation ritual.(23(23It is said that init iates 1ere brouht to a dar4
roo', lit b# a sinle point of illu'ination, and 1ere as4ed a series of 5uestions to
deter'ine their fitness, lo#alt#, courae, and resolve.(27(27The# 1ere 'ade to o
throuh viorous trials such as "pagsuot sa isang lungga$ o r " pagtalon sa
balon.$(28(28 It 1ould see' that the# 1ere also 'ade to 1ithstand the blo1 of
"pangherong baal sa pisngi$ and to endure a "matalas na punyal.$(22(22As a final
step in the ritual, the neoph#te -atipunero1as 'ade to sin 'e'bership papers 1ith
the his o1n blood.(2(2
It is believed that the 0ree4 fraternit# s#ste' 1as transported b# the
A'ericans to the Philippines in the late (+ thcentur#. As can be seen in the follo1in
instances, the 'anner of hain in the ;nited 9tates 1as 6arrinl# si'ilar to that
inflicted b# the A5uila *raternit# on !enn# %illa.
Darl# in (E2, upperclass'en at est Point Acade'# forced the fourth
class'en to do exhaustin ph#sical exercises that so'eti'es resulted in per'anent
ph#sical da'ae< to eat or drin4 unpalatable foods< and in various 1a#s to hu'iliate
the'selves.(2(2 In (+)(, 0eneral /oulas MacArthur ot involved in a
conressional investiation of hain at the acade'# durin his second #ear at est
Point.(2E(2E
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
18/35
In Easler v. /e)az 0emple of *reenville, decided in (+E2, the candidate-
victi' 1as in6ured durin the shrinerHs hain event, 1hich 1as part of the initiation
cere'onies for @e6a 'e'bership.(2+(2+The ritual involved 1hat 1as 4no1n as the
"'attress-rotatin barrel tric4.$()()It re5uired each candidate to slide do1n an eiht
to nine-foot-hih 'etal board onto connected 'attresses leadin to a barrel, over
1hich the candidate 1as re5uired to cli'b.((((Me'bers of @e6a 1ould stand on
each side of the 'attresses and barrel and fun-paddle candidates en route to the
barrel.(3(3
In a video footae ta4en in (++(, ;.9. Marine paratroopers in Ca'p
!e6eune, >orth Carolina, 1ere seen perfor'in a cere'on# in 1hich the# pinned
paratrooper 6u'p 1ins directl# onto the neoph#te paratroopersH chests.(7(7 The
victi's 1ere sho1n 1rithin and cr#in out in pain as others pounded the spi4ed
'edals throuh the shirts and into the chests of the victi's.(8(8
In "tate v. Allen, decided in (++2, the 9outheast Missouri 9tate ;niversit#
chapter of appa Alpha Psi invited 'ale students to enter into a pledeship
prora'.(2(2The fraternit# 'e'bers sub6ected the pledes to repeated ph#sical
abuse includin repeated, open-hand stri4es at the nape, the chest, and the bac4PA brother, and then
bla'ed !enn# %illaHs father for stealin the par4in space of /ionHs father. Accordin
to the 9olicitor 0eneral, these state'ents, includin those of the accused /ion, 1ere
all part of the ps#choloical initiation e'plo#ed b# the A5uila *raternit#.3(3(
Thus, to our understandin, accused /ionHs 1a# of inflictin ps#choloical
pressure 1as throuh hurlin 'a4e-believe accusations at the initiates. @e concocted
the fictitious stories, so that he could "6ustif#$ ivin the neoph#tes harder blo1s, all in
the context of fraternit# initiation and role pla#in. Dven one of the neoph#tes
ad'itted that the accusations 1ere untrue and 'ade-up.
The infliction of ps#choloical pressure is not unusual in the conduct of
hain. In fact, durin the 9enate deliberations on the then proposed Anti-@ain
!a1, for'er 9enator !ina spo4e as follo1s:
9enator !ina. -- so as to capture the intent that 1econve#ed durin the period of interpellations on 1h# 1e includedthe phrase "or ps#choloical pain and sufferin.$
x x x x x x x x x
9o that if no direct ph#sical har' is inflicted upon theneoph#te or the recruit but the re1ru/t or #eop64te / m"$e tou#$er3o 1ert"/# "1t1hich I alread# described #esterda#, li4epla#in the Russian roulette extensivel# to tet t6e re"$/#e "#$t6e
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
26/35
Thus, 1ithout proof be#ond reasonable doubt, /ionHs behavior 'ust not be
auto'aticall# vie1ed as evidence of a enuine, evil 'otivation to 4ill !enn# %illa.
