Republic Act No. 8049 (THE ANTI-HAZING LAW) Q: What is Hazing? A: This is any initiation rite or practice which is a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity or sorority or any organization which places the neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering of injury. These do not include any physical, mental, psychological testing and training procedure and practice to determine and enhance the physical and psychological fitness of the prospective regular members. SC: “Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the country’s educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten to death as part of fraternities’ violent initiation rites supposedly to seal fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence, R.A. No. 8049 was signed into to law on June 7, 1995. Doubts on the effectiveness of the law were raised. The Court, however, scrutinized its provisions and it is convinced that the law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing.”(Dungo & Sibal vs People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015) Q: Is hazing activity absolutely prohibited? A: Hazing or initiation rite is not entirely prohibited for it may be allowed subject to the compliance with the requirement of a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation. Q: WHO ARE LIABLE IF A PERSON DIES OR SUFFERS PHYSICAL INJURY DURING INITIATION RITES? A: If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. (Sec. 4) Q: WHEN IS THE OWNER OF THE PLACE LIABLE AS AN ACCOMPLICE? A: He is liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. (Sec. 4) WHEN SHALL THE PARENTS BE LIABLE AS PRINCIPALS? A: Parents may be liable as principals if: (1)The hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization;(2)The parents have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. (Scc. 4) Sec. 4 expressly states: “If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring”. Q: MAY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND FACULTY MEMBERS BE HELD LIABLE AS ACCOMPLICES? A: Yes. The school authorities and faculty members may bé held liable as accomplices subject to the following conditions: a) They consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof; b) They failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. (Sec.4) Q: CAN THE FORMER OFFICERS AND ALUMNI BE LIABLE AS PRINCIPALS EVEN IF THEY WERE ABSENT DURING THE HAZING? ‘A: Yes, as long as they actually planned the hazing. Sec. 4 is clear: "The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals.” Q: WHEN MAY A FRATERNITY OR SORORITY'S ADVISER LIABLE AS PRINCIPAL? A: He is liable when he is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be liable as principal. (Sec. 4) Q: WHEN DOES THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF PARTICIPATION AS PRINCIPAL ARISE? A: Sec. 4 clearly states when the prima facie evidence of participation as principal arise. It states: "The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein" Q: MAY A PERSON CHARGED UNDER THIS PROVISION BE ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG?A: No. The express provision of the law under Section 4 is explicit in the inapplicability of the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong to a person charged under this provision. It says: “Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong." (Sec. 4) SC: Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong, (Dungo and Sibal vs, People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015)