Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. vs.

People of the Philippines

761 SCRA 375
July 1, 2015
FACTS:
-

Marlon Villanueva was a neophyte of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity.

On January 14, 2006 at Villa Novaliches, Calamba City, Laguna, Dandy Dungo and
Gregorio Sibal Jr. together with other Alpha Phi Omega fraternity members and officers held
an initiation rite.
During said rite, Villanueva was subjected to physical harm leading to his death.
Dungo and Sibal were charged with violation of RA 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC explained that
despite the fact that there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated in inflicting
physical harm to Villanueva, their aid in inducing Villanueva to attend the initiation rite and
bringing him to the location was indispensable.
Dungo and Sibal appealed but the CA upheld the ruling of the RTC.
Hence, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dungo and Sibal argued that the information charged them as they did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault and use personal violence upon [Villanueva].
Yet, both the RTC and CA found them guilty of violating RA 8049 because they induced
the victim to be present during the initiation rites. Since inducement is not included in the
crime of hazing by actual participation, they cannot be convicted of a crime noit stated or
necessarily included in the information. They contend that this is a violation of their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them.

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
-

Hazing 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.
Elements of hazing:
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.

Mala in se v. Mala Prohibita

Mala in se
- Intent governs
- As long as there is intent, the person can be
charged of the corresponding crime.

If the punishable act or omission is

immoral in itself, it is mala in se.

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.