1.

Macapagal v People

Facts: On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa for misappropriating, for her own benefit, the
total amount of P800,000.00, which is the value of the unreturned and unsold pieces of jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on January 13, 2009 then
she timely moved for reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009.
She supposedly filed a Notice of Appeal. On August 3, 2009, but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of time.

Issue: Whether or not the regional trial court of manila, Branch 9 gravely erred in denying the notice of appeal filed by the herein petitioner.

Held: The Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which this Court cannot ignore and are fatal to petitioner’s cause.
It appears that petitioner assails not only the denial by the RTC of her notice of appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for estafa. For
reasons that will be discussed below, the petition is bound to fail, because of petitioner’s complete disregard of the procedural rules and the orders of the
Court.

First, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of appeal. Sections 2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and when appeal is taken.

Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme
Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and
unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important
and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case.

Third, even if we ignore the above non-compliance and consider the petition as an appeal of the trial court’s decision convicting her of estafa, again, we
cannot do so for yet another fatal procedural shortcoming committed by petitioner. As stated earlier, petitioner elevated to this Court not only the Order
denying her notice of appeal but also the Decision convicting her of estafa and the Order denying her motion for reconsideration. In utter disregard of the
rules of procedure, petitioner attached to the petition only the June 29, 2010 RTC Order denying her notice of appeal but she failed to attach a clearly
legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision convicting her of estafa and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. A
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or duplicate original of the assailed decision, final
order or judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

2. People vs Morales

Facts: Morales was charged in two separate Informations before the RTC for possession and sale of shabu. The testimonies of the police officers were
presented by the prosecution. They held a buy-bust operation in which Morales was caught having two sachets of shabu and the marked money. Morales,
in his statement, said that the two male persons in civilian clothing, who identified themselves as the police, handcuffed and frisked him. Nothing was
found on their way to the station. The police officer produced a sachet of shabu from his pocket and at the station, presented it as evidence against Morales.
The trial court found Morales guilty.

Issue: Whether or not Morales is guilty of possession and sale of illegal drugs.

Held: No. Morales claims that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The arresting officers did not place the proper markings on the alleged
shabu and paraphernalia.

To be guilty of sale of illegal drugs, there should be proof that the transaction took place and the illegal drug is presented in court as evidence. To be guilty
of possession of illegal drugs, it should be established that the person possesses an illegal drug and is freely aware of it.

The person to whom the police officers gave the drugs for delivery of seized items was not present in the court, nor did these police officers testify that
they properly marked the drugs after the arrest of Morales. They also did not take photographs and had no representative from the media and the
Department of Justice or public official to sign an inventory of the seized items. Prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody which is fatal to its
cause.

3. Quidet vs People

Facts: Quidet and the other two accused were charged with homicide for the death of a victim and frustrated homicide for the stab wounds sustained by
another victim. The RTC convicted all of them for the said offense. Of the three accused, only Quidet appealed. The CA confirmed the decision of RTC but
with modification. The CA convicted them for attempted homicide instead of frustrated homicide.

Issue: Whether or not the favorable appeal of Quidet will extend to the other two accused who did not appeal.

Held: YES. Although they did not appeal their conviction, this part of the appellate courts judgment is favorable to them, thus, they are entitled to a
reduction of their prison terms. The rule is that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal except insofar
as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

4. Balaba vs People

Facts: Accused Balaba, Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guindulman, Bohol, was charged and convicted with Malversation of Public Funds by the RTC
on it’s decision dated December 9, 2002. On January 14, 2003 filed his Notice of Appeal before the CA which was dismissed on its December 14, 2004
decision on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appeal because

SB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case. Hence this appeal on the ground that CA erred in dismissing his appeal instead of certifying the case
to the proper court.

Issue: WON CA erred in dismissing his appeal instead of certifying the case to the proper court?

Held: No. An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should
be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the
records of the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate
court but shall be dismissed outright. In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only after the expiration of the period to
appeal.

5. People vs Olivo

Facts: Accused-Appellants were found guilty reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with Homicide both by the RTC and Court of Appeals.

