Villareal v People

G.R. No. 151258

February 1, 2002

FACTS:
This is a consolidated case of the 26 individuals accused of killing Lenny
Villa. Seven Freshmen Law students of Ateneo de Manila University School of
Law have been initiated by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity on February 1991.
The initiation rites started when the neophytes were met by some members of
the mentioned fraternity at the lobby of the AteneoLaw School. They were
consequently brought to a house and briefed on what will be happening during
the days when they will be initiated. They were informed that there will be
physical beatings and that the neophytes can quit anytime they want. They
were brought to another house to commence their initiation. The neophytes
were insulted and threatened even before they got off the van. Members of the
fraternity delivered blows to the neophytes as they alighted from the van.
Several initiation rites were experienced by the neophytes like the indian run,
bicol express and rounds. They were asked to recite provisions and principles
of the fraternity and were hit every time they made a mistake. Accused
fraternity members, Dizon and Villareal, asked the head of the initiation rites,
Victorino, to reopen the initiation. Fraternity members subjected neophytes to
paddling and additional hours of physical pain. After the last session of
beatings, Lenny Villa could not walk.
Later that night, he was feeling cold and his condition worsened. He was
brought to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. A criminal case was
filed against 26 fraternity members and was subsequently found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and penalized with reclusion
perpetua. On January 10, 2002, CA modified the criminal liability of each of the
accused according to individual participation. Nineteen of the the accused
were acquitted, 4 of the appellants were found guilty of slight physical injuries,
and 2 of the accused appellants, Dizon and Villareal, were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Accused Villareal petitioned for
review on certriorari under rule 45 on the grounds that the CA made 2
reversible errors: first, denial of due process and second, conviction absent
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, petitioner Villareal died on 13
March 2011 and filed a notice of death of party on 13 August 2011.

ISSUE:
Whether Dizon and Villareal should be held liable for the crime of murder.

HELD:
No. According to the Solicitor General himself, the ill motives attributed by the
CA to Dizon and Villareal were baseless, since the statements of the accused
were just part of the psychological initiation calculated to instill fear on the
part of the neophytes; that there is no element of truth in it as testified by
Bienvenido Marquez; and that the harsh words uttered by Petitioner and
Villareal are part of tradition concurred and accepted by all the fraternity
members during their initiation rites.
The testimony of Marquez reveals a glaring mistake of substantial proportion on
the part of the CA it mistook the utterances of Dizon for those of Villareal.
 As to the existence of animus interficendi on the part of Dizon, we refer
to the entire factual milieu and contextual premise of the incident to fully
appreciate and understand the testimony of witness Marquez. At the outset, the
neophytes were briefed that they would be subjected to psychological pressure
in order to scare them. They knew that they would be mocked, ridiculed, and
intimidated. While beating the neophytes, Dizon accused Marquez of the death
of the formers purported NPA brother, and then blamed Lenny Villas father for
stealing the parking space of Dizons father.
According to the Solicitor General, these statements, including those of
the accused Dizon, were all part of the psychological initiation employed by the
Aquila Fraternity. Thus, to the court's understanding, accused Dizons way of
inflicting psychological pressure was through hurling make-believe accusations
at the initiates. He concocted the fictitious stories, so that he could justify
giving the neophytes harder blows, all in the context of fraternity initiation and
role playing. Even one of the neophytes admitted that the accusations were
untrue and made-up.
Thus, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, Dizons behavior must not be
automatically viewed as evidence of a genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny
Villa. Rather, it must be taken within the context of the fraternity's
psychological initiation. This Court points out that it was not even established
whether the fathers of Dizon and Villa really had any familiarity with each other
as would lend credence to the veracity of Dizons threats. The testimony of
Lenny's co-neophyte, Marquez, only confirmed this view. According to Marquez,
he knew it was not true and that [Dizon] was just making it up. Even the trial
court did not give weight to the utterances of Dizon as constituting intent to
kill: The cumulative acts of all the accused were not directed toward killing
Villa, but merely to inflict physical harm as part of the fraternity initiation rites
x x x.
Verily, the Court cannot sustain the CA in finding the accused Dizon guilty of
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the
existence of intent to kill. Animus interficendi cannot and should not be
inferred unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. Instead,
we adopt and reinstate the finding of the trial court in part, insofar as it ruled
that none of the fraternity members had the specific intent to kill Lenny Villa.
However, the absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean
that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability.
The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of
fault (culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to
recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It
must be remembered that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of care not
to cause them injury in the process. With the foregoing facts, we rule that the
accused are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the NBI
medico-legal officer found that the victims death was the cumulative effect of
the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly
participated in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries.
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to
recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It
must be remembered that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of care not
to cause them injury in the process. The Court's finding of criminal liability for
the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall cover only
accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon.

WHY SPL IS IN THIS CASE.

At the time of the case, there was no anti-hazing law yet. Thus, the court having
in mind the potential conflict between the proposed law and the core principle
of mala in se adhered to under the Revised Penal Code, Congress did not simply
enact an amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on hazing,
founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. This dilemma faced by Congress
is further proof of how the nature of hazing unique as against typical crimes
cast a cloud of doubt on whether society considered the act as an inherently
wrong conduct or mala in se at the time. For the foregoing reasons, and as a
matter of law, the Court is constrained to rule against the trial courts finding of
malicious intent to inflict physical injuries on Lenny Villa, there being no proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of malicious intent to inflict physical
injuries or animus iniuriandi as required in mala in se cases, considering the
contextual background of his death, the unique nature of hazing, and absent a
law prohibiting hazing. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five
accused fraternity members would have all been convicted of the crime of
hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua(life imprisonment). Since there was
no law prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to
rule according to existing laws at the time of his death.

NOTE
Villareal's case was dismissed since he died. His criminal liability was
extinguished by his death.