Rather, it 'ust be ta4en 1ithin the context of the fraternit#Hs ps#choloical initiation.
This Court points out that it 1as not even established 1hether the fathers of /ion
and %illa reall# had an# fa'iliarit# 1ith each other as 1ould lend credence to the
veracit# of /ionHs threats. The testi'on# of !enn#Hs co-neoph#te, Mar5ue, onl#
confir'ed this vie1. Accordin to Mar5ue, he "4ne1 it 1as not true and that /ion
1as 6ust 'a4in it upB.$3(E3(E Dven the trial court did not ive 1eiht to the
utterances of /ion as constitutin intent to 4ill: "The cu'ulative acts of all the
accused 1ere not directed to1ard 4illin %illa, but 'erel# to inflict ph#sical har' as
part of the fraternit# initiation rites x x x.$3(+3(+The 9olicitor 0eneral shares the sa'e
vie1.
%eril#, 1e cannot sustain the CA in findin the accused /ion uilt# of
ho'icide under Article 38+ of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the existence
of intent to 4ill. Animus interficenicannot and should not be inferred unless there is
proof be#ond reasonable doubt of such intent.33)33)Instead,
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
27/35
treat'ent$ & pluned the head of the victi' into a barrel of 1ater, baned his head
aainst a bench, pounded his chest 1ith fists, and stabbed hi' on the side 1ith a
4itchen 4nife, in order to cure hi' of "nervous brea4do1n$ b# expellin throuh those
'eans the bad spirits possessin hi'. The collective acts of the roup caused the
death of the victi'. 9ince 'alicious intent 1as not proven, 1e reversed the trial
courtHs findin of liabilit# for 'urder under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code and
instead ruled that the accused should be held cri'inall# liable for rec4less
i'prudence resultin in ho'icide under Article 72 thereof.
Indeed, the threshold 5uestion is 1hether the accusedHs initial acts of
inflictin ph#sical pain on the neoph#tes 1ere attended b# animus iniuriani
a'ountin to a felonious act punishable under the Revised Penal Code, thereb#
'a4in it sub6ect to Article 8F(G thereof. In People v. %egato, 1e ruled that 'alicious
intent 'ust be 6uded b# the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused. 3333
hat persons do is the best index of their intention. 33E33Ee have also ruled that the
'ethod e'plo#ed, the 4ind of 1eapon used, and the parts of the bod# on 1hich the
in6ur# 1as inflicted 'a# be deter'inative of the intent of the perpetrator.33+33+ The
Court shall thus exa'ine the 1hole contextual bac4round surroundin the death of
!enn# %illa.
!enn# died durin A5uilaHs fraternit# initiation rites. The niht before the
co''ence'ent of the rites, the# 1ere briefed on 1hat to expect. The# 1ere told that
there 1ould be ph#sical beatins, that the 1hole event 1ould last for three da#s, and
that the# could 5uit an#ti'e. On their first niht, the# 1ere sub6ected to "traditional$
initiation rites, includin the "Indian Run,$ "=icol Dxpress,$ "Rounds,$ and the "AuxiesH
Privilee Round.$ The beatins 1ere predo'inantl# directed at the neoph#tesH ar's
and les.
In the 'ornin of their second da# of initiation, the# 1ere 'ade to present
co'ic pla#s and to pla# rouh bas4etball. The# 1ere also re5uired to 'e'orie and
recite the A5uila *raternit#Hs principles. !ate in the afternoon, the# 1ere once aain
227
228
229
sub6ected to "traditional$ initiation rituals. hen the rituals 1ere officiall# reopened on
the insistence of /ion and %illareal, the neoph#tes 1ere sub6ected to another
"traditional$ ritual & paddlin b# the fraternit#.