Based from the Information dated Nov.29, 2000, the three accused conspired to engaged in robbery done in a hardware store. They were able to take
35,000, but on the process, they assaulted and killed the store owner.
But when the case was appealed before the Supreme Court, it was found out that the accused-appellants was arrested without a warrant during a buy-
bust operation for selling illegal drugs and not for robbery with homicide. Further, during the investigation at Camp Karingal, the accused was made to
stand in a police line- up and identified by the eyewitness who failed to identify them three times.

Issue: Whether the accused-appellants can be convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Robbery with homicide despite the dubious and
questionable circumstances of the trial.

Held: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of RTC and CA for two reasons: One, the accused-appellants were not arrested for the crime of robbery
with homicide but were arrested during a buy-bust operation; Second, the material fact that the lone alleged eyewitness, Maricel Permejo, was not able to
identify them as the perpetrators of the crime, their guilt has not been proved with the required quantum of evidence.

SC ruled that with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict appellants beyond reasonable doubt, trial courts are mandated not
only to look at the direct examination of witnesses but to the totality of evidence before them. In every case, the court should review, assess and weigh the
totality of the evidence presented by the parties. It should not confine itself to oral testimony during the trial. In the absence of clear and convincing
evidence that the tribunals ignored, misconstrued or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if considered, the same will warrant the
modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.

The accused-appellants upon appeal were acquitted. The other accused, Joey Zafra, who was likewise convicted on the same evidence but did not perfect
an appeal, was also acquitted because the present rule provides that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

6. Guasch vs Dela Cruz

Facts: Respondent Arnaldo dela Cruz (respondent) filed a Complaint-Affidavit against petitioner Mercedita T. Guasch (petitioner) with the City Prosecutor
of Manila. On several occasions, petitioner transacted business with him by exchanging cash for checks of small amount without interest.

On July 26, 1999, petitioner went to his residence requesting him to exchange her check with cash of P3,300,000.00. Initially, he refused. However,
petitioner returned the next day and was able to convince him to give her P3,300,000.00 in cash in exchange for her Insular Savings Bank Check No.
0032082 dated January 31, 2000 upon her assurance that she will have the funds and bank deposit to cover the said check by January 2000. On the date of
maturity and upon presentment, however, the check was dishonored for the reason that the account against which it was drawn was already closed. An
information for estafa was filed against the petitioner.

After petitioner entered her plea of not guilty and after the prosecution rested its case, petitioner filed a Motion with Leave to Admit Demurrer to Evidence
with attached Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court issued an Order dated June 16, 2005 granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the case. The
trial court found that respondent’s assertion of misrepresentation by petitioner that her check will be fully funded on the maturity date was not supported
by the evidence on record. Accordingly, her guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner was acquitted.

On June 28, 2005, respondent received a copy of the said order. On July 14, 2005, respondent filed a Manifestation with attached Motion to Amend Order
dated June 16, 2005 (Motion to Amend) to include a finding of civil liability of petitioner. Respondents counsel justified his failure to file the motion within
the reglementary period of 15 days because all postal offices in Metro Manila were allegedly ordered closed in the afternoon due to the rally staged on
Ayala Avenue.

Meantime, on August 30, 2005, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals praying that the trial courts Order dated June 16, 2005
granting the demurrer to evidence be set aside. The trial court denied respondents Motion to Amend in its Order dated September 20, 2005 finding that
counsel for respondent was inexcusably negligent; Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the trial court. On December
7, 2005, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal informing the trial court that he was appealing the Order but it was likewise denied. Consequently, on
February 13, 2006, respondent filed a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the Orders.

The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision. On the issue of whether the issuance of the Order dated June 16, 2005 granting the demurrer to
evidence was made with grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals ruled in the negative as it found that the trial court did not anchor the acquittal
of petitioner on evidence other than that presented by the prosecution as contended by petitioner. On the issue of whether the denial of respondents
Motion to Amend was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. Motion to Amend Order dated 16 June 2005
is hereby SET ASIDE.

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondents Motion to
Amend.

Held: As a general rule, the statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, the decision attains
finality and becomes executory in due course must be strictly enforced as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for
orderly discharge of judicial business. The purposes for such statutory requirement are twofold: first, to avoid delay in the administration of justice and
thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and, second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors,
which are precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for
an indefinite period of time.

However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement
of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be given due course, such as: (1) the existence of special
or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension
of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby.

Several of these elements obtain in the case at bar.

