Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ISSUE: W/N Dungo and Sibal can be convicted of the crime of hazing under RA 8049.
HELD: YES
-
The SC ruled that Dungo and Sibal can be convicted of violation of RA 8049 despite the lack
of evidence in their direct participation.
The crime of hazing RA 8049 is a mala prohibita. The act of hazing itself is not inherently
immoral, but the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited.
Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the
defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution.
The argument of Dungo and Sibal that they were not properly informed of the accusation
against them was also not accepted by the court. According to the Rules of Court 1 , the
information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.
Sec. 9, Rule 110: Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in
the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to
pronounce judgment.
The court said that the act of inducing the victim to attend the initiation rite is necessarily
part of a planned initiation rite. Not only did they induce the victim, they also brought him
to the location. They fulfilled their role in the planned hazing rite which led to the death of
the victim.
Furthermore, RA8049 provides that the presence of any person during the hazing is a prima
facie evidence of participation as principal unless he prevented the commission of the
punishable act.
Notes:
RA 8049
-
Mala Prohibita
- Sole question is has the law been violated?
- When the person did the prohibited act
considered by law to be injurious to public
welfare, he can be charged of the
corresponding crime.
- If the act or omission is not immoral in
itself but there is a law prohibiting it, it is
mala prohibita.
Not all of the crimes in the RPC are mala in se. Technical malversation is mala prohibita.
Not all of the crimes in special laws are mala prohibita. Plunder under RA 7080 is mala in se.