/urin the 1hole initiation rites, auxiliaries 1ere assined to the neoph#tes.
The auxiliaries protected the neoph#tes b# functionin as hu'an barriers and
shieldin the' fro' those 1ho 1ere desinated to inflict ph#sical and ps#choloical
pain on the initiates.37)37)It 1as their reular dut# to stop foul or excessive ph#sical
blo1s< to help the neoph#tes to "pu'p$ their les in order that their blood 1ould
circulate< to facilitate a rest interval after ever# ph#sical activit# or "round$< to serve
food and 1ater< to tell 6o4es< to coach the initiates< and to ive the' 1hatever the#
needed.
These rituals 1ere perfor'ed 1ith !enn#Hs consent.37(37(A fe1 da#s before
the "rites,$ he as4ed both his parents for per'ission to 6oin the A5uila *raternit#.373373
@is father 4ne1 that !enn# 1ould o throuh an initiation process and 1ould be one
for three da#s.377377The CA found as follo1s:
It is 1orth pointin out that the #eop64te
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
28/35
t6"t 6e epe1te$ 7ru/e o# 6/ "rm "#$ 0e3B. Indeed, t6ere1"# 7e #o 5r"ter#/t4 /#/t/"t/o#
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
29/35
Another point, Mr. President, is this, and this is a ver#tellin difference: 6e# " pero# or 3roup o5 pero# reort to6"=/#3 " " re:u/reme#t 5or 3"/#/#3 e#tr4 /#to "# or3"#/="t/o#,t6e /#te#t to 1omm/t " A. Mr. President, the "1t o5 6"=/#3,pre1/e04, / 7e/#3 1r/m/#"0/=e$ 7e1"ue /# t6e 1o#tet o5 ATOR 0;I>0O>A. =ut the chare is 'urder.
9D>ATOR !I>A. That is 1h# I said that it should not be'urder. It should be hain, Mr. President. 3737 FD'phasissuppliedG
/urin a discussion bet1een 9enator =iaon and 9enator !ina on the issue
236
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
30/35
of 1hether to include sodo'# as a punishable act under the Anti-@ain !a1,
9enator !ina further clarified thus:
9D>ATOR =IAJO>. Mr. President, this Representationhas no ob6ection to the inclusion of sodo'# as one of the conditionsresultin fro' hain as necessar# to be punished. @o1ever, theact of sodo'# can be co''itted b# t1o persons 1ith or 1ithoutconsent.
To 'a4e it clearer, 1hat is bein punished here is theco''ission of sodo'# forced into another individual b# anotherindividual. I 'ove, Mr. President, that sodo'# be 'odified b# thephrase "1ithout consent$ for purposes of this section.
9D>ATOR !I>A. I a' afraid, Mr. President, that if 1e5ualif# sodo'# 1ith the concept that it is onl# oin to aravatethe cri'e of hain if it is done 1ithout consent 1ill chane a lot ofconcepts here. Be1"ue t6e reu0t 5rom 6"=/#3 "33r"8"te t6eo55e#e T. Is there an# ob6ection to the co''itteea'end'ent F9ilence.G The Chair hears none< the sa'e isapproved.3737
FD'phasis suppliedG
Realiin the i'plication of re'ovin the stateHs burden to prove intent,
9enator !ina, the principal author of the 9enate =ill, said:
I a' ver# happ# that the distinuished Minorit# !eaderbrouht out the idea of intent or 1hether there it is 'ala in se or'ala prohibita. There can be a radical a'end'ent if that is the
237
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
31/35
point that he 1ants to o to.
I5
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
32/35
constitutes nelience.3838
As 1e held in *ai v. People, for a person to avoid bein chared 1ith
rec4lessness, the deree of precaution and dilience re5uired varies 1ith the deree
of the daner involved.3838If, on account of a certain line of conduct, the daner of
causin har' to another person is reat, the individual 1ho chooses to follo1 that
particular course of conduct is bound to be ver# careful, in order to prevent or avoid
da'ae or in6ur#.38E38EIn contrast, if the daner is 'inor, not 'uch care is re5uired.38+
38+It is thus possible that there are countless derees of precaution or dilience that
'a# be re5uired of an individual, "fro' a transitor# lance of care to the 'ost viilant
effort.$32)32)The dut# of the person to e'plo# 'ore or less deree of care 1il l depend
upon the circu'stances of each particular case.32(32(
There 1as patent rec4lessness in the hain of !enn# %illa.