First, there is ostensible merit to respondents cause. The records show that petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent. Respondent did not waive,
reserve, nor institute a civil action for the recovery of civil liability. Hence, since the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action, the trial
court was duty-bound to determine the civil liability.

Second, it cannot be said that petitioner will be unduly prejudiced if respondents Motion to Amend for the sole purpose of including the civil liability of
petitioner in the order of acquittal shall be allowed. Respondent concededly has an available remedy even if his Motion to Amend was denied, which is
to institute a separate civil action to recover petitioners civil liability. However, to require him to pursue this remedy at this stage will only prolong the
litigation between the parties which negates the avowed purpose of the strict enforcement of reglementary periods to appeal, that is, to put an end to
judicial controversies.

It is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear
the seeds of future litigation. Given the circumstances in this case, we find that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied
respondents Motion to Amend.
7. People vs Taruc

Facts: Francisco Taruc was charged with the crime of murder in connection with the death of Emelito Sualog. It was alleged that he shot Sualog on the
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which caused his death.

Upon arraignment, Taruc pleaded not guilty. However, before the prosecution witness Randy Espina could be cross-examined, Taruc escaped from the
Bataan Provincial Jail on August 23, 2002. Thus, the RTC considered the act of the accused as a waiver to cross-examine said witness. Thereafter, the trial
court promulgated a judgment of conviction while accused-appellant was at large.

Upon automatic review before the CA, while Taruc was still at large, the petitioner through the PAO filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Appellant’s
brief on January 13, 2006.

Considering that the Notice to File Brief addressed to Taruc was returned to the appellate court with postal notation moved out, the CA directed Taruc’s
counsel to furnish it with the present and complete address of his client within five days from notice.

In compliance, the PAO lawyer informed the CA that accused-appellant escaped from prison. Said PAO lawyer claimed that he had no means of knowing
the current whereabouts of Taruc. Thereupon, the PAO lawyer asked the CA to direct the Warden of the Provincial Jail in Balanga, Bataan, to file a
certification as to Taruc’s escape.

The CA required the Warden of the Bataan Provincial Jail to comment. The OIC Warden conveyed to the CA that Taruc was indeed committed to said jail
on November 10, 2000 but escaped on August 23, 2002.

Notwithstanding Taruc’s escape from prison, the CA granted PAO’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants Brief, in view of the ruling of the
Supreme Court in People v. Flores, making the review of death penalty cases mandatory. The period of extension granted had lapsed without filing his
brief; thus, the CA required the PAO to show cause why the latter should not be held in contempt for failing to file the same. The CA found the explanation
valid, and accepted the briefs of both the appellant and the appellee, and considered the case submitted for decision.

The CA rendered a Decision affirming with modification the Decision of the RTC. It modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

On March 13, 2008,Taruc, still represented by the PAO, filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he was appealing the Decision of the CA to the SC on questions
of law and fact.

On April 29, 2008, the CA gave due course to Taruc’s appeal and directed its Records Division to forward the rollo and records of the case to the SC. Hence,
this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant has lost its right to appeal when he escaped from jail

Held: Yes. An accused is required to be present before the trial court at the promulgation of the judgment in a criminal case. If the accused fails to appear
before the trial court, promulgation of judgment shall be made in accordance with Rule 120, Section 6, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Accordingly, if the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in the Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.

Also, Rule 124, Section 8, paragraph 2 of the same Rules allows the Court of Appeals, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, to dismiss the appeal
of the accused-appellant who eludes the jurisdiction of the courts over his person. Although Rule 124, Section 8, particularly applies to the Court of
Appeals, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In brief, the accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15
days from notice of the judgment against him. While at large, he cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. Thus, having
escaped from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived
any right to seek relief from the court.

8. Tiu vs People (CA)

Facts: The case stemmed from a criminal charge for slight physical injuries filed by Edgardo Postanes (Postanes) against Remigio Pasion (Pasion). On the
other hand, David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave threats against Postanes. Upon motion of Pasion, the two criminal cases were consolidated
and jointly heard before the MeTC of Pasay City.

After trial, MeTC rendered judgment dismissing both charges on ground of insufficiency of evidence.

Tiu filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the MeTC. Afterwards, Tiu, through his counsel, filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of
Pasay City. The RTC of Pasay City rendered a decision declaring void the judgment of the MeTC and ordered the case to be remanded in the MeTC.
Postanes moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC.

Postanes filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari (with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order), challenging the decision of the RTC. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision and affirmed the dismissal of the two cases. In
annulling the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that the RTC has granted upon the State, through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the right
to appeal the decision of acquittal which right the government does not have.

Issue: Whether there was double jeopardy when Tiu filed a petition for certiorari questioning the acquittal of Postanes by the MeTC.

Held: Yes. At the outset, the Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor General. Instead, it was filed by Tiu, the private
complainant, through his counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines,
or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. Tiu, the offended party in the criminal case is without
legal personality to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor General represents
the People in this appeal before the Court. On this ground alone, the SC says the petition must fail. However, the Court opts to resolve the question of
double jeopardy.

The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had
jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his
express consent.

These elements are present here: (1) the Information filed in the criminal case against Postanes was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
(2) the MeTC had jurisdiction over the criminal case (3) Postanes was arraigned and entered a non-guilty plea; and (4) the MeTC dismissed the Criminal
Case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence amounting to an acquittal from which no appeal can be had. Clearly, for the court to grant the petition
and order the MeTC to reconsider its decision, just what the RTC ordered the MeTC to do, is to transgress the Constitutional proscription not to put any
person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
9. Colinares vs People

Facts: Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide by the RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment from two years and four months of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prison mayor, as maximum. Since
the maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation. On appeal by Colinares, the Court
of Appeals sustained the RTC’s decision. Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court and took the
position that he should be entitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense probationable, which
was strongly opposed by the Solicitor General reiterating that under the Probation Law, no application for probation can be entertained once the accused
has perfected his appeal from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found that Colinares is guilty of attempted homicide and not of
frustrated homicide.

Issue: Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial court

Held: Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Colinares may apply for probation upon remand of his case to the RTC. Ordinarily, an accused would no longer
be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But in this case the Supreme
Court ruled to set aside the judgment of the RTC and found him only liable for attempted homicide, if the Supreme Court follows the established rule that
no accused can apply for probation on appeal, the accused would suffer from the erroneous judgment of the RTC with no fault of his own, therefore
defying fairness and equity.

10. Villareal vs People

Facts: In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis
Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). Hazing was pre-requisite in joining for which Lenny was one of few who had undergone the process. After the
initiation, Lenny’s condition worsened due to the blows he received, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.

Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Aquilans. Four of the accused (Tecson, et. al.) were found to be guilty of homicide by
the trial court but was reduced to crime of slight physical injuries and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor by the Court of Appeals. However, upon
appeal to the Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they should be liable for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide instead.

In Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration, Tecson et. al. clarified the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court to their criminal liability. According
to Tecson et. al., they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide,
which carries a non-probationable sentence, to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Hence, they have already been discharged
from their criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated by virtue of their granted Applications for Probation for which the terms
therein are already been complied with.

Issue: Whether Tecson et. al. can be covered by the Probation Law despite their appeal of conviction?

Held: Yes. First, the Court in resolving this issue ruled that the RTC Branch 130 had no jurisdiction to act on the probation applications of Tecson et. al.
for the law requires that an application for probation be filed with the trial court that convicted and sentenced the defendant, meaning the court of origin
(Branch 121). Hence, its grant of probation with Tecson et. al. is void.

However, the Court abandoning its previous stance on ineligibility of those who have appealed their conviction to probation, citing the then recent case
of Colinares vs. People that the Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault of his. Had the RTC done what
was right and imposed the correct penalty, he would have had the right to apply for probation. Moreover, the Court was quick to clarify that it remains
that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.

11. Dungo vs People

Facts: On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less
twenty other members and officers conducted initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte was subjected to physical harm.
After the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition but he was ignored by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for help.
After Dungo arrived at the resort, they hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to the security guard as
he heard that Dungo had done the same.

RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal was bereft of merit.

Issue: Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Held: Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish
and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. From the said definition, the elements of
the crime of hazing can be determined:

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization;

2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

Classes of direct participants are: the first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. 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. The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni
of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due to their
indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization. Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049,
the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless
they prevented the commission of the acts therein.