Accordin to the >=I 'edico-leal officer, !enn# died of cardiac failure
secondar# to 'ultiple trau'atic in6uries.
323323
The officer explained that cardiac failurerefers to the failure of the heart to 1or4 as a pu'p and as part of the circulator#
s#ste' due to the lac4 of blood.327327In the present case, the victi'Hs heart could no
loner 1or4 as a pu'pin oran, because it 1as deprived of its re5uisite blood and
ox#en.328328The deprivation 1as due to the "channelin$ of the blood suppl# fro'
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
the entire circulator# s#ste' & includin the heart, arteries, veins, venules, and
capillaries & to the thih, le, and ar' areas of !enn#, thus causin the for'ation of
'ultiple he'ato'as or blood clots.322322The 'ultiple he'ato'as 1ere 1ide, thic4,
and deep,3232 indicatin that these could have resulted 'ainl# fro' in6uries
sustained b# the victi' fro' fist blo1s, 4nee blo1s, paddles, or the li4e.3232
Repeated blo1s to those areas caused the blood to raduall# ooe out of the
capillaries until the circulatin blood beca'e so 'ar4edl# di'inished as to produce
death. 32E32EThe officer also found that the brain, liver, 4idne#, pancreas, intestines,
and all other orans seen in the abdo'inals, as 1ell as the thoracic oran in the
luns, 1ere pale due to the lac4 of blood, 1hich 1as redirected to the thihs and
forear's.32+32+ It 1as concluded that there 1as nothin in the heart that 1ould
indicate that the victi' suffered fro' a previous cardiac arrest or disease.3)3)
The 'ultiple he'ato'as or bruises found in !enn# %illaHs ar's and thihs,
resultin fro' repeated blo1s to those areas, caused the loss of blood fro' his vital
orans and led to his eventual death. These he'ato'as 'ust be ta4en in the liht of
the hain activities perfor'ed on hi' b# the A5uila *raternit#. Accordin to the
testi'onies of the co-neoph#tes of !enn#, the# 1ere punched, 4ic4ed, elbo1ed,
4need, sta'ped on< and hit 1ith different ob6ects on their ar's, les, and thihs. 3(3(
The# 1ere also "paddled$ at the bac4 of their thihs or les
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
33/35
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
34/35
8/13/2019 Consolidated Cases of Villareal vs People
35/35
The appealed ?ud'ent in 0.R. >o. (28+28, ac5uittin %ictorino et al., is
hereb# AFFIRMED. The appealed ?ud'ents in 0.R. >os. (E)2 K (E)E),
dis'issin the cri'inal case filed aainst Dscalona, Ra'os, 9aruca, and Adriano, are
li4e1ise AFFIRMED. *inall#, pursuant to Article E+F(G of the Revised Penal Code, the
Petition in 0.R. >o. (2(32E is hereb# dis'issed, and the cri'inal case aainst
Arte'io %illareal dee'ed CLOSEDand TERMINATED.
!et copies of this /ecision be furnished to the 9enate President and the
9pea4er of the @ouse of Representatives for possible consideration of the
a'end'ent of the Anti-@ain !a1 to include the fact of intoxication and the
presence of non-resident or alu'ni fraternit# 'e'bers durin hain as aravatin
circu'stances that 1ould increase the applicable penalties.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOAssociate ?ustice
E CONCURK
ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate ?ustice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate ?ustice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREAssociate ?ustice
BIENVENIDO L. REYESAssociate ?ustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above /ecision had been reached in
consultation before the case 1as assined to the 1riter of the Opinion of the CourtHs
/ivision.
ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate ?ustice
Chairperson, 9econd/ivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 9ection (7, Article %III of the Constitution, and the /ivision
ChairpersonHs Attestation, I certif# that the conclusions in the above decision had
been reached in consultation before the case 1as assined to the 1riter of the
opinion of the CourtHs /ivision.
RENATO C. CORONAChief ?ustice